Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 887 posts

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#221

Post by huntertwo »

typest wrote: post #120
lghh wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm an adult, if I want the money isn't it strictly better than I have the freedom to cash in on my human resources? Yes.

To add onto this —- living with only one kidney rather than two only barely increases your risk of dying, and many people each year die due to lack of kidneys. So, creating a market here (regulated of course) would save a lot of lives.

To further add on, I doubt rich people die because of lack of kidneys and I think they'd be the only ones to benefit from that.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#222

Post by treis »

ericmay wrote: post #175
gamblor956 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The important factor for employee vs contractor isn't whether the worker can accept/reject the job, since employees have that option under many union contracts, and in fact this is how many restaurants have operated for decades (where "job" = "shift"). What matters is whether the worker can independently decide what fare to charge (even if in practice the fare is limited by market forces to what a customer/client wou…

Aren't they deciding what fare to charge by accepting the job? If I offer someone $10 to mow my lawn and that's the only price I'm willing to pay, are they now an employee because they can't decide what fare to charge? Do I now owe the kid down the street and all of her friends a 401k if they rotate through who mows my lawn for that price? I guess I'm not following here.

It's more complicated than that. The kid down the street can say I'll do it for $15 and you can decline. There's no negotiating with Uber. If the kid down the street says no to $10 you're not going to ban him from ever cutting your grass. With Uber if you decline too many offers you will be effectively booted off the platform.

More broadly, you can't compare 1 person trying to contract with 1 other person with 1 multi-billion dollar company contracting with 10s of thousands of people. Dynamics change when it's only a handful of companies hiring many people.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#223

Post by nilsbunger »

ghaff wrote: post #43

Maybe I'm cynical but "temporarily shut down" sounds like a formula to: - Inconvenience a certain class of urbanites who have grown accustomed to being driven around in the hopes that they - Complain loudly to their representatives and other governmental officials in the hope that - The state will reverse this judgement

This is about pushing voters to approve Prop 22 in november. If Lyft follows suit, it will definitely put a spotlight on the issue!

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#224

Post by derkster »

Ijumfs wrote: post #45
abvdasker wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't make sense. It sounds like you are equating Uber drivers to human traffickers and crack dealers.

They're all just trying to make a living. And let me remind you that Uber drivers have been caught providing drugs, being prostitutes, and even going on serial murder sprees. All while behind the wheel.

Your comment history is super questionable. Every time I see you commenting on HN, I wonder if you're one of the Russian boogiemen people talk about, or if you're an example of what happens when someone believes too much of what they read on the internet.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#226

Post by paulmd »

ghaff wrote: post #43

Maybe I'm cynical but "temporarily shut down" sounds like a formula to: - Inconvenience a certain class of urbanites who have grown accustomed to being driven around in the hopes that they - Complain loudly to their representatives and other governmental officials in the hope that - The state will reverse this judgement

100%. This is the exact playbook they ran in Austin.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#227

Post by Loughla »

chrisco255 wrote: post #194
vkou wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a bad law - if Uber can't operate in compliance with it, it has a bad business model.

Really, is there no such thing as over-regulation, in your mind? No red tape too sticky? No hoop too high to jump through?

That's not what the OP said, though. You can't just carry an argument to its complete extreme - that's not how it works.

OP said that THIS law wasn't too much, not that over-regulation doesn't exist. Please reply to the opinion that this law isn't too much. I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#228

Post by jquery »

ghaff wrote: post #215
jquery wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not cynical, that sounds wholesome. That’s exactly how democracy should work. I expect you are one of those urbanites because you haven’t mentioned the drivers being the loudest voice for changing this judgement. They are the ones suffering from this faux-compassion via authoritarian judges who think marketplaces aren’t legitimate businesses (someone tell NASDAQ, the App Store and play store, Steam, malls, etc…

>I expect you are one of those urbanites Nope. Live in an exurban town on the other side of the country and don't think I have ever taken an Uber/Lyft that wasn't associated with travel to another city. And rarely take them even then.

I stand corrected.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#230

Post by [deleted] »

chrisco255 wrote: post #207
gamblor956 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare. Because one political party has spent the last 4 decades fighting to prevent "national healthcare," forcing states and businesses to deal with it. Hell, they've spent the last 10 years trying to demolish a law that the overwhelming majority of voters support, including those within their own party.

ACA (in particular the forced care provision) was extremely unpopular and it led to the formation of the Tea Party, which swept the House in 2010. There's many good reasons to avoid nationalized healthcare. Have you been to the post office or the DMV?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN