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

341–350 of 887 posts

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

#341

Post by _2d30 »

huntertwo wrote: post #221
typest wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can tell that to my Aunt whose husband died because he couldn’t get a kidney. They would’ve gladly paid $100K and worked a couple more years before retiring if he could’ve lived.

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

#342

Post by gamblor956 »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #152
gamblor956 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I sell something on Etsy they don't have to all of a sudden pay for my healthcare costs. Etsy is not even remotely the same thing as Uber. For starters, shops choose what they want to sell, and for how much, and customers choose which shops on Etsy they wish to buy from. Other than handling payment processing, Etsy operates just like a mall. In contrast, riders don't get to choose which driver they get; Uber choos…

> California, including especially the Bay Area, LA, and San Diego, has public transportation You really had me for a moment until I realized you're joking :) In all seriousness, public transportation in California is the real joke. > It is possible to visit every major city and national park in CA using just public transportation. Sure, and it's possible for me to canoe to Antarctica but it's not a reasonable way fo…

LA's public transportation system has one of the largest geographic footprints in the world. Most of the system is buses rather than fixed rail lines, but the rails run from Downtown to Hollywood, Pasadena, Santa Monica/Culver City, and Long Beach. Prior to COVID, more than 1.3 million people used LA Metro each week.

Sure, and it's possible for me to canoe to Antarctica but it's not a reasonable way for anyone to travel.

What an extremely narrow and privileged worldview you have. No wonder people hate techies so much these days...

Every day, more than a million people use CA's public transportation systems to travel between cities for work, even now during COVID. I guess they're all being unreasonable.

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

#343

Post by lozaning »

danans wrote: post #278
chrisco255 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do Californians get a lot of benefit for the high taxes they currently pay? Californians seem to be voting with their feet, moving to lower tax states: https://www.ocregister.com/2019/10/31/190122-more-people-lef... Do you feel strongly that one more tax would solve all of California's problems?

The biggest factor encouraging Californians to move out of state is high cost of housing, not the higher taxes. For example on a household income of $100,000 with members married filing jointly, California effective state income tax rate is about 3%, or in this case $3,000. Moving to a zero state income tax state like Washington or Texas will only save you that much in state taxes but will probably save you a huge am…

Lord have mercy on anyone trying to explain this to angry boomer parents that live in Orange County (mine generally included).

The reason your kids cant buy a house down the street from yours has nothing to do with how much taxes your kids pay and everything to do with the policies that you've voted for over a lifetime of homeownership that have insured way less supply than demand.

These people _love_ to talk about how much more their houses are worth at dinner parties everytime you see them and then are all surprised pikachu face when they've priced out their own kids.

Housing can be affordable or an investment, but not both.

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

#344

Post by alfalfasprout »

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

Yeah, or I just use Lyft in the meantime.

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

#345

Post by exolymph »

teachrdan wrote: post #289
typest wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It would likely coerce poor Americans into selling their kidneys to the wealthy so that they could pay off their student debt. Is coercing the poor to sell their organs to the rich a net benefit for society? For anyone who thinks this is hyperbole, ProPublica has done excellent work investigating how lenders use the court system to imprison Americans who can't pay back their debts: https://www.google.com/search?q=pro…

"Coerce" in the sense that poor people would notice a way to make money and go after it?

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

#346

Post by emiliobumachar »

yaur wrote: post #192
jacobn wrote: post #28

We’re legally unequipped to deal well with gig workers. They’re arguably neither contractors nor employees, and shoe horning them into either category will inevitably lead to some absurdities.

I think it's more like "gig workers" were created to try to do an end run around hard won protection for workers. The idea that someone driving (or waiting for pickups) 40+ hours a week is somehow different is different than somehow different than someone (e.g.) doing tech support for 40+ hours a week is absurd.

Consider someone doing tech support for zero to 60 hours per week, at their own discretion, and getting paid for ticked solved.

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

#347

Post by rramdin »

donatj wrote: post #292
kirykl wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

getting charged exactly for what you use is great

I as a user would far rather know exactly what I'm getting charged ahead of time, on basically everything, even if it were more. I'm 100% certain most people would.

I would rather be charged for what I'm using instead of an amount that's fudged to amortize unexpected incidental costs over all users. Maybe some kind of additional insurance against extra costs might be a feature that some users would use, but I prefer to self-insure than help others defray costs.

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

#348

Post by ivraatiems »

chrisseaton wrote: post #318
ivraatiems wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's exactly what it is. It's a signal to the state saying "we're gonna lay off a bunch of people and blame you for it if you do this." I'm confident Uber is capable of doing complex things quickly when it is in Uber's interests to do so.

You can't 'lay off' people you don't employ in the first place.

Like the State of California, I reject your premise that Uber drivers are not employees.

But what would you call it, and how does that change the argument about why they're doing this?

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

#349

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

jacobn wrote: post #28

We’re legally unequipped to deal well with gig workers. They’re arguably neither contractors nor employees, and shoe horning them into either category will inevitably lead to some absurdities.

There obviously needs to be a new class of workers. I've seen the phrase "Dependent Contractor" tossed around here on HN and I think it'd do quite well.

If you work for an employer who sets your hours, pay, etc., you'd still be designated as an employee.

If you sell your labor to multiple entities, and/or you set your own pay rate, you're an independent contractor.

If you do not set your pay rate, you'd be a "dependent contractor", and entitled to at least some basic worker protections, but not necessarily things like mandatory paid 15-minute breaks. Those should continue to be required for employees whose hours are set by the company for them, but it feels silly to regulate a thing like this when an Uber driver is completely free to just turn the app off if they need a break.

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

#350

Post by Klinky »

manfredo wrote: post #326
Klinky wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Desperation doesn't mean it's good.

Plenty of people were driving for Uber and Lyft before the pandemic when unemployment was low and real wages were growing. The notion that people were predominantly driving for Uber and Lyft out of desperation does not hold up to scrutiny. This thread is being rate limited reply in edit: These drivers aren't slaves. Out if all their work options they chose ride share. Now, their options are likely going to be strictl…

Desperation existed before the pandemic. There is always someone willing to lower the bar, that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Edit: If the "best option" isn't a good option then there is a problem.

Post reply on HN