471–480 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If California had the weather of South Dakota no one would live there. California is the state version of being born on third base and thinking you hit a triple.
If Texas had California's oil, no one would live there.
Not sure what you're trying to say here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Texas had California's oil, no one would live there.
I think we should not talk about regions of the country like they are sports teams that we root for or against. Texas is very nice with lots of nice people California is very nice with lots of nice people.
" As employees they would have to work set schedules and shifts, would not be able to work for multiple app-based companies and would have reduced earning potential — and many jobs would actually be eliminated. " ( https://prop22facts.com/lyft/ ) Is that something mandated by California? As far as I know, everywhere else I've been, work-schedules and anti-moonlighting are restrictions placed by the employer, not the…
Under federal tax law if you're an employee it means you have a schedule. And if you're getting paid by the hour by Lyft you can't double dip and also get paid by the hour by Uber.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who forced Lyft to shut down? Was it the state, or did they freely choose to cease operations? Obviously, spin will characterize this in any way that's advantageous. But nobody 'forced' Lyft to close.
Their business model is on-demand transportation. The business model doesn't work if the workforce is not also on-demand. I don't think that's spin, but maybe society decides that we don't like on-demand businesses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
not just healthcare. sufficient income to support the basics of survival in our society are tied to full time jobs as well. companies and their employees would both be better supported if we established a Universal Basic Income.
You also would have to worry about housing payments. A very easy and progressive solution to this problem is that the government should construct housing that citizens can stay in. While they are at it, they could also provide basic food. That way, with your UBI, housing, and food you could live a dream life. We won't call them 'camps' though, but give them a hip millenial-approved name. Maybe 'launch centers'?
" As employees they would have to work set schedules and shifts, would not be able to work for multiple app-based companies and would have reduced earning potential — and many jobs would actually be eliminated. " ( https://prop22facts.com/lyft/ ) Is that something mandated by California? As far as I know, everywhere else I've been, work-schedules and anti-moonlighting are restrictions placed by the employer, not the…
It's not that the law dictates this shift, it's that the economics do. Requiring full employment means you can hire less drivers.
If you have less drivers, you need more control over when they drive in order to make sure when customers are looking for a ride, they can find one, hence shifts.
Another group caught in the collateral damage is people in wheelchairs. Paratransit sucks in most places and where wheelchair accessible Uber/Lyft is available they provide a much better service. This is an especially vulnerable population because it's not like a wheelchair user can just find a friend with an accessible vehicle to take them to appointments, etc.
I used to drive for Uber, a few hours a week during my downtime when I was bored and had nothing better to do. The earnings weren’t great, but it was very helpful as an extra. I had a fuel efficient car and kept track of all my expenses for deductions and made above minimum wage. I’ve met plenty of lovely and fascinating people and had great, enjoyable conversations. I barely had any issues with riders. This extra in…
This is where the gig economy shines, when people want to use it to make extra money on the side or push to achieve financial goals. However, by your own admission you did it because you were "bored" and wanted to make some money. Unfortunately many gig workers don't have the privilege. I'm assuming here but you probably had another job and benefits. There are many workers who don't, and are turning to Uber or Lyft j…
These drivers who can't put food on the table without Uber(which I've personally never met) in Califoria seem in a far worse position now.
No one is forcing them to do anything. They not only get to decide if they want to work, but how much, and when.
And every time these laws are passed most Uber and Lyft drivers always seem far more worried they will lose their income source than they are excited they might get benefits.
And almost all of my Uber and Lyft drivers had another source of income, were retired, were raising children, or had a medical condition that kept them from holding down a full time job.
I'm not wholly convinced drivers were ever really contractors, but by what measure are drivers employees? We really need a third classification
a 3rd classification isn't enough. employment is a spectrum just like gender and policies need to reflect that. politicians are so stuck in the old binary way of thinking
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Muni was any good, people wouldn't have used ridesharing. Ridesharing costs a bit more. This just shows that public transit in SF is so bad that people would rather pay more money for a taxi.
Don't forget the stigma that public transit is for dirty poor people. Rideshare is a bit of a classist thing.