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

Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 688 posts

Re: Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

#181

Post by chrischen »

throwawaygh wrote: post #72

When companies like Uber/Lyft depend on safety nets like unemployment without ever paying into the system, what’s happening is that our children are paying for returns on VC capital. People profiting from these types of companies should feel bad about themselves.

Actually what happens is we get lower Uber/Lyft rates for consumers... consumers that may depend on it in low infrastructure areas such as other low income workers.

In a competitive market there is no such thing as “free profit” for companies. Most savings that apply to all market competition across the board transfer to lower prices in the general market.

Uber would only net the profit if for some reason it was the only company that didn’t have to offer those things out of pocket.

Re: Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

#182

Post by geodel »

cltby wrote: post #111

> Seems like a loss for everyone except bureaucrats Not true, it's a great opportunity for javascript developers to get up on their soap boxes and share with us their moral and economic wisdom.

Indeed. This is great point. JS developers have made seminal contribution to our collective well being by their virtuous signals and thoughtful commentary on anything that matters.

With the advent of E-protests they are finally being able to highlight against injustices taking place anywhere in the world.

Re: Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

#183

Post by coldpie »

ericd wrote: post #163
coldpie wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a resident of California (rather, Minnesota), but I do want it to change. I don't use gig services because I think anyone doing 40[1] hours of work deserves a wage they can live off of, along all the other employment protections we've worked so hard to implement. Gig services are cheap because they don't meet that requirement. If gig services were required to meet that minimum wage and workers' rights, then I…

And where does that "enough money to live off of" come from? Unless the company has a lot of fat to trim, it has to come from customers in the form of higher prices, or from investors throwing more cash onto the bonfire. What happens when customers would rather not use your service than pay the amount whatever you're proposing takes? It's very possible that this market only exists at the size that it does at a price…

> Unless the company has a lot of fat to trim, it has to come from customers in the form of higher prices, or from investors throwing more cash onto the bonfire.

Nope, there's lots more options than that. Cut executive pay. Tax high earners more and provide social services like healthcare and public transit, to reduce cost and demand on these services. And yes, prices would likely go up, because they're no longer being subsidized by gov't welfare.

> It's very possible that this market only exists at the size that it does at a price that doesn't support what people in the US think of as "a wage they can live off of"

Then the market is exploiting labor and is being subsidized by the welfare system (else the workers couldn't live, by definition). If we're going to subsidize unprofitable activities, we should do that as a society, not by funneling cash to Uber's owners.

Re: Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

#184

Post by usaar333 »

ffggvv wrote: post #8

I’m not sure why we need prop22 specifically targeting rideshare drivers instead of just repealing AB5 i know so many people’s whose jobs were destroyed by it and still haven’t found anything else.

Didn't AB5 just codify a court decision and in some sense actually exempt people from being employees?

Re: Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

#185

Post by macinjosh »

jon-wood wrote: post #87
hammock wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says driving for Uber/Lyft should be a full-time job, or statutorily viable as a full-time job? If you consider it only as a second or third job, then it makes a lot more sense that your second or third job is not going to pay as well or have the same benefits as your first job. Those aspects would be expected and reasonable. The low-risk, high-reward jobs fill your primary job slot, then you seek other options a…

That you don’t bat an eyelid at people needing a second or third job to make ends meet is in itself an indictment of the general state of the US.

Why is it necessarily better for someone to have a single job verses multiple gigs? Not everyone wants to be a shift worker or office drone. Its just an implementation detail of the economy not some sort of indicator of a problem.

Re: Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

#186

Post by Klinky »

macinjosh wrote: post #116
RangerScience wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We make choices within contexts other people create.

And your solution is to take away more choices from people?

The solution is to ensure the worker's employment status is within the legal definition as it's defined. Gig economy could usher in a new era of worker flexibility, but it could also usher in a new era of worker exploitation.

The gig economy keeps pushing risks and cost down the chain, while also showing signs that it may not be a sustainable model as a whole without venture capital to burn through or an end game of predatory monopolist behavior within the market region.

Re: Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

#187

Post by dcftoapv »

dcftoapv wrote: post #136
lovecg wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The talking points I heard was that this was done because of 1) Payroll tax revenue 2) Unions feeling threatened The implication is in either case it’s an explicitly hostile action by the government in favor of special interests, and the majority of drivers did not want this. Can anyone more knowledgeable on the topic pitch in — is there any truth to these arguments?

The Los Angeles taxi union prevented (read: bribed and coerced) the state / city government from installing a train from LAX to DTLA because they were rolling in cash. Then, they got pissed about Uber, and had a rule enacted that forced passengers to take a bus to an external lot which turned the world's worst airport congestion into a way worse situation. It is not unrealistic to think that they are a driving force…

@tom No, it's not being built. The train that is currently under construction will connect the airport terminals to a cab stand and car rental station less than a mile from the airport because LA taxi drivers threw a shit fit when they suggested building a train into downtown and Santa Monica.

By the way, we're paying $4 billion for that. $4 billion to carry passengers less than a mile from the airport so they can then take a cab...

LA cab drivers are all unionized now and they had their entire hand stuck in this process. It was corruption as an art form.

Our government sucks.

Re: Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

#188

Post by dmode »

serjester wrote: post #99

Completely anecdotal but I bring this question up every time I drive in an Uber and overwhelmingly the drivers tell me they want to stay independent. No one is forcing drivers into their jobs. I really struggle to understand why we need bureaucrats imposing their idea of what a market should look like on an fairly efficient market. From my experience the drivers are perfectly aware of the costs that go into driving s…

I think the problem is that driver’s want to remain independent, but their cost is borne by the society. Such as the recent CAREs act had unemployment for drivers. I am assuming they also get subsidized healthcare, and would be eligible for Medicare ? Their employers don't really contribute to these things. But perhaps the law should just have complied them to contribute via additional taxes instead of asking them to be classified

Re: Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

#189

Post by Dylan16807 »

macinjosh wrote: post #116
RangerScience wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We make choices within contexts other people create.

And your solution is to take away more choices from people?

The choice to not have important types of insurance hurts the chooser and it hurts everyone else.

There are many situations where it's best if the societal bargain restricts the options available.

Re: Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

#190

Post by usaar333 »

kreutz wrote: post #93
compycom wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you are entrepreneur with access to capital, I'm not sure how you can expect individuals to will a good employer into being if none is to be found. Using the government to create better conditions for the working class is a completely reasonable use of the political process.

Right here: https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/jjj

Why aren't they doing that already?
Post reply on HN