291–300 of 688 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
What "Los Angeles taxi union" organization specifically lobbied against the LAX train, which, by the way, is now being built? There may well have been industry lobbyists fighting this but until very recently (the last five years) almost no taxi drivers in Los Angeles were unionized.
Yea, over 25 years late.
The Green Line (opened 1995) was originally supposed to have a real LAX station, instead of the (current) station-near-LAX-with-a-bus-transfer. The Crenshaw Corridor train (which connects to the Green Line) will open an LAX station sometime in 2021, if it isn't delayed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I genuinely don't understand this position. I don't see how replacing a "bad" option with no option helps anyone, especially the people that were willing to take the "bad" option.
The missing link is that you're raising a false dichotomy. Its a sliding scale of profit margin. Instead of bad or none, the choice is more low paying options or fewer higher paying options. Some will receive higher wages, while some opportunities will not be available. Both sides believe the net benefit backs up their stated position and there's very little compelling data one way or another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does that even mean? We're monsters for giving people choice?
The market has previously decided unsafe factories and child labor is ideal. Often market forces are great but empirically they do not solve every case and as a society we must evaluate each case accordingly.
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…
> overwhelmingly the drivers tell me they want to stay independent. However, I overwhelmingly don't want to pay for their healthcare or food stamps because they aren't earning enough money. I personally think that AB5 doesn't go far enough. If you employ people for more than 40 hours, you should owe healthcare and benefits, period . It doesn't matter whether those 40 hours are one person or 10 people or whether the p…
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…
In any idea that these folks resemble independent contractors in any way is bullshit. They can't set the rates of the rides or that they give to Uber or Lyft. They can't set the basic terms on when and where you accept rides. When someone doesn't want to drive me across the bay, I can hardly blame them, but they have no leverage to dictate their own employment except by quitting. I guess these people end up accepting some kind of opaque, kafkaesque punishment to their livelihood. Independent my ass.
Granted, single payer healthcare would ameliorate some of the problems here, but it's very difficult to categorize the cut that Uber or Lyft takes for the commodity service they provide, protected by absolutely massive moats of capital, as anything but exploitative.
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…
They want to stay independent, fine. Then actually treat them like independent contractors. Let them set rates. Let them decline rides without facing penalties by the platform. Make the changes necessary to fit the independent contractor model. And not just the rideshare company, but the state too: these workers need unemployment insurance, as Covid has shown, and somebody needs to pay for it: be it the workers or th…
The state could also pay for it, through tax revenue. Unemployment insurance seems like a great fit for a government, since any kind of massive correlated unemployment, as we're experiencing now, would absolutely wipe out any private insurer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When we polled drivers about their preference between remaining an independent contractor or becoming an employee, an overwhelming number of drivers wanted to remain independent. > "What type of employment relationship would you like to have with rideshare companies" > (A) I don't know the difference: 3.3% > (B) I'd like to be an employee: 20.8% > (C) I'd like to be an independent contractor: 75.9% https://therides…
Is 734 out of a population of 80,000 a representative sample? And even if it is, are the 80,000 people on their mailing list a representative sample of all drivers? Not saying they aren't, but I... just don't know.
Here's a simple anecdote: suppose you want to measure how often a coin comes up heads. The true answer is 50% heads. If your "sample" is a single coin flip, the answer will always be 100% or 0% (both wrong answers!). Maybe you do this experiment and get 100% and I do it and get 0%. But since the magnitude of the error will be the same on either side, on average across many repetitions of the experiment (this is called a "sampling distribution") we'll get the right answer.
What adding additional sample size does is reduce the variance of the estimated statistic -- that is to say reduce the degree to which the estimate of the parameter moves around across samples. If I flip the coin 100 times and you flip the coin 100 times, we're both likely to get very close answers to one another.
The bigger concern here is not sample size, it's whether the sampling was random (it was not) and whether the sample frame -- the population from which they were sampling -- matches the population of interest (it does not, as you suggest in your post, so your instincts here are good!).
There is very little reason to believe the people who chose to reply to the email are as-if random with respect to the question being asked. Rather, I would expect diehards of RideShareGuy (who likely converge on RSG's approximate editorial position on this issue) are more likely to reply. There is also likely to be confounding based on age, hours worked per week, geographical location in the country, etc.
There is also very little reason to believe RideShareGuy's mailing list represents rideshare drivers as a whole; again, selection based on age, tech savvy, English competency, SES, geographic location, etc. all likely to be confounders.
If this were a classical random sample of a valid sample frame, the parameter of interest would have a classical margin of error +- 3.6%, which is small compared to the overall story being told. This speaks to your concern. A simple rule of thumb is that classical MOEs are +- 1/sqrt(n) where n is the sample size. This comment is too long so I won't get into the derivation here.
I actually think this question presents a lot of interesting problems for a survey statistician. In particular, I would guess there is extreme subgroup heterogeneity -- that is to say there are classes of people who overwhelmingly want to be contractors and classes of people who overwhelmingly want to be employees. My guess would be that the population-wide parameter is of little interest compared to identifying those groups. If we discovered that, say, every person above 40 hours a week wanted to be an employee and every person below wanted to be a contractor, it'd be an error to present a weighted average of the groups versus exploring policy solutions that reflect that heterogeneity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like there is a general pattern. The left tends to prioritize all the good ideas: gender equality, racial equality, income gaps, etc. The right tends to prioritize systems that actually function in the real world with real people who are sometimes jealous, stupid, unethical, liars, etc. This is just a case where the first group has run amok without talking to the second group. It's the good idea of everyone sh…
Good insight. Coming together is tricky when there is no common grounds. One side wants wealth to be fairly Evenly distributed to help the poor. The other side helps the poor by creating so much wealth that that most poor people have a lot of wealth. These days you can be considered poor and have housing, ac, heat, tv, video games, maybe a car, and weight problems because food is so cheap. This only leaves those who…
Also having to work multiple jobs to break even. The problem isn't "inequality" it is that the floor in the US is so low compared to other wealthy nations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quality is debatable but none of eBay, Amazon, or Etsy enforce prices. Fundamentally choosing prices is what defines markets, trying to set them is the actions of an employer.
This is just fundamentally wrong. As a kid I refereed soccer games. There was a set cost structure for each game depending on age group and whether I was assistant referee or center referee. There was a system where I could sign up in advance if I wanted the work or not. Uber drivers know exactly what they are getting into and they are free to quit at any time. I was not an employee of the soccer leagues, I was an in…
New Uber drivers don’t know what their pay will be. They can eventually keep a running average to get some idea, but that’s only meaningful as part of an ongoing relationship.
Surge pricing seems like a benefit to the drivers, but as they can’t simply decline endless non surge prices that’s not an individual price negotiation. Essentially, their options are quit the platform or accept the vast majority of whatever is being handed to them.