201–210 of 423 posts
So does this mean it'll be more economical for me to just rent cars again and drive myself whenever I fly to California?
Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't California have public transport? Renting cars isn't the only option I would think? I dunno, I'm not from the US so maybe I just don't understand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've never understood this argument. Potential "yay" and "nay" votes are both term-limited, so the "inexperience" should cancel out? What? Take this to it's logical conclusion and imagine term limits of 1 day. No one would be making sound decisions with those yeas and nays. And why would they always be 50 / 50 and "cancel out"? If you know nothing about a fairly complex topic, it's easy to be mislead, especially by…
> Imagine term limits of 1 day. No one would be making sound decisions with those yeas and nays. I have no idea what terms limits of 1 day would do; it's not obvious to me. Please argue your point. > And why would they always be 50 / 50 and "cancel out"? I'm not talking about a vote split additive cancel out. I'm talking about how in `(termLimit * nFor) / (termLimit * nAgainst)` the `termLimit` factors cancel out. >…
Not the GP, but I think the point is fairly simple to express. If you took office tomorrow, and had a term of one day, and there was a vote on a legislative item, how much could you possibly learn about the issue in the time prior to that vote? Short term limits mean that it's harder for legislators to really understand the more complex issues since by the time they do, if they ever do, they are likely to be forced out by the term limit. Additionally, they probably won't be effective at getting any legislation passed until they understand how to work with the system.
Another way to look at it, is how long would it take you to become effective if you switched careers tomorrow? What if you had a maximum time you could spend in that career? How long would you spend being less effective because you are still learning how to do the job? How long would you have to work at a professional or expert level?
If we assume legislators only need a few weeks or months to get up to speed, then term limits of 6-8 years don't matter. If we assume it takes a few years to become effective, then we're hobbling our legislators for close to half the maximum time they can be on office. It's slightly ameliorated by the fact they can seek another office in a different branch, but that doesn't eliminate the problem, they're still going to have to learn a lot (assuming what you learn as a legislator is what interest groups are important at that level, who of your fellow legislators are good at what, etc). Though the fact that everyone is in the same boat and there can't be some institutionalized personnel that are very good at certain things for others to rely on makes it worse.
Having no term limits has problems too, but the short term limits in CA and it's affect on institutionalized legislative knowledge and capability has been talked about for decades at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've never understood this argument. Potential "yay" and "nay" votes are both term-limited, so the "inexperience" should cancel out? What? Take this to it's logical conclusion and imagine term limits of 1 day. No one would be making sound decisions with those yeas and nays. And why would they always be 50 / 50 and "cancel out"? If you know nothing about a fairly complex topic, it's easy to be mislead, especially by…
> Imagine term limits of 1 day. No one would be making sound decisions with those yeas and nays. I have no idea what terms limits of 1 day would do; it's not obvious to me. Please argue your point. > And why would they always be 50 / 50 and "cancel out"? I'm not talking about a vote split additive cancel out. I'm talking about how in `(termLimit * nFor) / (termLimit * nAgainst)` the `termLimit` factors cancel out. >…
How is that supposed to be an accurate model of the effects of term limits?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> employers should be forced to offer such good employments that the worst jobs simply don't exist? But why? Two people come to an agreement. Who are you to say that you know what they want better than they do? I don't want to claim that this argument applies to all situations, there are some genuinely non-consensual or otherwise exploitive arrangements that the government ought to ban, but if someone wants what look…
> But why? Two people come to an agreement. Who are you to say that you know what they want better than they do? That's an idea that is centered around individual freedoms rather than maximizing the utility for the most people. This is simply a political/ethical conflict. My reasoning works like this: I want a functioning labor market, where "functioning" means that the worst jobs are good jobs. So I want my lawmaker…
In the current world where there is no good safety net I'm saddened by laws like AB5 which do not seem to maximize utility for the most people, they only maximize utility for the people who are valuable enough to their employers, leaving a large class of people unemployable. But it sounds like we actually agree about this.
We disagree slightly in that I think even in the world where everyone is taken care of people should be allowed to accept bad jobs. It's actually useful for us to allow this! If more people start accepting bad jobs again it's a sign that the safety net is failing and should be improved.
But if that world was not an option I would mostly happily live in the world you're describing, where bad jobs were banned but there was a robust safety net.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do know that social media accounts are primed then sold to achieve your exact reaction, no?
Lyft is sneaky. They sent me to a cemetary next to a busy area once when I was on the hwy going home and then cancelled the ride once I got to the cemetery. Then they messaged me and said as long as I was in a busy area, why didn't I wait? The thing that pissed me off was the algorithm actually directed me to drive into a cemetary on a dark night, as if someone was there waiting for me. Of course I didn't go in the c…
This has been an interesting battle in terms of civil governance. Basically Uber & Lyft threatened to put the initiative they wrote, on the ballot if the legislature passed AB5, which they did. Uber and Lyft are now doing everything they can to get it to pass which will set up its own court fight. Watching this fight I wonder "Who is in charge of governing California?" is it the Legislature/Governor or is it special…
California's problem is precisely that it is a one party state. Even a few decades ago, California was not the one party state it is today. Having multiple candidates with meaningful differences on the ballot automatically lowers the ability of special interests to rule the state because it is difficult to be supported by people on completely different sides of the aisle. The proposition that made California the way…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your source of information is that you claim to have done 2000 rides? Then yes, in this case your anecdotal "evidence" is not only nonsense, but not even believable. Come back with data and we'll chat.
Why is that an unbelievable number? Uber has been around for a decade now, surely there’s been ample time?
Important victory for workers everywhere. Drivers is only one if the first areas where gig companies tries to avoid rules and regulation on worker protection, rights and benefits, by making employees into contractors. I hope we can get similar legislation introduced here in Denmark.
in any case i don't think anyone was looking at california for their laws :))
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your source of information is that you claim to have done 2000 rides? Then yes, in this case your anecdotal "evidence" is not only nonsense, but not even believable. Come back with data and we'll chat.
I did 2000 rides in a year. That works out to be about 8 rides a day. That doesn't seem so far fetched. You've already made up your mind so I don't know why you bother making comments to me.