11–20 of 401 posts
Ellipsis is accomplished with an ellipsis, not a dash. Use ... next time.
You could argue against the dramatic period after the word "law," but why would you?
We all understand her meaning and the dashes emphasize her point without bold or italic letters.
1. https://writingessentialsbyellen.com/when-to-use-the-ellipsi...
Maybe I'm too libertarian-leaning, but doesn't the author of the article have the option of NOT driving for Uber? If California is truly one of the wealthiest economies, the author should be able to find a different line of work.
What's with the weird punctuation in the altered title? Makes it hard to read. The article title is "Uber bought itself a law. Here's why that's dangerous for struggling drivers like me", and if you want to fit it into 80 characters, just drop the "like me".
It is a new - of writing. - is faster to type, but - to read.
Maybe I'm too libertarian-leaning, but doesn't the author of the article have the option of NOT driving for Uber? If California is truly one of the wealthiest economies, the author should be able to find a different line of work.
Or more simply, why is California one of the wealthiest economies? Is it because a typical California resident is one of the wealthiest people (on certain scales I wouldn't be surprised if this were actually true)? Or are there several subsets of people who are very wealthy due to California's unusually successful industries with global reach (I can think of two obvious giants.)? And how large are these subsets? If we answer all of these questions, we should answer your original question or at least come close.
Edit: Changed "every California resident" to "a typical"
"In California, one of the world’s wealthiest economies, I should be able to afford rent and pay my bills as a driver. I shouldn’t be forced to scour for public bathrooms or work 70-hour weeks to do this job. But that’s what these companies have forced upon us." "Uber may have bought itself a law, but it has not bought itself reprieve. All labor has dignity, and driving for Uber or Lyft should be no different." Cherr…
"A change to the law would require a seven-eighths majority in the California legislature."
I realize that we don't want laws on the books that are continually changed, but that's an extremely steep climb, should the majority of the legislature feel that this law is problematic. They need virtual total agreement.
Gig jobs are all that kept family off the street while I recovered.
Starting and stopping anytime as my body could tolerate. Or renting out rooms on Airbnb. Sometimes it took me 4 hours to change sheets and tidy up, but it made the difference.
Not saying their good companies. But gigs was crazy valuable to me.
Alternative spin, same facts: "voters undo unpopular overreach by state government".
Maybe I'm too libertarian-leaning, but doesn't the author of the article have the option of NOT driving for Uber? If California is truly one of the wealthiest economies, the author should be able to find a different line of work.
The problem with this line of thinking is that a state is not a person is not a company is not an x. (Let's put aside any tangential Citizens United rebuttal.) Or more simply, why is California one of the wealthiest economies? Is it because a typical California resident is one of the wealthiest people (on certain scales I wouldn't be surprised if this were actually true)? Or are there several subsets of people who ar…
I don’t want want to go back for many reasons, but man I miss the mild temperatures.