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

Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 401 posts

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#331

Post by awb »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #265
awb wrote: post #155

Saying a voting block was "tricked" or "bought" ignores millions of CA residents who read the law and formed their own conclusions. There's a very progressive and pro-business case to be made for decoupling benefits from the employer-employee or contract-gig relationship and making those benefits universal instead. Progressives get the social safety net they want and businesses gets the fewer regulations they want.

> Saying a voting block was "tricked" or "bought" ignores millions of CA residents who read the law and formed their own conclusions. This isn't a fair characterization of how people cast their ballots. They see the ad and it has some non-zero effect. If running ads was ineffective in swaying public opinion, there wouldn't have been a $200m persuasion campaign.

I'm a CA voter who didn't see any ads about this prop and didn't even know it was on the ballot until I opened it up, despite making a living in tech. I'm guessing I wasn't the only one who made a decision after only reading the pros and cons provided with the ballot itself.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#332

Post by solidasparagus »

sojournerc wrote: post #186
bumby wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have insight into your father's perspective between the two? I've heard that cab driving, particularly in major metropolitan areas, was a racket in it's own sense (in terms of medallions being a form of indentured servitude) but I'd be curious if Uber has alleviated some of this or just caused people to leap from the frying pan into the fire.

I drove a cab for a summer after college, just before uber blew up. The lease for the cab was high enough ($600+/wk) that I had to drive ~30 hours to break even, and the rest was profit, usually another 20 hours over the weekend. Unless you were sharing a lease with another driver, it would've been impossible to work it as part time. So I would see a benefit to uber over that arrangement except for uber if your car b…

> So I would see a benefit to uber over that arrangement except for uber if your car breaks you're out of luck. With a cab, i'd take it to the shop and get another one

Uber drivers can rent their car by the week.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#333

Post by randompwd »

arrosenberg wrote: post #312
xeromal wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't every time you confirm a ride a contract?

Yes, but not the way you are constructing it. The driver doesn't get to set the price, and there are downsides to declining the fare. Additionally there is no relationship established between the driver and the rider. The carriage contract is between Uber/Lyft and the rider. The platform is then hiring the driver to fulfill their end of the contract. The driver and rider have no ability to form future contracts, unle…

I don't get to walk in to a shop and set the price I pay for goods. They have items with an implicit offer for sale. I can either take or reject the contract.

It's a 3 way relationship between driver, passenger with Uber facilitating that relationship. Uber owns the passengers and they offer drivers the ability to fulfill the potential-passengers.

Maybe this would be clearer if Uber offered an API for the driver side so they wouldn't be forced to use the app and thus muddy the relationship.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#334

Post by randompwd »

sitkack wrote: post #328
ericabiz wrote: post #51

My husband drives for Uber, and I’m glad the proposition passed as it is. He drives the way Uber was originally envisioned. He goes out some nights if there’s a surge, and in the morning on the way to work he points the app toward our stores and grabs a person (pre-pandemic) or a food delivery (today) on his way in. It pays for gas money, car maintenance, and then some. Some months he makes a few hundred dollars. Som…

You are in Texas not California. This doesn't affect you.

Not sure why you are being dismissive of the OP putting forward their opinion.

HN isn't a California local's site.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#335

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

awb wrote: post #331
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Saying a voting block was "tricked" or "bought" ignores millions of CA residents who read the law and formed their own conclusions. This isn't a fair characterization of how people cast their ballots. They see the ad and it has some non-zero effect. If running ads was ineffective in swaying public opinion, there wouldn't have been a $200m persuasion campaign.

I'm a CA voter who didn't see any ads about this prop and didn't even know it was on the ballot until I opened it up, despite making a living in tech. I'm guessing I wasn't the only one who made a decision after only reading the pros and cons provided with the ballot itself.

Heavy advertising for Prop 22 was done on Facebook, and 7 in 10 US Adults use Facebook: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/16/facts-about...

You may have missed this if you don't use it.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#337

Post by awb »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #335
awb wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a CA voter who didn't see any ads about this prop and didn't even know it was on the ballot until I opened it up, despite making a living in tech. I'm guessing I wasn't the only one who made a decision after only reading the pros and cons provided with the ballot itself.

Heavy advertising for Prop 22 was done on Facebook, and 7 in 10 US Adults use Facebook: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/16/facts-about... You may have missed this if you don't use it.

That's what happened then, I don't use FB.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#338

Post by awb »

themacguffinman wrote: post #293
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Saying a voting block was "tricked" or "bought" ignores millions of CA residents who read the law and formed their own conclusions. This isn't a fair characterization of how people cast their ballots. They see the ad and it has some non-zero effect. If running ads was ineffective in swaying public opinion, there wouldn't have been a $200m persuasion campaign.

And this isn't a fair characterization of how ads work. They don't magically change people's minds and stop people from forming their own conclusions. It doesn't mean the vote was "tricked" or "bought. Try spending $200MM on a nonsense bill and see how much support you can actually buy. Like any endeavor, ads & marketing can be dishonest. If you actually thought any part of Uber's campaign was dishonest, I encourage…

> Try spending $200MM on a nonsense bill and see how much support you can actually buy.

Or $1B on a 3 month primary campaign: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/bloomberg-spe...

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#339

Post by randompwd »

_dark_matter_ wrote: post #38
googthrowaway42 wrote: post #4

"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…

Sorry, can you explain? Why do you think that makes sense? If you're going to say "because this is the kind of thing a social justice minister would write", consider that: 1. You may have cause and effect wrong. The conditions this person lived through, especially as a gig worker, may have moved them to be a social justice minister; not the other way around. 2. You are not judging the article from the quality of the…

Background should have 100% been included in article to frame it. This is a piece by someone who only puts forward that they are Uber drive. The explicit omission of her other current work roles wasn't by accident.

Propaganda comes from both sides of an issue.

Does the article mention how long she has been a gig worker for? Because her bio would suggest she has potentially multiple income streams and also has had full time positions which I'm sure have equivalents in the area she resides in now.

The bio at https://www.netrootsnation.org/profile/cherri-murphy/ just mentions:

> Minister Cherri Murphy is currently the Founder of Speak Life Ministries and a Doctoral student at the Graduate Theological Union/Berkeley Theology in Berkeley. Her focus is on liturgical direct actions, specifically how participants combine public worship, art and ritual protests to intimately engage and invoke social change for those who have historically been de-centered. She is also a member and a licensed Spiritual Practitioner at Heart and Soul Center of Light, in Oakland California.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#340

Post by kfarr »

tschwimmer wrote: post #330
ericabiz wrote: post #51

My husband drives for Uber, and I’m glad the proposition passed as it is. He drives the way Uber was originally envisioned. He goes out some nights if there’s a surge, and in the morning on the way to work he points the app toward our stores and grabs a person (pre-pandemic) or a food delivery (today) on his way in. It pays for gas money, car maintenance, and then some. Some months he makes a few hundred dollars. Som…

If there are some months that he only makes a few hundred dollars, it's possible that you're actually losing money on depreciation (even if you're net positive on current costs like gas and maintenance). This is something that I see very few drivers talk about but influences your earnings significantly. Depreciation is a real cost. If at the time you sell your car your car, you get $X, but driving for Uber caused you…

Shhhh... You're devaluing lyft and Uber stock with your arithmetic! /s of course you're right but this lack of accounting for vehicle depreciation (not to mention a very high liability risk for every minute on the road) is rooted deeply in American's sunk cost fallacy with motor vehicle ownership. It's almost a genetic instinct at this point and for every person who does the math and realizes it doesn't work out there's another who won't care
Post reply on HN