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

371–380 of 401 posts

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

#371

Post by wavepruner »

moduspol wrote: post #84
wavepruner wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a disabled person who has also benefitted immensely from Uber, I hear this a lot, and it is really frustrating. No one will help me, especially progressive leaning people. You don't get political or social brownie points for helping disabled people the way you would for other minority groups who are struggling. We are constantly ignored and forgotten. I was in a situation where I needed money for healthcare that w…

I imagine it was also good for your mental state of well-being. You didn't have to sign up for a handout or even get a "goodwill" job like a greeter or something at a big box store. Uber and Airbnb didn't have to take a loss to employ you. You got paid because you provided value to people willing to pay for it, just like the rest of us. That's not to say we don't need social safety nets, or that it'd work for any dis…

Very true.

Social safety nets only work for people who are believed to be oppressed. So what happens is the oppressed groups just end up being the people no one believes are actually suffering.

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

#372

Post by ric2b »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #234
xtian wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Labor market fluidity isn't pro-worker, it's an essential component of the commodification of labor. It simply means the shape of a person's life is more fully suborned to the demands of the market. It means competing on a national and often international market for wages. A workforce full of transplants is much less likely to organize and resist the agenda of capital than one with deep community roots and support st…

You're once again framing a nuanced phenomenon in terms of a simplistic oppressor/oppressed narrative. The fluidity of labor does not imply the commodification of labor. It implies a wider market for it, which has benefits like increasing the liquidity accessible to those with labor to sell. This marketization of labor was partially responsible for wages increasing over 20 fold, in inflation adjusted terms, since 182…

> This marketization of labor was partially responsible for wages increasing over 20 fold, in inflation adjusted terms, since 1820.

What's your evidence for this claim?

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

#373

Post by ric2b »

Alex3917 wrote: post #266
wolco2 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your relationship cannot be determined by this example. You could be an employee or contractor for uber. In either case driving someone is a service you provide to Uber customers.

> In either case driving someone is a service you provide to Uber customers. No. Look at https://arcade.city . Their drivers are independent business operators, because they own the relationship with the riders. Uber drivers not only don't own the relationship with riders, but they're forbidden from owning it, which is what makes them employees. It's literally against the terms of service for Uber drivers to act as i…

> who was complaining that Travis had lowered the amount of money he was earning after the employee had taken out a huge car loan.

Buying a new car was not Uber's decision and he doesn't have to drive for Uber, he can drive for other companies with that same car and even during the same hours.

He can set his own price, and Uber can say no, that's too high, find someone else to sell your service to.

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

#374

Post by blix »

mike00632 wrote: post #357
blix wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For people with 'untreatable' or 'psychogenic' chronic illnesses, universal healthcare would just mean a different institution denies your claim for treatment. Progressives, especially in 2020, don't look kindly on people who lack faith in medical institutions. A lot of people with chronic illness have found themselves in this category after being failed by these institutions.

The 'anti-progressive' viewpoint is about people using their varied abilities in the free market to make it themselves. It assumes that everyone is at least a little abled in something and that something is enough to pay the bills. It's pure ideology. The reality is that if you are injured and suddenly can't do you're job then you likely have 0 bread-winning ability until you learn a new skill or set yourself up in a…

I don't see the relevance of this comment. If you can't get approval from the authorities for your disability, then you end up in the same place. One path just involves more paperwork, paternalism, and shame.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that there are more ideologies out there than just 'progressive' and 'anti-progressive'.

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

#375

Post by Def_Os »

Tarsul wrote: post #100

Conceptually, it's pretty clear: For the single person that needs (or wants) its Uber income, the law is good because they get their income as before. However, it's only good because the whole system is bad (e.g. that labor has no power in the US). So the question whether the law is "good" is rather the question: What's the alternative? For as long as there's no alternative for Uber etc., the law is good. If there we…

Hear, hear. As a European living in the US, this is exactly what I think causes the debate. Thanks for writing it up so clearly.

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

#376

Post by _dark_matter_ »

dang wrote: post #327
googthrowaway42 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now all you're doing is engaging in virtue signaling. How about you go off and split your Mozilla salary with this woman and then once you provide proof of this then we can have an honest discussion. Just to be clear, nothing at all is stopping you from doing this. You wouldn't be so awful as to claim that your labor is more valuable than this woman's, would you?

We've banned this account for repeatedly and egregiously breaking HN's guidelines. Please don't create accounts to do that with. We're trying for curious conversation here, not bashing each other with two by fours. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Thanks Dan. I appreciate you trying to keep the conversation sane.

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

#377

Post by gentaro »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #368
gentaro wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, all jobs don't disappear. Some, however, do. Some are no longer profitable, more are replaced by capital investments. Economics denialism is quite strong in your circles, as I noted. Ok, now we're getting to the root of the problem. This is argument is based off of your misunderstanding of economics. What you're missing here is this: - Jobs are a function of demand. - Demand is driven by consumers. - Consumers…

> This is argument is based off of your misunderstanding of economics Your superior "understanding" of economics is at odds with academic consensus and with reality. > Consumers need capital to drive demand Replacing five McDonalds cashiers with two cashiers, an app, and a touchscreen ordering kiosk doesn't "drive demand".

> Your superior "understanding" of economics is at odds with academic consensus and with reality.

And yet, you have no counterargument.

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

#378

Post by pixelbash »

sokoloff wrote: post #139
_alex_ wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wages are a market. "should" or "shouldn't" is irrelevant

To be fair to @pixelbash, I was the one who sloppily used "should". I meant it to imply that there's a market/economy effect that dominates, but it was sloppy/possibly ambiguous. I'm going to leave my comment unedited, but I wish I'd used "would" instead of "should" there to suggest that it's an outcome of economic inputs rather than a personal value judgment.

Thanks for the clarification, this is essentially what I was querying!

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

#379

Post by CryptoPunk »

ric2b wrote: post #372
CryptoPunk wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're once again framing a nuanced phenomenon in terms of a simplistic oppressor/oppressed narrative. The fluidity of labor does not imply the commodification of labor. It implies a wider market for it, which has benefits like increasing the liquidity accessible to those with labor to sell. This marketization of labor was partially responsible for wages increasing over 20 fold, in inflation adjusted terms, since 182…

> This marketization of labor was partially responsible for wages increasing over 20 fold, in inflation adjusted terms, since 1820. What's your evidence for this claim?

Market reforms, including expansions of contracting rights for employers and employees, have as a rule been followed by increases in per capita GDP and wages. The positive impact of a reduction in restrictions on the labor market, in favor of contract rights, has been widely observed and studied by economists.

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

#380

Post by Gibbon1 »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #379
ric2b wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This marketization of labor was partially responsible for wages increasing over 20 fold, in inflation adjusted terms, since 1820. What's your evidence for this claim?

Market reforms, including expansions of contracting rights for employers and employees, have as a rule been followed by increases in per capita GDP and wages. The positive impact of a reduction in restrictions on the labor market, in favor of contract rights, has been widely observed and studied by economists.

Course in the US wages have been stagnant for 40 years now.
Post reply on HN