Maybe people just really like ubers?
Some people really like Lyft. I drive for both. Some riders just hate Uber.
California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers
131–140 of 387 posts
Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers
#132Good. The users and the drivers both wanted this. You may dislike hearing this, but it takes a lot to inject yourself into that arrangement and massively increase the cost because you want it done differently. I recognise that it appears to create "rules for thee but not for me" for these companies, but when they are so thoroughly satisfying both their customers and their workers, you should ask yourself if forcing t…
The prop requires 7/8 to repeal it though, which is ridiculous.
We should be able to vote on props in chunks, not as an entire atomic unit. We should be able to say yes to the prop but no to 7/8.
Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought part of the point of the strange election process we have was to "ensure" that southern states would have a vote even in the face of a more populous north…
They did. Which was why they were able to hold out until 1860 when the writing was on the wall. Since slavery didn't die on it's own and was the underpinning of the economy of many states violence was somewhat bound to happen. You can't just expect to make any sizeable minority of your nation's economy non-viable and not have all the people's lives you just ruined start shooting. You might be able to get away with it…
>rather than a perpetual slow boil conflict that turns into a low intensity shooting war every few decades like you see in other parts of the world.
End of Reconstruction, Bloody Summer, Brown v Board and the subsequent CRM, the War on Drugs, Trayvon Martin et al. I'd say we're on schedule.
Enjoy the gritty crunch, it tastes just like chicken.
Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another "user" is the taxpayer - who ultimately ends up paying for the social security, healthcare, and other unmet needs (lack of paid sick leave, lack of paid maternity/paternity leave etc.) of these contractors. So in a way, by exempting Uber from these rules, but not others, society is handing out a subsidy for both the passengers and drivers.
Which is fine, because that's progressively taxed. The alternative is higher prices which flatly burden everyone equally.
Higher prices are naturally regressive and burden people with lower incomes more than higher. If the gov't levied a hypothetical "everyone pay $2k in taxes right now" tax who do you think would be the most impacted?
Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers
#135Good. The users and the drivers both wanted this. You may dislike hearing this, but it takes a lot to inject yourself into that arrangement and massively increase the cost because you want it done differently. I recognise that it appears to create "rules for thee but not for me" for these companies, but when they are so thoroughly satisfying both their customers and their workers, you should ask yourself if forcing t…
Slavery was very satisfying to users and slaves, as shown by how long it persisted. Q.E.D. On the contrary, the average Uber driver lasts what, six months or so? Before they quit? Seems like they are profoundly dissatisfied, and only doing this work as a way to ward off starvation and eviction.
Slavery was very satisfying to slaves? Was it though?
Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers
#136Classifying these drivers as employees is a bad idea. Why. Because many of them drive for more than one of these companies at the same time. And I don’t mean they work sometimes for one and sometimes for another, I mean they’ll have two or more apps open at the same time. This is vastly different than say working 20 hours a week at Walmart and another 20 at Costco. Think about this: if drivers were “employees” who th…
Well maybe they should find some alternate structure where the different rideshare companies will chip in for benefits like health care.
Otherwise it's just a huge externality being leveraged on the rest of us.
Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers
#137Good. The users and the drivers both wanted this. You may dislike hearing this, but it takes a lot to inject yourself into that arrangement and massively increase the cost because you want it done differently. I recognise that it appears to create "rules for thee but not for me" for these companies, but when they are so thoroughly satisfying both their customers and their workers, you should ask yourself if forcing t…
I’m not at all convinced this is what drivers want, and I haven’t seen any trustworthy sources indicating that it’s true. Furthermore, as a passenger, I’d rather pay a higher cost and know that the driver who I’m entrusting with my life hasn’t been working 24 hours straight just to feed their children—I’d rather not get friendly with a tree just to save five bucks.
I think you hit on something interesting. No one is enforcing quality or safety really, not any of them, including taxis.
Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another "user" is the taxpayer - who ultimately ends up paying for the social security, healthcare, and other unmet needs (lack of paid sick leave, lack of paid maternity/paternity leave etc.) of these contractors. So in a way, by exempting Uber from these rules, but not others, society is handing out a subsidy for both the passengers and drivers.
Which is fine, because that's progressively taxed. The alternative is higher prices which flatly burden everyone equally.
> Which is fine
No it's not fine [that taxpayers "ultimately end up paying for the social security, healthcare, and other unmet needs (lack of paid sick leave, lack of paid maternity/paternity leave etc.) of these contractors"].
The Commons have been slowly plundered. It's the working class who is suffering. Look around you, homeless people everywhere. This is digital Rentier Capitalism, which enriches the ruling classes, and parasitally sucks dry the working class.
"[R]entier incomes from ownership and exploitation of assets are continuing to grow, sucking up ever more of global income. And the state is accentuating these two mega-trends by throwing more subsidies to the rentiers while cutting benefits for the precariat, and while the silicon revolution is channelling more income to those who own the robots, creating a perfect storm of economic insecurity.
A way out of this approaching impasse would be to create a new income distribution system in which more of the rent is captured for society, and used to buttress the precariat’s living standards. In 1936, John Maynard Keynes predicted the "euthanasia of the rentier" before the end of the 20th century. It did not happen. Now is the time to do it. One way would be by building up democratic sovereign wealth funds through a levy on various forms of rent, which are neither morally nor economically justifiable."
Source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/the-precariat-populis...
Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers
#139Very telling geographic distribution for Prop 22 in San Francisco, at least: https://electionmapsf.com/#
Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers
#140[dead]