California is cracking down on the gig economy • Hacker News Board

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#141

Post by jlawson » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 2:18 PM UTC

e40 wrote: post #133

ravenstine wrote: post #125

This last year, I drove for GrubHub for about 6 months in order to pay rent while trying to build a business as well as do web development contract work(I'm now employed full time). The whole time, I was active in various gig economy subreddits. There are some people out there who only want to drive for companies like GrubHub, but most of the drivers are people who already have jobs and are using the gig as supplemen…

If you have another job, you have benefits, right? If you don't have another job, being an employee and getting benefits (e.g., health insurance) would be a huge deal.

The real issue here is the struture of the US healthcare system, which massively penalizes the provision of healthcare as part of any plan besides benefits from a job.

We should have either a heavily government-subsidized user-pay system like Japan, or a real open market without the absurd straitjacket or US healthcare market regulations. With needs-based welfare in both cases.

If the medical part of the economy wasn't so ridiculously wrongly regulated, it wouldn't be so distorting the rather academic difference between "contractor" and "employee".

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#142

Post by thechao » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 2:19 PM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #137

e40 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's clear it will cause a lot of contractors in the software industry to be reclassified as employees. To me, the real test is what will happen is this passes. Will it move hiring to other states and offshore? I'm in CA and I haven't hired someone from CA in a long time. Poland and Ukraine are the main places. The last 3 candidates wanted more than the CEO makes. We're small and can't afford Bay Area salarie…

That's an interesting angle I didn't think of. As someone who lives in California and has gotten to where they are now through various forms of contract work, I feel like this bill is potentially a bad idea, but I can see how it can also shift the "balance of power", if you will, away from California, which would probably be a good thing for the rest of world. Still, I'm not a fan of losing more freedom, which is wha…

Is that 17.5$ also include additional wear-and-tear on capital assets, e.g., your car? I spent years desperately poor, and having a very good idea of capital asset depreciation was critical to maintaining my weekly budget. For instance, my very cheap car, in the early 2000s, cost about 4.5$/hour-of-operation — and only because it was used as a shop car by mechanics who did all the maintenance for free. My current vehicle (a Kia Optima) is right at about 6$/hour to operate; although I’m “at the bottom of the tub” in terms of operating costs. In the next few years I expect that cost to increase to 7$/hour.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#143

Post by cinquemb » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 2:27 PM UTC

cycomanic wrote: post #91

cinquemb wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was speaking to relative economic strength, It's not that I think the US employment rate means much either: without government debt financing deficits, US gdp would be in contraction (like nearly other OECD economy). >If anything, the US should scale back profits and rebuild its social supports structures, the same structures which were torn down in the name of profit. All of this sounds like more debt, which if we…

Funny as I remember it 2008 was all about bailing out the banks, that is giving money to the rich, not rebuilding social structures. It seems increasing debt is always fine if it goes to the elites (via tax breaks or bailouts), while it's the bogeyman idf it actually going to help people that need it. You know that the US during the golden age of the 50s and 60s had a marginal tax rate of 90%?

I also recall 2008 about programs like cash for clunkers, nationalization of fannie mae and freddie mac (and the eventual roll out of their 3% down mortgages with no income restrictions). You know that during the US during the 50s and 60's the labor force primarily benefited one subclass of people where the rest were marginalized?

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#144

Post by pascalxus » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 2:27 PM UTC

Consumers, make no mistake, This will drive up costs of using uber just like everything else in CA

And it will reduce the # of uber driver demand / work pool

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#145

Post by ravenstine » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 2:27 PM UTC

thechao wrote: post #142

ravenstine wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting angle I didn't think of. As someone who lives in California and has gotten to where they are now through various forms of contract work, I feel like this bill is potentially a bad idea, but I can see how it can also shift the "balance of power", if you will, away from California, which would probably be a good thing for the rest of world. Still, I'm not a fan of losing more freedom, which is wha…

Is that 17.5$ also include additional wear-and-tear on capital assets, e.g., your car? I spent years desperately poor, and having a very good idea of capital asset depreciation was critical to maintaining my weekly budget. For instance, my very cheap car, in the early 2000s, cost about 4.5$/hour-of-operation — and only because it was used as a shop car by mechanics who did all the maintenance for free. My current veh…

Honestly, I didn't think much about wear-and-tear and I probably should have. When I calculated it, it was way below a dollar per mile, which makes me curious how you arrived at $4.5 per hour of operation. That sounds like an awful lot. Are you talking USD? Just curious because you used the dollar sign as a suffix.

It's certainly possible that I'll end up paying down the road for the increase in wear and tear from when I was driving, but at least now I'm in a secure position where I could actually afford the repairs or to get a new car without worrying about paying the bills.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#146

Post by zaroth » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 2:27 PM UTC

> That small status change is huge. These workers would suddenly get labor protections and benefits that all employees get, such as unemployment insurance, health care subsidies, paid parental leave, overtime pay, workers’ compensation, and a guaranteed $12 minimum hourly wage.

That’s an pretty optimistic take on the situation. What these new “employees” are going to get, is fired.

I know some people are OK with that, if the task isn’t profitable enough to pay a human full benefits to work on it, then it’s not profitable enough to employ a human to do it at all.

But there’s a lot of space to integrate under the employment curve for these types of super-low-skill jobs that people mostly use to fill in the gaps in their earnings. I think ultimately this does a huge disservice to the people who worked these gigs to earn some extra money, because it will no longer be possible to do that.

What will be left is full-time workers in these roles who have no other choice, who probably have a significantly shittier work experience doing jobs or working hours they previously would have passed on.

Which honestly is sad, because there is little to no advancement opportunity, so this is not supposed to be a career, and you’ve taken away the option for all these low friction ways to make up a financial gap that might come up one month to the next.

If someone finds themselves struggling to pay rent next week and they know they’ll be facing an eviction notice in 10 days, today they can jump on any number of apps and make up that couple hundred dollar shortfall. That’s not going to be possible if they’re classified as an employee.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#147

Post by cinquemb » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 2:31 PM UTC

pgeorgi wrote: post #87

cinquemb wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just reporting what the German statistical office reports ( https://m.investing.com/economic-calendar/german-unemploymen... ). Besides, harmonized or not, doesn't explain the economic weakness in Germany over the past decade compared to the US.

> I'm just reporting what the German statistical office reports ... which is meaningless when you compare it to the official US statistics (as you did) because they count things differently. The harmonization helps make the numbers comparable in the first place.

Fair, still doesn't change the rather meaninglessness of the numbers in the first place.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#148

Post by TelmoMenezes » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 2:33 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #106

cycomanic wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor. Moreover, while there might be an immediate benefit to consumers, as the article notes it might as well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone. The only people who are really benefiting are the large shareholders.

> Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor. How could you compare someone voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor? > well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone. I don't buy it. The math that claims that these designations cost taxpayers is naive. As though applying additio…

> How could you compare someone voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor?

Is it really voluntary if the alternative is to die of starvation?

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#149

Post by zaroth » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 2:34 PM UTC

jlawson wrote: post #141

e40 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have another job, you have benefits, right? If you don't have another job, being an employee and getting benefits (e.g., health insurance) would be a huge deal.

The real issue here is the struture of the US healthcare system, which massively penalizes the provision of healthcare as part of any plan besides benefits from a job. We should have either a heavily government-subsidized user-pay system like Japan, or a real open market without the absurd straitjacket or US healthcare market regulations. With needs-based welfare in both cases. If the medical part of the economy wasn…

ACA, particularly so in Medicaid Expansion states, is perfectly described as a “heavily government-subsidized user-pay system”.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#150

Post by inferiorhuman » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 2:35 PM UTC

panitaxx wrote: post #120

inferiorhuman wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why don't they go work there then? Come back when you have an answer. You'd prefer that I answer "because gig economy companies provide unmatched flexibility and freedom to their employees^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcontractors", right? I'm not really here to play that game, so how's this? - They may not work in an area where In-n-Out exists or Starbucks is hiring. Note: this doesn't mean that the other available low/no ski…

So basically your answer tldr is "gig economy workers are dumb and financial/life decisions must be made for them in group and disregarding their particular situation and free will"

Nope