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

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#151

Post by ac29 » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 2:36 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #146

> 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…

> What these new “employees” are going to get, is fired.

If the choice is between raising prices to support higher employee expenditures, and firing all of their drivers and leaving the California market, you think they'll choose the latter?

Or is there a third option I'm not thinking of?

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#152

Post by zaroth » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 2:40 PM UTC

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #148

bko wrote: post #106

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. 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?

Yes?

The vast majority of people in the world work in order to feed themselves and their families. This does not make the work “involuntary”.

Choice is obviously not an absolute, because we don’t live in magical fairy land. Choice is the ability to decide how you will go about feeding yourself and your family.

Gig economy simply increases the available choices, and provides quite a few fairly pleasant options, judging by how many people choose to do Gig work versus any other possible minimum wage (or below) job.

There is real slavery in the world. To equate Gig jobs with slavery is pretty terribly insulting both to Gig workers and the people actually suffering true slavery or slave-like conditions.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#153

Post by ac29 » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 2:41 PM UTC

inferiorhuman wrote: post #33

manfredo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would you have to work at least 40 hours a week? Because if you work less than that then the employee does not generate enough revenue to pay for the overhead cost of benefits. > There is such a thing as a part-time employee In fact most low-rung jobs try to keep employees under full-time to avoid the extra benefits that FTEs qualify for. If that's the case with Uber drivers then they don't get benefits either.…

Because if you work less than that then the employee does not generate enough revenue to pay for the overhead cost of benefits. That's not how things work at a low wage job. Beyond a threshold (around 30 hours) employers are hit with extra mandates (e.g. health insurance). If that's the case with Uber drivers then they don't get benefits either. And on top of that, the company will probably have to cap drivers' hours…

> having W2 wages will qualify you for a tax-advantaged IRA (retirement account)

You don't need W2 income to contribute to an IRA, any "earned income" is suitable. 1099 income is fine.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#154

Post by entropea » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 2:45 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #146

> 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…

This is always the right wing take on this, that they're going to get fired, create fear, uncertainty, doubt, and inject that right into others minds, repeat for the next issue that helps anyone except for a corporation. That FUD works really well on the general public too. Surely Uber wants to do business and make money in one of the worlds largest economies, California, right? Why would they fire all of their employees? It makes absolutely no sense. Surely they will adapt, AI cars are not currently a threat, drivers will still be needed and hired.

When Seattle raised it's minimum wage to $15/hr the same FUD was being pushed, that all restaurants would fire all of their employee's, that Seattle would become literal hell and the local economy would crash. Didn't happen and restaurants now enjoy one of the top markets in the USA.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#155

Post by entropea » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 2:49 PM UTC

jeremyjh wrote: post #131

dmode wrote: post #19

While I am sympathetic to Uber and Lyft drivers and other gig economy workers, I am wondering if anyone has the done the calculus on job losses vs. making something. And whether making something is better than being jobless. I met a Uber driver the other day who drives 5000 miles per month. Clearly that is close to exploitation. But if Uber is forced to pay drivers 100% more surely there will be fewer drivers. And ma…

eBay and Airbnb sellers are using their own capital to buy and sell goods that they own. They are not selling their labor in any sense. Uber drivers use their own cars but they are primarily selling their labor.

They include the cost of all of that in their prices, at least, someone who ran a good business would. This is not comparable to Uber, because drivers do not set their own prices. I also am pretty certain Uber takes much higher percent cut than eBay and Paypal/payment processing.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#156

Post by entropea » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 2:54 PM UTC

pascalxus wrote: post #144

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

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

Excellent. Consumers should be paying more for these things so that drivers have benefits and good pay. Solidarity with your fellow American worker. I personally leave huge tips and 5/5 stars no matter what unless I almost physically die or am assaulted. I know they aren't making great money and some probably live in their cars. I don't use them unless it's a non-medical emergency though.

"We the people"

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#157

Post by amluto » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 2:55 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #149

jlawson wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”.

And the exchange plans are, nonetheless, dramatically worse at a given price point than employer plans.

The primary reasons appear to be the giant tax subsidy for employer plans and the fact that insurers aggressively discriminate against people who don’t have employer plans.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#158

Post by entropea » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 2:56 PM UTC

huffmsa wrote: post #119

Ah yes, legislation from a "helpful government" which will ultimately drive companies which depend on quasi-contractors to develop their robot replacements at an accelerated rate. Classic political short-sightedness.

Your FUD is basically saying "I approve of major exploitation". Robots are coming, but not any time really soon. Autonomous vehicles are not a current threat in the slightest, might as well make drivers lives better at the expense of a corporation who's executives and corporate employee's will do just great.

Remove the drivers, Uber doesn't have a business. Their drivers are the most important thing to them.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#159

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 3:04 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #124

augstein wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How could you compare someone voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor? The gig workers I talked to basically told me „it’s either that gig job or starving“, so I‘m not so sure about the voluntariness anymore.

>it’s either that gig job or starving You could say the same about every American living paycheck to paycheck. Are they all slaves?

Yes wage slavery is a key features of capitalism, and a key incentive for capitalists (the economic class) to oppose reforms to increase the economic security of the working class, as mitigating wage slavery frees employees to demand a greater share of the value produced.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#160

Post by ghaff » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 3:05 PM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #145

thechao wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wh…

$/hr is sort of an odd way to measure depreciation that is mostly mileage based. In the US, IRS reimbursement for business driving is 58 cents per mile and that's probably not a bad estimate to start with for vehicle costs. (It probably overstates it if you would own a car anyway and you have a vehicle that's more efficient/cheaper to operate than average, but it's a reasonable stake in the ground.)