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

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#21

Post by manfredo » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:15 AM UTC

on_and_off wrote: post #17

manfredo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expenses are tax deductible. The article reports that his adjusted income was $22,378. The article did not mention how many hours he worked per year, so determining his hourly post-expense earnings is not possible. And regardless, this is exactly one data point. Hardly enough to draw any meaningful conclusions. And as I have said before, I am not inclined to trust the New York Times' coverage of large tech companies.

you allege bias without giving any semblance of a factual proof, only an alleged motive.

The above author did not ask for specific examples. Prominent I have seen in the past, among others:

* Attempting to depict high profile YouTubers as promoting Nazism despite the given examples unambiguously not promoting nazism in context.

* Alleging YouTube pushes users towards right wing content when quantitative analysis shows left-leaning content outnumbers right leaning content more than 2:!, and a slim minority of recommendations going to right leaning content.

Here's one recent example: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/technology/google-temp-wo...

The NYT is portraying Google's use of contractors as some nefarious and unfair system of two tiers of employees. In reality this not at all specific to Google, or even tech companies. Most companies use contractors for security, office maintenance, and recruiting. This is not new. Nor is it secret. Calling it a "shadow" workforce is deceptive.

The pattern of portraying large tech companies (especially Google) in a negative light is a consistent pattern I have observed for years. Bias is inevitable when there is a conflict of interest like this. Established media and news organizations are losing huge amounts of money and influence to technology companies. Trusting them to be unbiased in their reporting face of such a conflict of interest is highly naive.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#22

Post by naner » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:17 AM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #2

Increasing benefits and worker protections also increases the cost of hiring employees. This is widely understood. In countries where employees have extensive benefits and protections like France, employers are very picky about which employees they hire because it will be difficult or expensive to fire them if they turn out to be poor workers. Hence, and unemployment rate over twice that of the US. The ease of enteri…

Is there a name for this type of reasoning? An extreme version is that sweat shops are more beneficial then letting kids starve to death.

Can we try and improve the situation for low wage workers as well as additional methods to address unemployment?

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#23

Post by freeflight » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:18 AM UTC

Leszek wrote: post #4

manfredo wrote: post #2

Increasing benefits and worker protections also increases the cost of hiring employees. This is widely understood. In countries where employees have extensive benefits and protections like France, employers are very picky about which employees they hire because it will be difficult or expensive to fire them if they turn out to be poor workers. Hence, and unemployment rate over twice that of the US. The ease of enteri…

Germany has similar workers' rights and protection from firing, yet it has a lower unemployment rate.

Those German worker rights, and strong ties between companies and unions were supposedly among the reasons why Walmart failed in Germany:

“They didn’t understand that in Germany, companies and unions are closely connected,” Mr. Poschmann said. “Bentonville didn’t want to have anything to do with unions. They thought we were communists.” [0]

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/business/worldbusiness/02...

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#24

Post by tstgggssg » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:20 AM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #7

tstgggssg wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that most are not making much money [0] and most would be better off working a min wage job. Most Uber/lyft drivers are recent immigrants , working poor who end up taking on a lot of risk for little if any reward. Uber also uses psychological tricks to trick drivers into driving more then is rational [1] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/technology/uber-driver-ip... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/int…

> The problem is that most are not making much money [0] and most would be better off working a min wage job. $40,000 a year is hardly minimum wage. Most of the drivers I've talked to explain that it does usually equate to between minimum wage to $20-$25 an hour after expenses depending on how effective you are at getting surge priced rides. But, unlike a minimum wage job you can set your own hours which is a huge ad…

Nyt is the paper of record , what do you recommend ? Can you point to the exaggerated/falsehood stories ?

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#25

Post by manfredo » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:23 AM UTC

inferiorhuman wrote: post #13

manfredo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drivers want it, but drivers probably don't look at Uber's finances. Ask drivers this: You would get the benefits of employees, but now you would have to work at least 40 hours a week and now those hours will be set by Uber - you will not get to choose your own hours. Do you think they'd want that situation?

now you would have to work at least 40 hours a week and now those hours will be set by Uber Why would you have to work at least 40 hours a week? 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. Or, put it another way, if Uber required its drivers to work 40 hours a week and this resulted in unhappy drivers…

> 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. And on top of that, the company will probably have to cap drivers' hours in order to keep them from qualifying for benefits.

> Or, put it another way, if Uber required its drivers to work 40 hours a week and this resulted in unhappy drivers, what makes you think anyone would want to drive for Uber in the first place?

They wouldn't. That's my point. If this legislation goes into effect, then driving for Uber will not be a viable employment option for many current drivers because of the loss of work flexibility.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#26

Post by chewz » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:25 AM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #2

Increasing benefits and worker protections also increases the cost of hiring employees. This is widely understood. In countries where employees have extensive benefits and protections like France, employers are very picky about which employees they hire because it will be difficult or expensive to fire them if they turn out to be poor workers. Hence, and unemployment rate over twice that of the US. The ease of enteri…

> Increasing benefits and worker protections also increases the cost of hiring employees.

Majority of land owners over the course of history had come to the conclusion that serfdom and slavery is beneficial to positive returns on landholding.

Also multiple countries had been greatly improving their GDP from forced labor (Nazi Germany, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia and other).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfree_labour

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#27

Post by manfredo » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:26 AM UTC

tstgggssg wrote: post #24

manfredo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that most are not making much money [0] and most would be better off working a min wage job. $40,000 a year is hardly minimum wage. Most of the drivers I've talked to explain that it does usually equate to between minimum wage to $20-$25 an hour after expenses depending on how effective you are at getting surge priced rides. But, unlike a minimum wage job you can set your own hours which is a huge ad…

Nyt is the paper of record , what do you recommend ? Can you point to the exaggerated/falsehood stories ?

I've identified some in other comments. The New York Times is overall still a reputable and rigorous publication, and I read it regularly. Just be aware that they have a vested interest in portraying large tech companies, especially social media, in a negative light and be cognizant of that conflict of interest when you read their content.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#28

Post by eecc » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:27 AM UTC

naner wrote: post #22

manfredo wrote: post #2

Increasing benefits and worker protections also increases the cost of hiring employees. This is widely understood. In countries where employees have extensive benefits and protections like France, employers are very picky about which employees they hire because it will be difficult or expensive to fire them if they turn out to be poor workers. Hence, and unemployment rate over twice that of the US. The ease of enteri…

Is there a name for this type of reasoning? An extreme version is that sweat shops are more beneficial then letting kids starve to death. Can we try and improve the situation for low wage workers as well as additional methods to address unemployment?

TINA? Paternalism (think of factory owners building Falansteriums for their workers)

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#29

Post by tstgggssg » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:28 AM UTC

chewz wrote: post #26

manfredo wrote: post #2

Increasing benefits and worker protections also increases the cost of hiring employees. This is widely understood. In countries where employees have extensive benefits and protections like France, employers are very picky about which employees they hire because it will be difficult or expensive to fire them if they turn out to be poor workers. Hence, and unemployment rate over twice that of the US. The ease of enteri…

> Increasing benefits and worker protections also increases the cost of hiring employees. Majority of land owners over the course of history had come to the conclusion that serfdom and slavery is beneficial to positive returns on landholding. Also multiple countries had been greatly improving their GDP from forced labor (Nazi Germany, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia and other). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfree_labou…

You left out USA

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#30

Post by manfredo » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:30 AM UTC

chewz wrote: post #26

manfredo wrote: post #2

Increasing benefits and worker protections also increases the cost of hiring employees. This is widely understood. In countries where employees have extensive benefits and protections like France, employers are very picky about which employees they hire because it will be difficult or expensive to fire them if they turn out to be poor workers. Hence, and unemployment rate over twice that of the US. The ease of enteri…

> Increasing benefits and worker protections also increases the cost of hiring employees. Majority of land owners over the course of history had come to the conclusion that serfdom and slavery is beneficial to positive returns on landholding. Also multiple countries had been greatly improving their GDP from forced labor (Nazi Germany, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia and other). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfree_labou…

Are you seriously comparing gig workers to slavery? This is just beyond absurd, and it makes me dubious as to whether you're participating in this conversation in good faith.

On the off chance that you're not trolling, contractors - unlike slaves - have the freedom to choose what work they'll do. Drivers for Uber often also drive for Lyft when it pays better. There's nothing stopping them leaving if their opinion is that the pay is not worth the work. By comparison, slaves are not free and are forced to do whatever work their masters tell them to.