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

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#261

Post by cortesoft » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:14 PM UTC

Zak wrote: post #253

jlarocco wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's orthogonal to whether the workers are contractors or employees. Most companies don't let their employees work such flexible hours, but there's no reason why they couldn't.

> there's no reason why they couldn't. Yes there is. Workers compensation insurance and other benefits have significant fixed costs per employee. If someone is treated as an employee, they'll be required to work a minimum number of hours to cover those costs.

That seems like a failure of the insurance market more than anything else. It seems like insurance companies are using employee count as a proxy for hours worked... is there really that much of an increase risk for 4 people working 2 hours each vs one person working 8? Maybe, but we should be able to price that risk and allow a company to insure people per hour.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#262

Post by cortesoft » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:16 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #204

momokoko wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really get confused about this. I wonder if it is because I'm a bit older. Plenty of part time employment is like that. For example, many people that work retail or service part time have very flexible schedules. They typically have an availability chart and then if they need a day off last minute, they are often required to find someone else to cover for them. The reality is that the contractor part of this is to…

> When anyone does the math with these gig jobs, they leave out risk. That's the difference. GrubHub is pushing the risk of long term disability, and other things like unemployment due to business slowdown, entirely onto you. As well as other risks they are free from if you are not an employee. It's generally quite the opposite. It's employer regulations hiding the cost of insurance from you. There is nothing stoppin…

> If some double digit percentage of the people on unemployment are committing insurance fraud, you may be better off to just put the money you would have paid in premiums into a brokerage account to rely on if you lose your job, but you no longer have that option

That doesn’t work if you lose your job after a short amount of time.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#263

Post by cheerlessbog » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:19 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #225

cheerlessbog wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be a harsh society indeed that didn't protect against some poor choices. You got injured and your insurance lapsed because you forgot to pay it/did not realize you should have it/didn't have the money/got ripped off/made a bad decision/the check was lost in the mail? Starve and die? I've traveled in countries that can be like that and its not a happy place to live. Medieval you might say.

The point you're making is that "starving" is an exaggeration. Which is true -- we have many charities and need-based assistance programs that have nothing to do with employers or insurance, so people don't typically starve in the US and the worst case from not having insurance is actually less bad than the exaggeration of the other poster.

You have to decide what happens if for some reason voluntary supports are insufficient or unavailable.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#264

Post by usaar333 » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:21 PM UTC

amluto wrote: post #157

zaroth wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not in my experience. Equivalent plans (gold level) were maybe 10% more expensive than my employer plan (Cobra rates).

Also what subsidy are you referring to?

Could you cite some data?

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#265

Post by aiisjustanif » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:23 PM UTC

username444 wrote: post #231

momokoko wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but this all just sounds like free market ideology. We are saying the same thing. You just think someone needs to be at fault and there are good guys vs bad guys. I'm talking to an individual. Please refer the comment I was replying to. I'm not trying to make generalized ideological debates about the gig economy or taxation or any other of the typically religious arguments people shout at each other about…

I think you're missing the point as well, and that may be a generational difference. You value security and loyalty, because that's what your generation was raised with. My generation has no delusions of job security. It does not and will not exist in our future. We value independence and freedom, and the opportunity to pursue our careers. I've done contract work my entire life and wouldn't have it any other way. I d…

Ring ring Your generation calling. You can take your anecdotal statement and your "my generation" and kindly keep it to yourself. Not to mention, "Our generation" is so different thinking about this across countries that this idea is just so odd.

It's not realistic. It's not scalable to all people. It's survivalistic. You will get tired. You will get sick. You might have a family. You will affect others. You will die one day.

Your skill set won't save you. Your adaptability won't save you. Your material possessions won't save you. And your savings might not be able to even save you.

You will live in a community and by extension affect one. It is a fool's game to act as if youth and health are infinite.

We can have work freedom, that's fine. But without a community, a caring society, a caring government, something to back us up. When the work is gone and we are sick, distressed, and at out most helpless we will have nothing but our hopeful savings to help us. And honestly that's naive to think is a enough imo.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#266

Post by manfredo » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:24 PM UTC

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #107

manfredo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 minorit…

So in your deranged conspiracy theory, the New York Times hates Uber because Uber is "a technology company" and therefore competes with the New York Times?

If you think I am accusing the New York Times of engaging in a "deranged conspiracy theory" then you either have not read my comments, or you are deliberately stuffing words into my mouth. A conflict of interest is not a conspiracy theory. If you want to get a response from me, read my comments and make a response based on what I actually wrote.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#267

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:24 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #260

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the kind of thinking that leads to old policies like New York City rounding up all the homeless and putting them on a bus with a mandatory one way ticket to Pennsylvania. The person taking the brunt of the hardship is clearly the person suffering it and not the person with the misfortune of having to observe them, and they also have the best incentive to take steps to prevent that from happening. Forcing choic…

> The person taking the brunt of the hardship is clearly the person suffering Of course that is true. That doesn't mean that the cost imposed on others is zero.

> Of course that is true. That doesn't mean that the cost imposed on others is zero.

It's never zero. But you're making it out to be a significant cost relative to the effect on the person making the decision. Having a way to internalize the cost of others' displeasure at being aware of their possible misfortune wouldn't materially affect their decision one way or the other, because it's so much smaller a factor than the possible misfortune to begin with.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#268

Post by michaelbrave » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:26 PM UTC

momokoko wrote: post #196

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…

I really get confused about this. I wonder if it is because I'm a bit older. Plenty of part time employment is like that. For example, many people that work retail or service part time have very flexible schedules. They typically have an availability chart and then if they need a day off last minute, they are often required to find someone else to cover for them. The reality is that the contractor part of this is to…

I've worked a lot of part time jobs in my life. Very few respect your availability very well, and if it becomes too low they drop you. Most of the time the expectation is that you keep all hours available and they only have you work as is convenient for them not you. I only say this as I think you are a bit more optimistic about that than most who work those jobs would agree with.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#269

Post by ddffre » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

mseidl wrote: post #216

ddffre wrote: post #212

Then what's the point if gig economy? With these laws it won't be profitable for those companies to run their business.

Well Uber has not been profitable for 10 years. So, changing the laws will make it worse. But uber is horrible anyway.

Yeah Uber is quite terrible, they are aiming for the autonomous taxis, that's where they might start being profitable.

But the delivery companies, and the scooter companies that pay people to charge the scooters.

Overall the gig economy is the future, we shouldn't harm it because of greed.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#270

Post by manfredo » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

chewz wrote: post #88

manfredo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You deceptively omit parts of the paragraphs you quote: > Roman slaves could hold property which, despite the fact that it belonged to their masters, they were allowed to use as if it were their own.[58] Skilled or educated slaves were allowed to earn their own money, and might hope to save enough to buy their freedom.[59][60] Such slaves were often freed by the terms of their master's will, or for services rendered.…

> You deceptively omit parts of the paragraphs you quote I do not intend to be deceptive. You have provided overly simplistic vision of slavery and I have provided some counterexamples. > The opportunity to buy one's way to freedom was not the norm, and typically only skilled or educated slaves could aspire to do this. And, as the article mentioned, this could take a very long amount of time and its only something th…

> I do not intend to be deceptive. You have provided overly simplistic vision of slavery and I have provided some counterexamples.

No you have not. You have selectively quoted parts of a Wikipedia article to portray Roman slavery as though slaves were treated well and had reliable paths to freedom. This is absolutely not the case, slaves had little to no protection and were subject to whim of their masters who could harm them without repercussion.

> This seems to me like a vision of an American dream of sorts. Promise of social mobility for a choosen [sic] few members of lower class to become middle class. The problem is that for the last 30 years American dream isn't working anymore. It is rather that middle class poeple are pushed in lower class ranks.

Sure. But how on Earth do you go from, "social mobility isn't as good as I would like" to "gig workers are comparable to slaves"? You're clearly reluctant to defend this statement, probably because you've realized how inane it really is.