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

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#281

Post by supercanuck » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:52 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.

Worker's compensation in Washington state is paid by the hour.

it is a unit cost, not a fixed cost.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#282

Post by pishpash » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

aembleton wrote: post #135

ravenstine wrote: post #128

> The California bill, known as AB5, expands a groundbreaking California Supreme Court decision last year known as Dynamex. The ruling and the bill instruct businesses to use the so-called “ABC test” to figure out whether a worker is an employee. To hire an independent contractor, businesses must prove that the worker (a) is free from the company’s control, (b) is doing work that isn’t central to the company’s busine…

> What does this mean for engineers who are independent contractors in California? The state’s Chamber of Commerce and dozens of industry groups have been lobbying for exemptions, and a long list of professions were excluded from the bill: doctors, dentists, lawyers, architects, insurance agents, accountants, engineers, financial advisers, real estate agents, and hairstylists who rent booths at salons.

That's "law smell" if I ever saw one, already so many carveouts. It means the law/the ABC test is shitty as written, makes no sense, and should be scrapped.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#283

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

momokoko wrote: post #255

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 online. You are in a discussion attached to an article about a piece of proposed legislation. It was a policy discussion from the start. > To an _individual_ it is important for them to realize that they need to account for the risk involved in w…

> This feels like a double standard that in practice just means that you would prefer it if people with contrary opinions to yours would shut up. No. Those opinions on either side of the debate have been done to absolute death online. I can't imagine a single person you could find on this forum that could not list for you the common talking points(for and against) government taxation and regulation. That is what thes…

> No. Those opinions on either side of the debate have been done to absolute death online. I can't imagine a single person you could find on this forum that could not list for you the common talking points(for and against) government taxation and regulation.

It is the misfortune of large online discussion forums that between filter bubbles and user churn, there are always people who actually haven't heard those arguments before. And the longer we avoid rehashing old arguments, the more people around who haven't heard them yet.

So it's never very long before we have the same arguments again and again. Except that they're not the same, because it's different people around each time. You may say the same thing you've said before but they're hearing it for the first time. Then maybe they give you a different response than you've ever heard before, and one or the other person is convinced. At least that's the idea.

What's the alternative? Stop discussing things that are still happening and affecting people, because some different people discussed them last year?

> During that last economic slowdown, the US government extended unemployment benefits for years to millions of US workers. Contractors will not be eligible for any of that assistance in the next economic downturn.

But that's policy. Maybe we should get rid of the distinction entirely, make everyone contractors, but then have taxpayer-funded unemployment compensation for everybody. Maybe we shouldn't have unemployment compensation at all and instead have a UBI.

Even if you're only making decisions as an individual, the possibility of those kinds of policy changes happening by the time it becomes relevant to you may be something you want to consider when making your decision.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#284

Post by TomMarius » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

cc81 wrote: post #123

TomMarius wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many cities of Europe (like Prague, where I live) we call Uber "savior". Using taxis used to be flat out dangerous (crazy drivers with no regards for anything, often drunk or on cocaine or meth) and it was guaranteed you're going to pay at least 3 but usually 5 times more than you should - Uber fixed that and is cheaper than the "correct" (by law) price, it solves safety, I don't have to wait 30+ minutes, ... And…

It is also very nice when you are visiting a country with unreliable taxi services for work. Just skipping the hassle of learning to avoiding the scams, getting the correct price, getting a receipt is annoying and all that is removed with uber.

Yes, I would never use foreign taxi if it wasn't for Uber and friends

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#285

Post by pishpash » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 8:02 PM UTC

whiddershins wrote: post #164

It would be interesting if I could see someone do the math on where all the money (for example) Uber would need to pay as a result of this actually goes. How much of a bill like this is actually the government looking to increase revenue, and how much of it would ultimately benefit pole dancers? Uber drivers are a particularly weird case because there is no way to really stop them from working for Lyft at the same ti…

And what is minimum wage? When are they actually "working", especially if they are working multiple gigs at the same time? Dumb grandstanding lawmakers did not think about these.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#286

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 8:05 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #271

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 tha…

For an individual, yes. For society as a whole, no. If you have one homeless person on the street who is seen by 1000 passers-by, their discomfort on an individual basis has to only be 0.1% as much as the homeless person's in order for the aggregate cost to be the same. This is just the tragedy of the commons in another form.

It's still true even with that kind of multiplier. Would you rather see a homeless person a thousand times, or be a homeless person? It's no comparison.

But you're making a fine argument for charity. If a thousand people don't want to see a person go homeless, it doesn't take much from each of them to make it so they don't have to.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#287

Post by pishpash » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 8:06 PM UTC

whiddershins wrote: post #175

entropea wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

“I don’t use them unless it is a non-medical emergency.” I think the drivers would like it if you used it more, not less, because then they would make more money.

"I leave a large tip only in a non-medical emergency." lol

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#288

Post by momokoko » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 8:12 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #283

momokoko wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This feels like a double standard that in practice just means that you would prefer it if people with contrary opinions to yours would shut up. No. Those opinions on either side of the debate have been done to absolute death online. I can't imagine a single person you could find on this forum that could not list for you the common talking points(for and against) government taxation and regulation. That is what thes…

> No. Those opinions on either side of the debate have been done to absolute death online. I can't imagine a single person you could find on this forum that could not list for you the common talking points(for and against) government taxation and regulation. It is the misfortune of large online discussion forums that between filter bubbles and user churn, there are always people who actually haven't heard those argum…

> What's the alternative? Stop discussing things that are still happening and affecting people, because some different people discussed them last year?

Discussing government regulation and taxation may have been discussed by every single human being on the planet at this point(joking). It's absolutely worn out. There are likely fewer topics(especially around HN) that are more overused at this point.

If you seriously have something new and different to add, I am all ears. And I would say that is a good time to bring it up again. But all of the comments I have read in this thread have exactly the same stuff.

One side: People should be free to decide what to do with their money and the government should stay out of the way because people understand their lives better and governments can be corrupt.

Other side: Governments should impose restrictions and fees as society as a whole will be effected by certain actions of individuals and governments have a responsibility to look out for the people's best interest.

It's been done to absolute death dude. Its the same points, over and over and over and over again. We all have heard all of this 10,000 times.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#289

Post by lisper » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 8:13 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #286

lisper wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For an individual, yes. For society as a whole, no. If you have one homeless person on the street who is seen by 1000 passers-by, their discomfort on an individual basis has to only be 0.1% as much as the homeless person's in order for the aggregate cost to be the same. This is just the tragedy of the commons in another form.

It's still true even with that kind of multiplier. Would you rather see a homeless person a thousand times, or be a homeless person? It's no comparison. But you're making a fine argument for charity. If a thousand people don't want to see a person go homeless, it doesn't take much from each of them to make it so they don't have to.

That's the wrong analogy. The correct one is: would you rather be one poor person living amongst 1000 wealthy people, or one rich person living amongst 1000 poor ones?

And if 1000 is not a big enough number to make you think twice, then make it 10,000. Or 100,000. (The number of homeless in the U.S. is considerably larger than that BTW.)

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#290

Post by lightedman » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 8:16 PM UTC

momokoko wrote: post #237

username444 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No. The comment was off topic. I was replying to an individual. And then someone decided to add a reply to my comment with typical internet free market talking points. I was not discussing these debated to death boring religious debates about government and taxation. I was talking to an individual. Please refer to the comment I was originally replying to for context. For an individual, the loss of worker compensation…

Maybe rehashing those points often enough will get your lazy ass inspired to get up and actually do something about it. Or you can continue to be lazy and disingenuous, your choice, after all.