Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 401 posts

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#31

Post by pixelbash »

sokoloff wrote: post #9
satya71 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried finding work when your education is not in demand? Please don’t minimize other’s lived experience.

That's a fair point, but if your education is not in demand, I don't see a reason to think that driving a car, something that 80+% of American adults are capable of doing, should provide a full household income on 40 hours per week of effort. That initial condition (your education is not in demand) definitely represents a tough position, but it's not clear that it's ride-sharing's "fault" in any way. Instead, it seem…

Sorry, are you saying that working a 40 hour week shouldn't earn a living wage if it's a non-specialised skill?

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#32

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

piokoch wrote: post #6
jimmar wrote: post #2

Maybe I'm too libertarian-leaning, but doesn't the author of the article have the option of NOT driving for Uber? If California is truly one of the wealthiest economies, the author should be able to find a different line of work.

That's a valid point. The question is why all other Uber/Lyft drivers are not changing jobs for something fancier if that is so easy.

Well, maybe it's because the flexibility of work is important to those people, and they don't want a full-time job.

Nearly 75% of all Uber drivers in CA drive <25 hours per week. More than 40% of all trips in CA are driven by those drivers.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#33

Post by Oliphaunts »

piokoch wrote: post #6
jimmar wrote: post #2

Maybe I'm too libertarian-leaning, but doesn't the author of the article have the option of NOT driving for Uber? If California is truly one of the wealthiest economies, the author should be able to find a different line of work.

That's a valid point. The question is why all other Uber/Lyft drivers are not changing jobs for something fancier if that is so easy.

Some plausible reasons the drivers don't change jobs are (1) that RideCos offer the drivers paying work they prefer to their other realistic options, and (2) relatedly, that RideCos are more willing than other companies to offer the drivers work. Perhaps the drivers would have more good options if employment in other professions were not so heavily regulated. But (absent significant price controls) it seems like this is the sort of profession we should expect to attract marginal, low-skilled employees whose lives may inspire some sympathy, through no particular fault of the RideCos.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#34

Post by mkl »

smt88 wrote: post #11
GavinMcG wrote: post #5

Ellipsis is accomplished with an ellipsis, not a dash. Use ... next time.

This is the worst kind of pedantic because it is both pedantic and wrong[1]. You could argue against the dramatic period after the word "law," but why would you? We all understand her meaning and the dashes emphasize her point without bold or italic letters. 1. https://writingessentialsbyellen.com/when-to-use-the-ellipsi...

> We all understand her meaning and the dashes emphasize her point without bold or italic letters.

I didn't understand the meaning until I clicked through to the article. In fact, trying to understand the weird punctuation is the only reason I took any interest in this story. I don't think dashes can work as emphasis for that part of a sentence.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#35

Post by googthrowaway42 »

maxehmookau wrote: post #30
googthrowaway42 wrote: post #4

"In California, one of the world’s wealthiest economies, I should be able to afford rent and pay my bills as a driver. I shouldn’t be forced to scour for public bathrooms or work 70-hour weeks to do this job. But that’s what these companies have forced upon us." "Uber may have bought itself a law, but it has not bought itself reprieve. All labor has dignity, and driving for Uber or Lyft should be no different." Cherr…

I'm detecting quite a lot of judgement in your comment. You've attacked the person rather than the argument. Do you disagree that a job should mean that someone is able to afford rent and pay your bills? Because that sounds entirely reasonable to me.

> I'm detecting quite a lot of judgement in your comment.

Yes you have correctly detected that.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#36

Post by mfDjB »

Anecdotally when I talk to Uber drivers about how they feel about laws like this, they are staunchly against it, in fact I haven't found one that is for it (sample size of maybe 20 or so). Does anyone have any data on whether these drivers actually want AB5 in effect? All I see from the pro side are cherry-picked examples.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#37

Post by airza »

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #4

"In California, one of the world’s wealthiest economies, I should be able to afford rent and pay my bills as a driver. I shouldn’t be forced to scour for public bathrooms or work 70-hour weeks to do this job. But that’s what these companies have forced upon us." "Uber may have bought itself a law, but it has not bought itself reprieve. All labor has dignity, and driving for Uber or Lyft should be no different." Cherr…

Maybe she has such a profound ideological bent because she has to persist in the absolutely mangled society that we've created :)

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#38

Post by _dark_matter_ »

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #4

"In California, one of the world’s wealthiest economies, I should be able to afford rent and pay my bills as a driver. I shouldn’t be forced to scour for public bathrooms or work 70-hour weeks to do this job. But that’s what these companies have forced upon us." "Uber may have bought itself a law, but it has not bought itself reprieve. All labor has dignity, and driving for Uber or Lyft should be no different." Cherr…

Sorry, can you explain? Why do you think that makes sense? If you're going to say "because this is the kind of thing a social justice minister would write", consider that:

1. You may have cause and effect wrong. The conditions this person lived through, especially as a gig worker, may have moved them to be a social justice minister; not the other way around.

2. You are not judging the article from the quality of the writing or the persuasiveness of the arguments, but instead by the background of the writer. Certainly it's important to note that this article is written from the experience of a _gig worker_, but IMO that only adds to the persuasiveness.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#39

Post by maxehmookau »

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #35
maxehmookau wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm detecting quite a lot of judgement in your comment. You've attacked the person rather than the argument. Do you disagree that a job should mean that someone is able to afford rent and pay your bills? Because that sounds entirely reasonable to me.

> I'm detecting quite a lot of judgement in your comment. Yes you have correctly detected that.

So because of your bias against a particular... job title? That discounts her entire argument?

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#40

Post by tor_anon_1 »

treeman79 wrote: post #18

Got injured awhile back. Disability decided to play hardball. Gig jobs are all that kept family off the street while I recovered. Starting and stopping anytime as my body could tolerate. Or renting out rooms on Airbnb. Sometimes it took me 4 hours to change sheets and tidy up, but it made the difference. Not saying their good companies. But gigs was crazy valuable to me.

"thank God for these benevolent companies that lobby against universal healthcare and labor unions, so they can then be there for us when we don't have healthcare or union protection"

Put another way:

"Thank God purdue pharma is now manufacturing the cure[1] for the opioid epidemic that purdue pharma started"

1. https://apnews.com/article/6751b84767e8a1ebbaea6cb628ac2a11

Post reply on HN