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

California is cracking down on the gig economy

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 330 posts

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#301

Post by lozenge »

didibus wrote: post #209
ac29 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Firing some of their drivers, not all. And making it harder for someone to become a driver. Like say someone wants to drive 2 days a month, they won't be able too anymore. Uber will probably pick only the serious drivers willing to do it full time, fire all the others, and we have ourself a taxi industry again.

Although Uber touts their casual drivers, I'm sure that a huge % of the rides are actually served by very serious drivers working roughly full time.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#302

Post by pishpash »

supercanuck wrote: post #281
Zak wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

And what is a unit of work? Is it the CPU time of the app? Good luck defining it.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#303

Post by AnthonyMouse »

lisper wrote: post #289
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

> 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.)

You're comparing the entire US homeless population to one person. The actual ratio is less than one in five hundred.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#304

Post by cardiffspaceman »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #219
CryptoPunk wrote: post #80

The people I see working gig economy jobs seem to come from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, ranging from people with new Teslas to those who look like they are on the margins of society. With respect to the latter, these are people who I don't see in any other occupation. I assume the reason they work these jobs is that they cannot get traditional jobs which generally have higher barriers-to-entry due to higher gu…

I've never been picked up by a Tesla when requesting Uber or Lyft rides.

It might happen if you change your preferences in the app, but then you'd be paying a higher fare. I usually use Uber for "occasions" and I wouldn't be surprised by a model X or model S. Usually it's an Escalade or similar.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#305

Post by ilaksh »

cheerlessbog wrote: post #230
ilaksh wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is that supposed to mean, "they aren't thinking far enough ahead"? Are you trying to say that since Uber drivers didn't complain about a lack of benefits or lay out their ten year plan for a stranger that it's evidence that they "can't think ahead" and plan to be an Uber driver forever?

I'm saying they may not have thought through what they will do in the case of sudden debilitating illness. Most of us don't.

Of course they thought it through. They just don't get health insurance. The choice was between having an income with no health insurance and having no income. It's not easy to get work.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#306

Post by momokoko »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #295
momokoko wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. I feel l…

What does any of what you just typed out have to do with the original comment about someone who drives for GrubHub for supplemental income and feel that they prefer to be an independent contractor as opposed to an employee?

You are completely derailing the conversation with common discussions that have been had tens of thousands of times all over the internet. The information exists in excessive quantities for anyone to find.

Wouldn't it be better use of time to go find a discussion specifically about what you are talking about? There is a reason no one is upvoting stories about this stuff here. I imagine most people here don't find it as interesting because we've read this exact stuff so many times.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#307

Post by usaar333 »

amluto wrote: post #298
usaar333 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I’m curious how you fit in to the various risk pools. COBRA appears to be the actual (pre subsidy) cost plus 2%. The subsidy is the fact that employer contributions to health insurance are not taxed. Here’s an estimate that this costs about $280 billion/year. This is more than Elizabeth Warren’s tax! https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-tax-e...

What risk pools? They can generally only consider age and family structure. I'm mid 30s, married with a kid.

I'm not following why this is a subsidy per se. I can deduct health insurance premiums from my self employment after all.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#308

Post by nmstoker »

johnnycab wrote: post #163
nmstoker wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like this says more about the status of the law and behaviour in Prague than it does about the apparent merits of Uber style services. In London we used to have a good taxi system that was well run with trustworthy drivers in "Black cabs", but with the undercutting of Uber they are more likely to try underhand tactics.

>In London we used to have a good taxi system that was well run with trustworthy drivers in "Black cabs" It is hard to deduce from your comment, which period of time you are describing ─ as black cabbies haven't been very popular or trustworthy for a very long time[1]. Also, there was a very similar campaign of resistance to 'mini-cabs' decades ago, as the one conducted against Uber et al. at present, by the 'Black c…

It's not a precise timeframe nor a perfect correlation, but since Uber has been undercutting them there's been a trend to worse behaviour by cabs, with poor navigation and dishonesty around payments (keeping the meter running, disabling the regulation card payment devices etc).

I take your general point, although I'm not convinced the Warboys case is a reason to dislike Black cabs anymore than Harold Shipman is reason to dislike doctors!

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#309

Post by zaroth »

amluto wrote: post #298
usaar333 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I’m curious how you fit in to the various risk pools. COBRA appears to be the actual (pre subsidy) cost plus 2%. The subsidy is the fact that employer contributions to health insurance are not taxed. Here’s an estimate that this costs about $280 billion/year. This is more than Elizabeth Warren’s tax! https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-tax-e...

Most people don’t realize how expensive their employer health plan is because they don’t even know the amount of their employer’s contribution.

If they ever lose/leave their job and try to get COBRA the sticker shock is intense. At that point it’s almost always better to get a Marketplace plan if you can, because the subsidized price will be much lower, if not even the unsubsidized price.

The exclusion from income of health insurance premium payments is the largest tax break on the books;

“According to a Joint Committee on Taxation analysis for 2007, the average savings for tax filers with incomes less than $30,000 was about $1,650 compared to about $4,580 for those with incomes over $200,000.” [2]

But I don’t agree that it should be eliminated. By comparison, ACA subsidies are about $6,300 per person on average. [1]

If you look at the exclusion in isolation it looks regressive. If you plot it alongside the ACA subsidies, in fact it’s not, it acts to smooth out the hyper-progressive ACA subsidy drop off.

[1] - https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-06/51298-2018-05-...

[2] - https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/14/the-worst-t...

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#310

Post by lisper »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #303
lisper wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

> 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.) You're comparing the entire US homeless population to one person. The actual ratio is less than one in five hundred.

I guess you're right. Six million homeless people is nothing to worry about. Lost in the noise. What was I thinking?
Post reply on HN