Live data from Hacker News

California is cracking down on the gig economy

vox.com

321–330 of 330 posts

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#321
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And gig labor laws could prevent people from sacrificing their healthcare and other benefits for immediate economic gain. Uber's, cause the drivers aren't gaining much, apparently.

> And gig labor laws could prevent people from sacrificing their healthcare and other benefits for immediate economic gain. You make the unqualified assumption that these people had healthcare and benefits before driving for Uber. And regardless, unlike child labor these are adults that are making these decisions for themselves. They looked at their opportunities and decided that driving for Uber or Lyft was best. I'…

Well, the US is a primitive country for worker's rights, so I might be wrong when I say that if they had a job they would have had benefits. And by benefits I don't mean free gym memberships, I mean guaranteed vacation days, protection from being fired at anybody's whim, etc.

Regardless, other countries have these worker protections and benefits for all jobs and Uber drivers don't have them. So Uber is a worse employer than most.

And still, people chose them you would say. Well, the problem with that is that there will always be people desperate enough, or naive enough or greedy enough to jump on opportunities. At the beginning, Uber was paying its drivers more and there were also fewer drivers.

Currently it's a predatory company. And society shouldn't tolerate such companies.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#322

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…

> My generation has no delusions of job security.

It is a temporary thing that happens to any generation at a certain age range.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 reaso…

I cited the case as an illustration, albeit an extreme one, that black cabbies operate under a code of silence and not explicitly as a reason to dislike them. They have always ran a similar campaign of black cabs are safe thus trustworthy, in order to justify the skewed figures reported to TfL[1].

The reasons to dislike them would be the 3x charges compared to their counterparts, knuckle-dragging attitude towards implementing technology and under-handed tactics e.g. insisting on only accepting cash, then never having change from high-denomination notes at the end of your journey, so you are forced to leave it as a hefty tip, ignoring disabled riders, surge pricing after late night public transport has stopped; only accepting rides if they end up in the general direction of their residence at the end of the shift - despite this practice being against their rules, always taking a longer route to rinse the rider and many more..

[1] https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-are-black-...

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#324
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.

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.

>>Maybe, but we should be able to price that risk and allow a company to insure people per hour.

In many states regulations prevent customizing employee insurance packages to that extent. There are cookie cutter obligations that employers have to meet regardless of the hours an employee works.

Gig economy jobs get around the inefficiencies imposed by labor regulations.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#325

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…

These are not ideological talking points. They are basic economics.

Believing that markets work according to principles like the law of supply and demand is as ideological as believing that vaccines reduce population wide mortality.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#326

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…

"You value security and loyalty, because that's what your generation was raised with."

How could you possibly know that much about the person you're responding to? He only state he's "older", but didn't say which country, city, religion etc. Even if he did so, it wouldn't say much.

I know people in their 60s that believe in may things you stated, and others in their 20s who disagree with you about everything you said (and I mean high income young software engineers, not someone in need of state help).

Also, it's just my personal opinion from now on:

Don't reason in such absolute ways, everything is much more complex than "your generation" and "my generation" could possibly convey, and even inside a specific age/region/education/income group, the way people think and act varies wildly (and they are probably all both right and wrong depending on subject).

Don't put so much trust on your adaptability and skillset, you never know how the world will change and how you will react to it. I really hope it will just get better, be you never know. I'm only 39yo and saw quite a few highly skilled people go down because of unexpected physical/mental health issues.

Anyway, please don't take it as me trying to "prove you wrong". Well, as humans we almost always do a little of it, but it seems to em I used to think like you at some point and it brought me quite some pain. Maybe I'm misinterpreting you and am just an idiot, but I felt like writing.

Have a great week!

contract work is just great

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#327
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$/hr is sort of an odd way to measure depreciation that is mostly mileage based. In the US, IRS reimbursement for business driving is 58 cents per mile and that's probably not a bad estimate to start with for vehicle costs. (It probably overstates it if you would own a car anyway and you have a vehicle that's more efficient/cheaper to operate than average, but it's a reasonable stake in the ground.)

The mechanics I lived with were boat & big diesel. Those engines (and aircraft) are maintained on an hourly basis. In fact, your car is too: you change your oil every 3000 miles or 3 months. The idea being that there is an expected speed, and you’ve accumulated (say) 100 operating hours after driving 3000 miles, or in any 3 month period. As such, all these guys computed engine/vehicle life in terms of cost-per-hour.…

> In fact, your car is too: you change your oil every 3000 miles or 3 months.

Most synthetic oil I’ve seen can last 10,000 miles or even more.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

Speak for yourself "dude". I, for one, find these discussions to be valuable. If you don't like them or are fed up with them, then don't partake. Even if you aren't in a position to change your mind, spectators like me are.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#329
post #253

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.

Ideally, yes, but that's not how it works in general.

It's not unusual for some departments (like HR) to operate at a loss, with the costs covered by other parts of the business, or for one product to be a loss leader that guides customers to more profitable products and services.

In any case, the problem of covering those costs doesn't go away by making the employee a contractor, but it pushes the cost off to the worker.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It'd be nice to think the investors are paying for it, but the kind of employers who hire unskilled workers are typically not in high margin industries. This is one of those cases where you're just abstracting things away from the issue at hand to justify your position, which hides nonsense like this because you're talking theoretically rather than concretely. But if we look at the actual companies targeted, no, Gr…

> But if we look at the actual companies targeted, no, GrubHub, Uber, DoorDash et al are NOT low-margin industries. With worldwide services like this where your costs per-unit are basically only server costs, the margins are extremely high because your costs approach zero as users increase. The dominant unit cost by far is paying the drivers, which doesn't go down with scale. Then you get a bunch of other stuff like…

> They notice how much they're paying and being paid, but they lack the information to know how much they would be paying or being paid in the alternative. So they think they're getting "free" insurance when they're really getting insurance instead of a cost of living increase.

When I lived in NYC, I talked to a lot of Uber drivers and cab drivers. Many Uber drivers are cab drivers and have been cab drivers. They're quite capable of making the comparison.

> You're assuming that the problem is caused by which insurance company the employer chooses and not that it is difficult to accurately detect insurance fraud without using invasive methods, so all the insurance companies charge rates that exceed the value of the insurance and the companies only buy it at that price because it's required by law.

No, I'm simply ignoring the possibility you're bringing up, because it's no less a problem for individuals buying their own insurance. This is just a red herring.

> There are two options here. One is that the money comes from somewhere. The other is that it doesn't, the cost of the service now exceeds its value, and you lose your job.

But we already know the answer to that. The cost of the service doesn't exceed its value because people payed for taxis for decades before Uber (and in fact, they paid a lot more than the insurance, since medallions were a humongous additional cost).

> Insurance companies compete aggressively on price for all customers. Historically larger buyers had a slight advantage because they could get a discount to account for the lower per-customer acquisition cost of getting many customers at once, but now that insurance is a thing that you buy from a website after comparing prices on the internet, even that is becoming an increasingly negligible advantage.

Alternative hypothesis: insurance companies compete aggressively on advertising for individual customers, which allows them to overcharge because the average person doesn't have the time to find cheaper alternatives. Larger customers can devote more resources to researching so competition is actually more based on price.

> Meanwhile if you buy it yourself you get to choose the policy that you want rather than whatever your employer stuck you with.

Which seems to be very okay with the drivers.

Post reply on HN