California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws • Hacker News Board

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#71

Post by JoeAltmaier » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:02 PM UTC

moate wrote: post #63

49531 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a society, should we really tolerate businesses who can only exist via exploitation?

This is the point that really needs to be driven home. "But what about all the jobs that will close when we make better labor standards" should always be met with "these companies shouldn't exist in that form". Taken to an extreme: Were abolitionists more concerned with freeing slaves from the labor abuses they were living under, or the long term prospects of the plantations and their business models? Sometimes the b…

Wow, jumping right to slavery. Next, Nazis?

My mother-in-law lived thru the invention of the 'minimum wage' in the US. She saw the damage it did, the thousands out of work because their job wasn't worth minimum pay. The temporary jobs disappearing, part-time workers fired. And full-time workers working double-jobs to do the work of the missing low-paid workers.

It was indeed a hard time. Better times came after the minimum wage. But to cavalierly dismiss jobs with "these companies shouldn't exist" sounds a lot like "let them eat cake".

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#72

Post by barry-cotter » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:04 PM UTC

me_me_me wrote: post #16

neilwilson wrote: post #8

The way to reshape labour laws is to offer an alternative job defining the socially minimum acceptable job in a local area. Business then has to compete with that to attract labour. No other labour law required. Simple competition sorts it out. That is also has the advantage of being a geographically targeted federal automatic stabiliser that operates far more effectively than interest rate targeting via bank lending…

>>Business then has to compete with that to attract labour. Except the fact that they don't, when speaking about low end jobs/seasonal occupations. >>Simple competition sorts it out. Except the fact that businesses eroded work stability and security to shift power dynamic of employer employee massively in employer favor (again largely in case of low end jobs, though (was it) H1-B abuse exploits white collar workers).…

Revisiting the Global Decline of the (Non-Housing) Labor Share

We identify two undocumented measurement challenges affecting corporate sector labor shares outside the United States: the inclusion of dwellings and the inclusion of self-employed workers in the corresponding sectoral accounts. Both issues have become more important over time, biasing corporate labor shares downward. We propose two methods to correct for these challenges and obtain `true’ non-housing labor share series. Contrary to common wisdom, the corrected series exhibit stable labor shares across all major economies, except the US, where the corrected labor share declines by 6 percentage points since 1980.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RMTqNNJFUSxeMx9UsObAgqUeb3H...

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#73

Post by ApolloFortyNine » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:11 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #69

tomschlick wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still haven't been able to get a straight answer out of pro-UBI people on what you do when a mother of 4, who was previously receiving food/housing assistance for her children blows all the cash. Do we tell them tough? Or do we slowly institute more and more programs to only end up where we are again? Keep in mind that Yang is proposing UBI that would replace all other social / welfare programs.

Why would "we" do anything? Why do opponents of UBI and welfare assume that people being able to misuse the money somehow constitutes an argument against those programs? Why is this theoretical mother of 4 "blowing all the cash" under UBI, but not blowing her food stamps or benefits? Irresponsible people can be irresponsible under any circumstance, but I don't see anyone arguing against capitalism because poor people…

>I don't see anyone arguing against capitalism because poor people could spend their paychecks on junk food, booze and lottery tickets.

This is a horrible example to use when all three are either a topic of debate to be banned, or have been banned in the past.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#74

Post by tomschlick » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:12 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #69

tomschlick wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still haven't been able to get a straight answer out of pro-UBI people on what you do when a mother of 4, who was previously receiving food/housing assistance for her children blows all the cash. Do we tell them tough? Or do we slowly institute more and more programs to only end up where we are again? Keep in mind that Yang is proposing UBI that would replace all other social / welfare programs.

Why would "we" do anything? Why do opponents of UBI and welfare assume that people being able to misuse the money somehow constitutes an argument against those programs? Why is this theoretical mother of 4 "blowing all the cash" under UBI, but not blowing her food stamps or benefits? Irresponsible people can be irresponsible under any circumstance, but I don't see anyone arguing against capitalism because poor people…

Forcing personal responsibility would be great; but I don't see that ever happening in this political climate.

I foresee that situation playing out and then we will have legislators grandstanding that not doing something is "taking food out of children's mouths" or something similar. Over time that will lead to more and more programs being reinstated as no legislator will want to be seen not helping children/women/etc and then we are back to where we started, but with the overhead of UBI causing more pain.

> It's only people under welfare who seem to need a paternalistic moral guardian.

Generally when people ask for a handout from society, society wants to make sure that handout is being used for the things they said it would be used for. There is nothing wrong with that IMO.

If you want a blank check that's fine, but you have to be willing to let people starve as a consequence to their actions, with 0 exceptions (from the government) to make it work. Otherwise it will be gamed just like every other program we currently have.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#75

Post by mrfusion » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:17 PM UTC

tomschlick wrote: post #67

mrfusion wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just do a UBI instead of giving people busy work.

I still haven't been able to get a straight answer out of pro-UBI people on what you do when a mother of 4, who was previously receiving food/housing assistance for her children blows all the cash. Do we tell them tough? Or do we slowly institute more and more programs to only end up where we are again? Keep in mind that Yang is proposing UBI that would replace all other social / welfare programs.

I feel like this is a bit of a straw man argument.

We already have laws and safeguards for irresponsible parents.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#76

Post by throwaway_law » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:17 PM UTC

neilwilson wrote: post #8

The way to reshape labour laws is to offer an alternative job defining the socially minimum acceptable job in a local area. Business then has to compete with that to attract labour. No other labour law required. Simple competition sorts it out. That is also has the advantage of being a geographically targeted federal automatic stabiliser that operates far more effectively than interest rate targeting via bank lending…

>No other labour law required. Simple competition sorts it out.

We have seen how no labor laws combined with competition works, we get: 80 hour work weeks with no over time, no benefits, dangerous work conditions, and even exploitative child labor.

There is legitimate use of contractors in lieu of employees, but UBER and gig economy as a whole are very hiring what are clearly employees, under the law, as contractors in order to skirt regulations.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#77

Post by whenanother » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:18 PM UTC

snarf21 wrote: post #32

C1sc0cat wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No what you really need is federal binding minimum standards for Annual leave (4 weeks ) and Sick pay and minimum wage. Repeal all the right to work laws and massively reduce the ability of employers to use non compeats (us CA as a model here I think)

This is all true, but you also need to remove the ability for healthcare to be based on one employer. You should be able to get your own coverage and contribute to an HSA no matter what job you do. That mobility will make a huge difference

same with pension. either social security should absorb all pension programs or a separate government entity is created. or have a workers’ union control it all.

too many companies are being raided or declared “bankruptcy” to hide the dumping of pension obligations.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#78

Post by mrfusion » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

tomschlick wrote: post #74

krapp wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would "we" do anything? Why do opponents of UBI and welfare assume that people being able to misuse the money somehow constitutes an argument against those programs? Why is this theoretical mother of 4 "blowing all the cash" under UBI, but not blowing her food stamps or benefits? Irresponsible people can be irresponsible under any circumstance, but I don't see anyone arguing against capitalism because poor people…

Forcing personal responsibility would be great; but I don't see that ever happening in this political climate. I foresee that situation playing out and then we will have legislators grandstanding that not doing something is "taking food out of children's mouths" or something similar. Over time that will lead to more and more programs being reinstated as no legislator will want to be seen not helping children/women/et…

It’s a common sentiment to want to control how poor people spend their money. But studies have shown that cash is often best and we can maximize welfare by letting people choose how to spend their money.

Here’s some introductory reading. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article...

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#79

Post by BuckRogers » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:24 PM UTC

C1sc0cat wrote: post #13

neilwilson wrote: post #8

The way to reshape labour laws is to offer an alternative job defining the socially minimum acceptable job in a local area. Business then has to compete with that to attract labour. No other labour law required. Simple competition sorts it out. That is also has the advantage of being a geographically targeted federal automatic stabiliser that operates far more effectively than interest rate targeting via bank lending…

No what you really need is federal binding minimum standards for Annual leave (4 weeks ) and Sick pay and minimum wage. Repeal all the right to work laws and massively reduce the ability of employers to use non compeats (us CA as a model here I think)

Closer, and that would help but not change the fundamental problem of who controls the means of production. I think you'll lose in the end, as we see today. You could just remove the tension of the employer-employee imbalance altogether.

I'd advocate for public funding of loans for worker owned co-ops. 1 employee/owner = 1 share = 1 vote. Vote on wages, vote on bosses, run it like a democracy. Once people have democracy in their workplace, they'll finally demand it out of our government. Businesses will still fail, some will still survive, but ultimately the proven business models (most businesses) should have this more equitable distribution of profits. There's no reason the 7-Eleven should be hauling profits back to Japan, the employees can own and operate local variants and keep the money in the community.

This is how I personally plan on making the world a better place whether I'm a millionaire or have nothing. Organizing and start at least 1 worker-owned cooperative before I die. It's something most of us are capable of doing that truly improves the world where it counts (happiness which comes from a sense of control over your own destiny, and money which the latter equals food and housing).

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#80

Post by mrfredward » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:25 PM UTC

heymijo wrote: post #45

maehwasu wrote: post #2

So "feudalism" = "things I think are bad?" The gig economy has many, many downsides, but those downsides don't share much at all in common with feudalism, even by analogy. If we let all words deteriorate to mean simply "good" or "bad" (with gradations of good or badness), we're barely communicating.

> Feudalism: the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection. Large power imbalance between the workers and those with means? C…

>The power imbalance in feudalism and the gig economy is clear.

I'd say capitalism, communism, socialism, mercantilism, and every economic system in history, when done at scale, usually end up with some people having far more power than others. If a power imbalance is as deep as the comparison goes, school is feudalism, dating with a significant age gap is feudalism, traffic stops are feudalism...everything is feudalism.