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

81–90 of 330 posts

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#81

Post by lozenge »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #75
manfredo wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'…

>>I'm going to go out on a limb and say that these individuals are more qualified to make their own life choices than people on the internet who know nothing about their lives. At the risk of going down the partisan rabbit hole, this reminds me of the video segment where Ami Horowitz questioned people of liberal political persuasions on the ability of black voters to meet photo ID requirements, and then asked black A…

He should have asked some Republican strategists, many are on record saying their voter ID laws are meant to suppress the black vote.

He also isn't asking the black voters "the same questions" at all.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#82

Post by cycomanic »

brianchu wrote: post #31

I'm coming to the view that gig workers are neither employees nor independent contractors. Employees don't get to unilaterally set their own hours, and contractors don't get prices unilaterally dictated to them or barred from their profession if their rating falls too low. All this regulatory squabbling is arguing over whether a square peg fits a round hole or fits a triangular hole. We need a third classification fo…

Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor. Moreover, while there might be an immediate benefit to consumers, as the article notes it might as well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone. The only people who are really benefiting are the large shareholders.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#83

Post by lozenge »

chewz wrote: post #36
manfredo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously comparing gig workers to slavery? This is just beyond absurd, and it makes me dubious as to whether you're participating in this conversation in good faith. On the off chance that you're not trolling, contractors - unlike slaves - have the freedom to choose what work they'll do. Drivers for Uber often also drive for Lyft when it pays better. There's nothing stopping them leaving if their opinion is…

Slaves and serf were historically also free to go if they have paid off their masters. You could also argue thst they had received some protection and benefits. "Freedom" of choice is relative term here.

Talking about the historical situation of slaves while referring only to ancient Rome is incredibly contrived considering slavery was alive and well not that long ago.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#84

Post by m0zg »

johnchristopher wrote: post #43
brianchu wrote: post #31

I'm coming to the view that gig workers are neither employees nor independent contractors. Employees don't get to unilaterally set their own hours, and contractors don't get prices unilaterally dictated to them or barred from their profession if their rating falls too low. All this regulatory squabbling is arguing over whether a square peg fits a round hole or fits a triangular hole. We need a third classification fo…

> We need a third classification for gig workers that affords them some protections while preserving the economic viability of ridesharing companies. Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers. How about the ridesharing companies should provide - by law - for food and shelter (paid for with a pay cut from the gigs) until the employee/contr…

They'll do that right as soon as you are required, by law, to use their services no matter the price.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#85

Post by chungleong »

kartan wrote: post #49
brianchu wrote: post #31

I'm coming to the view that gig workers are neither employees nor independent contractors. Employees don't get to unilaterally set their own hours, and contractors don't get prices unilaterally dictated to them or barred from their profession if their rating falls too low. All this regulatory squabbling is arguing over whether a square peg fits a round hole or fits a triangular hole. We need a third classification fo…

> Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers. I am all for ridesharing. But Uber and Lyft, as an example, has nothing to do with that concept. It is not like your Uber driver was coincidentally going to the exact place that you were going. Ridesharing, as understood before the gig economy, was someone in the company realizing that there we…

A service like BlaBlaCar (in Europe) is what can legitimately be called ride-sharing. Uber is fleet of pirate taxis.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#86

Post by inferiorhuman »

manfredo wrote: post #42
inferiorhuman wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if you work less than that then the employee does not generate enough revenue to pay for the overhead cost of benefits. That's not how things work at a low wage job. Beyond a threshold (around 30 hours) employers are hit with extra mandates (e.g. health insurance). If that's the case with Uber drivers then they don't get benefits either. And on top of that, the company will probably have to cap drivers' hours…

The whole idea of "unemployment insurance" for an Uber driver is not compatible with their business model. This isn't a factory where workers come in at 9 and leave at 5 and you either have a job or you don't. Uber drivers set their own hours. What would unemployment insurance for an Uber or Lyft driver look like? If you get less than X rides per hour you get unemployment insurance? Regardless, let me make this simpl…

Uber also has overhead costs for each driver. Currently this is minimal, probably just the cost of operating the web service. Let's say $X is 20, $Y is 15, and each driver has a $50 a week overhead cost. So Uber drivers have to drive for 10 hours a week to make even.

No, you're talking about Uber breaking even — not the drivers. If you're worried about the drivers, how much does their individual health insurance cost versus a group plan for a large company like Uber? How about the rates they'd get with an IRA versus a 401k that only a W2 employee is eligible for? The employee's share of the costs go down when they are classified as an employee and not an individual contractor.

You're conflating the costs of driving for Uber (most of which Uber has shifted to their pseudo-employees) with the costs to run Uber. Uber itself loses money on every ride, it's entirely subsidized with VC money. That's why their stated goal is to develop autonomous vehicles and dump the drivers ASAP.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#87

Post by pgeorgi »

cinquemb wrote: post #45
pgeorgi wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://data.oecd.org/chart/5A9X is the harmonized unemployment rate for Germany and the USA, which they define as: "Harmonised unemployment rates define the unemployed as people of working age who are without work, are available for work, and have taken specific steps to find work. The uniform application of this definition results in estimates of unemployment rates that are more internationally comparable than esti…

I'm just reporting what the German statistical office reports ( https://m.investing.com/economic-calendar/german-unemploymen... ). Besides, harmonized or not, doesn't explain the economic weakness in Germany over the past decade compared to the US.

> I'm just reporting what the German statistical office reports

... which is meaningless when you compare it to the official US statistics (as you did) because they count things differently. The harmonization helps make the numbers comparable in the first place.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#88

Post by chewz »

manfredo wrote: post #76
chewz wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Slaves also had next to no protection. One should not base their notion of slavery on popular culture like Game of Thrones or Gladiator but on reading historic books. Or Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome > Although in general freed slaves could become citizens, with the right to vote if they were male > Roman slaves could hold property which, despite the fact that it belonged to their…

You deceptively omit parts of the paragraphs you quote: > Roman slaves could hold property which, despite the fact that it belonged to their masters, they were allowed to use as if it were their own.[58] Skilled or educated slaves were allowed to earn their own money, and might hope to save enough to buy their freedom.[59][60] Such slaves were often freed by the terms of their master's will, or for services rendered.…

> You deceptively omit parts of the paragraphs you quote

I do not intend to be deceptive. You have provided overly simplistic vision of slavery and I have provided some counterexamples.

> The opportunity to buy one's way to freedom was not the norm, and typically only skilled or educated slaves could aspire to do this. And, as the article mentioned, this could take a very long amount of time and its only something that skilled or educated slaves might aspire to achieve.

This seems to me like a vision of an American dream of sorts. Promise of social mobility for a choosen few members of lower class to become middle class.

The problem is that for the last 30 years American dream isn't working anymore. It is rather that middle class poeple are pushed in lower class ranks.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#89

Post by cycomanic »

manfredo wrote: post #42
inferiorhuman wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if you work less than that then the employee does not generate enough revenue to pay for the overhead cost of benefits. That's not how things work at a low wage job. Beyond a threshold (around 30 hours) employers are hit with extra mandates (e.g. health insurance). If that's the case with Uber drivers then they don't get benefits either. And on top of that, the company will probably have to cap drivers' hours…

The whole idea of "unemployment insurance" for an Uber driver is not compatible with their business model. This isn't a factory where workers come in at 9 and leave at 5 and you either have a job or you don't. Uber drivers set their own hours. What would unemployment insurance for an Uber or Lyft driver look like? If you get less than X rides per hour you get unemployment insurance? Regardless, let me make this simpl…

Why should I as a taxpayer (mind you I am not American, argument still holds though) subsidise ubers business practices? Because that is exactly what you are arguing for. The article clearly states, that uber is extwrnalising costs, which results in significant losses for the state. Somebody will have to pick up the tap, and your argument seems to be that regular taxpayers should do it.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#90

Post by TomMarius »

chungleong wrote: post #85
kartan wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers. I am all for ridesharing. But Uber and Lyft, as an example, has nothing to do with that concept. It is not like your Uber driver was coincidentally going to the exact place that you were going. Ridesharing, as understood before the gig economy, was someone in the company realizing that there we…

A service like BlaBlaCar (in Europe) is what can legitimately be called ride-sharing. Uber is fleet of pirate taxis.

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 the drivers are satisfied. I made a point to ask each one and they really like it, much more than any traditional work and MUCH more than being an "official" taxi.

Post reply on HN