Live data from Hacker News

Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

theguardian.com

91–100 of 113 posts

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There should be absolutely nothing wrong with people deciding that they do not wish to handover any more of their wealth. If your opinion is that the "system" is the culprit and these people are being squashed by bad laws, policies, etc., the proper recourse is not to legally rob others to help those people - the solution is to fix the bad laws and policies that may benefit the rich unfairly. How do we fix bad laws…

"How do we fix bad laws when the wealthy are paying good money for those bad laws?" The wealthy only account for a small percentage of the overall population. It is very easy to change the law if and only if people care enough to do so. But they don't. Because that involves work like protesting, writing to representatives, organizing community events, and maybe recalling mayors of congressional reps with votes of no…

>he wealthy only account for a small percentage of the overall population. It is very easy to change the law if and only if people care enough to do so. But they don't. Because that involves work like protesting, writing to representatives, organizing community events, and maybe recalling mayors of congressional reps with votes of no confidence. They'd rather pretend to be outraged on Twitter, so that they don't have to actually do anything and instead watch Dance Moms or binge watch Netflix.

I like the idea, but that's not how it works. We don't even have mandatory time off for voting, and not all states have mail-in ballots. People in the US work way too much for the average person to set aside time to understand complex issues. For those with an interest, sure, they'll set aside the time. But, the blue-collar worker from the Rust Belt can be easily tricked into thinking freeloaders, immigrants, and colored people are the reason they're poor, and that's a very basic, obvious issue. Combine that with the attack on the educational system (some Southern states have/are trying to remove Slavery from the Civil War portions of textbooks), and you have America - an ignorant, confused, disinterested public. The time spent on mindless activities (imo) indicates a level of tiredness. It's sad, and people should do better, but when we know they won't under these conditions, it's time to look at the conditions.

>I’ll let the researchers speak for themselves: “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

>Main Street alone does not matter. Nor do interest groups that purport to support the general welfare. The data show that politicians cater to rich people and groups organized to advance their own narrow interests. Worse still, those interest groups tend to lobby for positions that are “negatively related to the preferences of average citizens.”

>Again, I quote: “In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.”

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/charles-wheelan/2014/04...

>The problem isn't just the wealthy - it's all of us in our refusal to demand the law be enforced, as-written, without exceptions given based on wealth or size of the company/organization. Why was Wells Fargo, for example, allowed to just pay a fine for millions of fake accounts that were created which ripped people off? Those are clear cut felonies.

I agree, but how many politicians do you think Wells Fargo owns? The average person doesn't matter to those politicians. The money and perks do. Also, again, people don't have the time/energy to hold these people accountable. Manipulation by the media also contributes to this - outrage fatigue, etc..

>And that's just one outrageous scam upon the people that comes to mind.

There are too many to keep track of. I appreciate the well-thought response. I think you're basically right in theory, but, in practice, I think you're expecting too much of the average person.

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There should be absolutely nothing wrong with people deciding that they do not wish to handover any more of their wealth. If your opinion is that the "system" is the culprit and these people are being squashed by bad laws, policies, etc., the proper recourse is not to legally rob others to help those people - the solution is to fix the bad laws and policies that may benefit the rich unfairly. How do we fix bad laws…

> Every piece of the pie picked up by the 0.1 percent, in relative terms, had to come from the people below. Economics is not a zero-sum game.

[deleted]

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#93
>Such a system encourages riders to travel at dangerous speeds: once, 25-year-old Mohaan came off his motorbike and badly injured his knee cap, but continued to his destination for fear that terminating the job would get him the sack.

So this is basically Snow Crash.

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I definitely don't mean that. The vast majority of producers (myself included, and most likely you as well) create value for society. I know that I don't disingenuously accumulate wealth or exploit anyone. But I am a producer. This is the case for most people. There's only a small minority of very wealthy people who exploit the labor of others. And as I mentioned in my prior comment, the appropriate solution is t…

As a first-world software developer, I definitely do disingenuously accumulate wealth as a side effect of all sorts of world-wide labor exploits, particularly if I work at a large US corp with far-reaching political influence. For example, the value of that equity bonus I think I "earned" might only have been as high as it was because my company found some loophole to avoid taxes that it sincerely should have been pa…

Thanks for posting this.

I wish more people had the humility to admit this.

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a first-world software developer, I definitely do disingenuously accumulate wealth as a side effect of all sorts of world-wide labor exploits, particularly if I work at a large US corp with far-reaching political influence. For example, the value of that equity bonus I think I "earned" might only have been as high as it was because my company found some loophole to avoid taxes that it sincerely should have been pa…

Luck is a factor, but usually a small one. I certainly do not agree that it's a major component. But let's say for the sake of discussion, that it is. Just because life isn't fair doesn't mean someone else should be able to vote themselves money from your wallet or command a portion of your labor.

>because life isn't fair doesn't mean someone else should be able to vote themselves money from your wallet

Except it happens all the time by unelected leaders of major corporations.

For example, when there is no alternative to say Comcast in your neighbourhood and they can charge whatever they want and you need internet access for work, they are taxing you.

And I don't know about you but I must have missed the election where I get to choose who is in charge of Comcast, or any of the other regional monopolies[1] run by "producers" that we sadly depend on.

[1] Health insurance, banks, pharmaceutical companies, grocery store chains...

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#96
post #70
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are low wage industries that overwhelmingly employ illegal immigrants and legal immigrants. Those industries would need to raise wages and improve working conditions if immigration were curtailed. I’m not advocating a position on immigration itself. Just stating one possible consequence of curtailing immigration.

You have repeated this thesis several times without providing any support beyond a child-like belief in the invisible hand. Why not prove your point by showing that at times when illegal immigration dropped the nominal average wage for low-skill workers increased relative to the rest of the workforce, if you can.

I've not indicated a child-like belief in the invisible hand. Labor is a product. If the supply is constricted then the price for it ought to go up. Isn't this generally true? So much so that if it isn't the case in this situation then one ought to provide reasoning for this.

A claim was made that constricting immigration will not lead to increased wages. I think this is contrary to how it normally works and thus the person making that claim ought to show why it's true. Let's turn it around, why don't you show the reverse of what you ask me?

I'm not an economist. I merely asked a question and sought input as to why labor prices wouldn't increase. I think you are reading too much into what I wrote. I'm strongly in favor of immigration. I'm a union member and I think labor laws are far too lax in the U.S. I think immigration would not be an issue if we had strong labor laws that were enforced. But we don't have those laws and thus people blame immigration for their woes.

But whatever one believes with regard to immigration it's extremist to think that there are no negative consequences of immigration and it's extremist to think there are no positive consequences of immigration.

From [1]:

For some subperiods and groups, the effects are positive or zero, but the most common result is that a 1 percentage point increase in the fraction of the population that is foreign-born reduces wages from 1.0–1.6 percent.

It's worth pointing out that the paper mentions that calculating the true impact is hard and controversial so who knows if the above is correct?

[1] https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257%2Fjep.9.2.23

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I posit that, in that case, a new "normal" baseline would be established by social consensus (perhaps, owning a home, smart phone, access to media, high quality medical care, and organic food) that is above what is afforded by the UBI. Falling below that threshold would then be deemed just as unacceptable as the poverty line today. And people won't solve it by taking on these undesirable jobs, they'll rail against an…

Are you saying that "food, heat, and a roof over your head" is an arbitrary social construct?

A cave with a fire and a dead pig satisfy that. I'm pretty sure that's not what you're really advocating for a baseline lifestyle.

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I posit that, in that case, a new "normal" baseline would be established by social consensus (perhaps, owning a home, smart phone, access to media, high quality medical care, and organic food) that is above what is afforded by the UBI. Falling below that threshold would then be deemed just as unacceptable as the poverty line today. And people won't solve it by taking on these undesirable jobs, they'll rail against an…

If we imagine that "life goodness" can be measured by a single real number, and we model it with a normal distribution with a mean somewhere on the positive axis, then one way to say what you describe is that we create a threshold somewhere along the left-hand tail of that distribution, and we declare anything below the threshold as morally unacceptable, in need of social constraints that prevent the permissibility o…

Trying to move that line is laudable. Just don't think we'll ever be done moving it, regardless of whether indeterminate progress is sustainable or not.

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#100
post #2

Serious question: If the conditions are just that bad, why even bother to work for them? There seems to be some sort of equilibrium to me where if it gets bad enough, no one will simply want to do this job, and choose to take some other low paying job (e.g. retail, fast food, etc.).

> If the conditions are just that bad, why even bother to work for them?

Because nobody hires them on positions that have "minimum wage, paid holidays, pensions, protection from discrimination, and trade union rights" because these things cost money and the value they can deliver is below the cost of those things?

Or because flexible hours and flexible employment schedule is worth for them more than trade union rights?

Post reply on HN