Rideshare operations are being suspended in California(lyft.com)
lyft.com
Rideshare operations are being suspended in California
https://www.lyft.com/blog/posts/ca-operations-update
1,135 comments
I’d think a good ole fashioned taxi would work. Is there a reason you couldn’t or wouldn’t use one?
The last cab I was in, the driver was asking my girlfriend how to get where we were going (Chinatown in LA from downtown...not exactly challenging), which she didn't know because she doesn't drive. He was rude to us both the entire time, and then when we got out, (even after she left him a reasonable tip), he called her a "fcking btch" and sped away. We tried complaining to the cab company a few times but nothing came of it. I've never had an issue even remotely close to that in Uber/Lyft, but have had more unpleasant than pleasant experiences in taxis all over the country.
In California, most cities are very spread out so taking taxis anywhere are super expensive. You can't just hail one down on the street like other cities, you have to order one over the phone to come pick you up from where ever you are.
There are taxi apps that are similar in functionality to Uber and Lyft.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/curb-the-taxi-app/id299226386
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/curb-the-taxi-app/id299226386
What's the availability? I.e. are you actually able to get a ride within 10 mins in SV, for example? How about rest of California?
I decided to check for myself and registered in the app. The nearest ride is in 20 minutes (about 2x from the rideshares) and the price from my house to SFO is about $160. My last ride with Uber was about $70. Make your own conclusions.
Oh yes and the app is buggy as heck, losing internet connection all the time (on my home wifi!) and getting stuck in random places.
I mean, one conclusion is that Lyft and Uber are not charging enough to continue to operate.
They were stopping operations not because they couldn't afford it. But because the courts and lawmakers banned their whole business model.
Because they're a giant PITA to use compared to ridesharing.
The reason that Uber and Lyft were eating the taxi business's lunch: Less cost and better service.
In part by ignoring city and state laws!
Sure. That wasn't the point of this conversation, though. The point of this conversation was why one would use Lyft and Uber, and still not want to use the regular taxi companies.
[deleted]
Because those laws led to low availability, high prices and subpar service. And now they will lead to it again.
Depends where you are. In much of the Valley you will not see a cab anywhere, but you might be able to call one.
In SF proper, there are more cabs, but don't forget the hour-long waits we had before the ride-sharing thing started. I don't know if it'll get that bad again, but I don't think they authorized thousands of new cabs like (IMO) they should have. Also, I've had cabbies in SF tell me point-blank they won't take my fare because it's not far enough. Yeah, illegal, they don't care.
Further out... good luck. You're in Concord and need a ride to Walnut Creek? Might work, but it might be faster to try Craigslist.
In SF proper, there are more cabs, but don't forget the hour-long waits we had before the ride-sharing thing started. I don't know if it'll get that bad again, but I don't think they authorized thousands of new cabs like (IMO) they should have. Also, I've had cabbies in SF tell me point-blank they won't take my fare because it's not far enough. Yeah, illegal, they don't care.
Further out... good luck. You're in Concord and need a ride to Walnut Creek? Might work, but it might be faster to try Craigslist.
Uber was founded because there are frequently 60 minute waits for taxis in SFBA, if they show up at all.
I remember taxis before Uber/Lyft. They sucked. They were very expensive. Low availability - I once was stuck in the middle of one 200k+ city with literally no cars available after calling several companies. After an hour or so, I had to call friends to pick me up. Then, if you get a cab, you have no idea who is your driver and have no history and no resort if something happens - you could call the dispatcher again but they won't take complaints, as it's not their business, and even if you manage to get the taxi company's support number (provided such thing exists) they'd probably ignore you. Oh yes, and last time I used it half of the drivers couldn't even make a credit card transactions - you had to have cash (hopefully at least this one is fixed now?)
i can get an uber from my house to the airport at 4AM in about 10 minutes. I can't get a taxi in the middle of the day sooner than 45 minutes.
(I live in Dallas TX)
(I live in Dallas TX)
The average person's response to being told they'd have to take another driver's test isn't to replace driving with Uber/Lyft. You're in a unique position to be able to afford to replace all driving with ridesharing, since gas+insurance+maintenance costs are much lower than say, a month of commuting to an office via rideshare.
There are tons of people who could have replaced their car with rideshare and maybe some public transit, and still come out cheaper.
Insurance, parking, fuel, depreciation, maintenance, and random events add up. If you don't need it for commuting, most of the recurring rideshare costs vanish.
If you need to make an extra long occasional trip, car rental for a day or two outweighs ownership.
Edit: To be clear, anything other than a car is cheaper for many (not all) people. (e)Bike, shared scooter, walking, trolley, Uber/Lyft, taxi, carpooling, etc. Cities are expensive and small towns are small.
On average, ~50% of car trips are under 2 miles. A car is not required for most of those in most locations.
Insurance, parking, fuel, depreciation, maintenance, and random events add up. If you don't need it for commuting, most of the recurring rideshare costs vanish.
If you need to make an extra long occasional trip, car rental for a day or two outweighs ownership.
Edit: To be clear, anything other than a car is cheaper for many (not all) people. (e)Bike, shared scooter, walking, trolley, Uber/Lyft, taxi, carpooling, etc. Cities are expensive and small towns are small.
On average, ~50% of car trips are under 2 miles. A car is not required for most of those in most locations.
It’s only cheaper because riders were taking advantage of the unrealistically low labor costs (while regulation was catching up) and dumb VC money.
Riders only have themselves to blame if they made life choices around a service that was clearly unsustainable, Movie Pass style.
Riders only have themselves to blame if they made life choices around a service that was clearly unsustainable, Movie Pass style.
For my commute, the cost of ridesharing breaks even with the cost of buying a parking space in the city (Boston) if you go to work an average of 4 days per week or fewer. (at least pre-covid, I'm not sure if parking is cheaper these days). Once you factor in insurance and maintenance, for some cars you would get to 5 days.
An unlimited use trolley/bus pass is $150/month in my city. Suppose I spend $200/month on gas/insurance/maintenance. The marginal cost of having commutes that take half as much time, to me, is worth it. Otherwise, you could be spending 30 more hours a month commuting to save $50.
That equation doesn't work out in every city obviously. In SF a trip to the Mountain View (GOOG HQ) by car is an hour and change regardless if you drive or take CalTrain. If you live and work downtown, walking is a perfectly valid option as well.
Now add $300/month for a parking space in an apartment building, $10/day for parking in a garage downtown near your office, plus your car payment/depreciation of the car you're driving.
Also not all public transit trips take twice as long as a car. In many urban places (which is where any of this scenario makes sense) at rush hour a trip on public transit is often about equivalent to driving if not shorter.
Also not all public transit trips take twice as long as a car. In many urban places (which is where any of this scenario makes sense) at rush hour a trip on public transit is often about equivalent to driving if not shorter.
Also, don't forget that you've actually got to drive.
most of what people need cars for is shopping, a problem that is more efficiently addressed with delivery.
Including parking and insurance deductibles for all the times their car will be broken into in SF?
This is no joke, getting parking for an apartment (pretty much required unless you live in the sunset or have deeded parking) is like $250/mo+ and your car will probably be broken into depending on how often you park it on the street
I mainly used Uber/Lyft for "last mile" transportation. I replaced "all driving" with largely public transportation. I probably spent an average of ~$300/mo on Uber/Lyft which would account of my parking premium + insurance.
That said, I will concede I'm in a unique position. This legislation isn't completely onerous on me.
That said, I will concede I'm in a unique position. This legislation isn't completely onerous on me.
This is not true for everyone. I track my ride share spending and it’s significantly lower than owning a car. I spend less that $200 a month on average (2019 avg was $196).
I’m in a unique position to do this, because i put myself in that position. i moved near my work and live in an urban area.
even if it cost $400 a month, i would still do it this way. i read when i’m in the car, i wouldn’t trade that for staring at the road.
I’m in a unique position to do this, because i put myself in that position. i moved near my work and live in an urban area.
even if it cost $400 a month, i would still do it this way. i read when i’m in the car, i wouldn’t trade that for staring at the road.
If you’re in the Bay, or really any other major tech hub in the US, you should also factor the increased cost of rent or mortgage payments into that calculation. I’m lucky to be remote, but if I moved close enough to SF or the Valley to spend only $200/month on ride shares to the office, my mortgage would at least triple. This would far offset any savings in gas/insurance/maintenance.
I’m happy that you’ve found a good situation for yourself and I don’t mean to disparage it. I just don’t think the comparison you’ve made is quite complete.
I’m happy that you’ve found a good situation for yourself and I don’t mean to disparage it. I just don’t think the comparison you’ve made is quite complete.
The reason rents and mortgages in transportation and commute friendly areas of the country are high is because those locations are desirable.
If one enjoys the lifestyle, spending less on transportation and shifting that spending to housing is a net win. That's how I did it, and for about eight of my eleven years in the Bay, I wouldn't have had it any other way.
I left the Bay in 2018 because I got a remote job and didn't feel like I was getting my money's worth from the city life. Pretty clearly, in 2020, much of what makes city living good is gone, but it will come back; whether that's a matter of years or decades is very much an open question.
If one enjoys the lifestyle, spending less on transportation and shifting that spending to housing is a net win. That's how I did it, and for about eight of my eleven years in the Bay, I wouldn't have had it any other way.
I left the Bay in 2018 because I got a remote job and didn't feel like I was getting my money's worth from the city life. Pretty clearly, in 2020, much of what makes city living good is gone, but it will come back; whether that's a matter of years or decades is very much an open question.
In San Francisco, owning your own car and using it for regular driving is a luxury. Lyft/Uber is cheaper and more convenient, all costs considered.
The problem in SF is that Uber/Lyft has become some convenient that its been diverting people from transit and putting them into single occupant cars (the driver doens't count). Much of the traffic congestion is coming from Uber/Lyft
I think some kind of SF congestion tax, with proceeds to benefit public transit infrastructure, would be appropriate.
Crossing the bridges during rush "hour" (more like three to five) should be much more expensive.
Not sure how to handle the fact that this de-facto subsidizes the Peninsula. But it would be a start.
Not sure how to handle the fact that this de-facto subsidizes the Peninsula. But it would be a start.
Well it might be single occupant, but it's often also on the way to another gig. Ignoring that is double-counting.
Counting rideshare cars as "single occupant vehicles" is not "double counting" -- whether I drive in to work and park my car myself, or I take Uber and get dropped off, that's still one trip so it's the same congestion. If he picks up another fare immediately, then that's a new single occupant vehicle trip.
But I think it's rare during commute hours that a ride share driver will drop someone off downtown and immediately find another fare, he's going to have to leave downtown to get his next passenger. So that Uber driver is worse than a single occupant vehicle, he's made 2 trips for one passenger (once to drop me off, once to leave downtown to pick up his next fare).
In off hours, sure, the driver brings someone in, then doesn't have to search far to find someone else looking for a ride, but during commute hours I don't think that's true.
But I think it's rare during commute hours that a ride share driver will drop someone off downtown and immediately find another fare, he's going to have to leave downtown to get his next passenger. So that Uber driver is worse than a single occupant vehicle, he's made 2 trips for one passenger (once to drop me off, once to leave downtown to pick up his next fare).
In off hours, sure, the driver brings someone in, then doesn't have to search far to find someone else looking for a ride, but during commute hours I don't think that's true.
In the bay area, I think reliance on public transit and Uber/Lyft is common enough to be the case for "the average person" in that area.
Last I heard, public transit had greatly reduced service in San Francisco, but I'm not sure of the current status.
Last I heard, public transit had greatly reduced service in San Francisco, but I'm not sure of the current status.
The irony in this comment is amazing. You're in a unique, privileged position to not even consider public transit for some trips an option.
Public transit for everyday commute to work, plus Uber/Lyft for trips outside of common commute hours or off the beaten path where public transit is less reliable, can definitely be cheaper than car ownership.
Public transit for everyday commute to work, plus Uber/Lyft for trips outside of common commute hours or off the beaten path where public transit is less reliable, can definitely be cheaper than car ownership.
Public transit in SF works well in some areas, not so well in others -- even making a single connection can add 30 - 45 minutes to your commute If you're going to the financial district or north SOMA, transit is usually viable, if you're going anywhere else, it's likely not so viable.
And this is a city that's only 7 miles wide -- I used to be able to bike downtown in less than than I spent waiting on the bus on most days (since I didn't just have to wait for one bus, I had to wait for a bus that wasn't already full to take on passengers)
And this is a city that's only 7 miles wide -- I used to be able to bike downtown in less than than I spent waiting on the bus on most days (since I didn't just have to wait for one bus, I had to wait for a bus that wasn't already full to take on passengers)
Well, OP was considering driving vs rideshare, so that's what I compared/contrasted. They never considered public transit, and continuing with their train of thought, neither did I. Seems like a reasonable perspective to take.
Public transit isn't an option for all people, particularly in low income communities, that have to get from home to work in rural and suburban areas. They aren't dense enough for public transit.
Public transit isn't an option for all people, particularly in low income communities, that have to get from home to work in rural and suburban areas. They aren't dense enough for public transit.
I think you're vastly underestimating how many people can do so, especially in urban centers with walking, biking, and public transit. Even more now with the changes brought by covid.
When I was living in Dallas in 2014 I was using Uber full time and it was less than half the total cost of ownership of owning a used car at the time. And paying $10 to park downtown each day. It was about $3.15 one way which was even cheaper than the bus. I'm not sure what uber prices are in Dallas these days but it'd have to be close to $9 one way for it to be cheaper than owning a car in that situation. Uber was a major lifeline for me here in the Bay Area when I first arrived as I didn't have a car for the first three years. Parking in my area starts at around $250/mo. My uber bill was usually around $300/mo. Car insurance alone is at least $50/mo.
$3 sounds like an extremely short ride. Either that, or they were subsidizing a lot more back then. In Austin, over the past few years I've used use lyft occasionally to get to or from work and it was typically $6-$9 for a 1.6 mile trip that typically lasted 6-8 minutes.
I totally understand that it doesn't always make economic sense to own a car. But I confess that it's really hard for me to understand the mentality of not getting a drivers license if able to do so. So many of the activities I do when in the Bay Area (and elsewhere) are pretty much impossible without either renting a car or having someone else drive me which isn't always possible. I've even had jobs that I couldn't have done without driving.
1. Things just tended to "work out". I'm not someone who sweats the small stuff when planning things. At the very least if I'm going somewhere "remote" (Tahoe, Santa Cruz), I wouldn't be by myself and I could ride with someone else.
2. You'd be surprised how far you can take an Uber. I had a friend take an Uber from SF to Sacremento.
2. You'd be surprised how far you can take an Uber. I had a friend take an Uber from SF to Sacremento.
I wouldn't consider, say, the Santa Cruz mountains remote. I go there all the time when I'm in the Bay Area. But, yes, I'm sure like many things one adjusts their expectations and desires based on their constraints. I'd find not having a car in the Bay Area extremely limiting.
> then I waited long enough to find out I would have to retake the test
I didn't have my driver's license for 10+ years, and thought the Californian DMV would surely make me take another driver's test because of that. Nope...after I did the written test, they said my license would come in the mail.
I didn't have my driver's license for 10+ years, and thought the Californian DMV would surely make me take another driver's test because of that. Nope...after I did the written test, they said my license would come in the mail.
There’s always actual licensed taxis or public transit.
DMV is offering appointments again in many locations.
I feel your pain though... living in SF made it a little too easy to just ignore the DL thing, and then I moved to Europe and lived in big cities with excellent public transportation.
Now that I'm finally doing it I'm kicking myself for not just getting it done years ago even if I might not have used it much.
I feel your pain though... living in SF made it a little too easy to just ignore the DL thing, and then I moved to Europe and lived in big cities with excellent public transportation.
Now that I'm finally doing it I'm kicking myself for not just getting it done years ago even if I might not have used it much.
You can also ride a cab.
Not if you call a cab and they say "we dispatched a driver" and then that driver never shows up. There wasn't accountability with the old system, hopefully Uber/Lyft have forced cab companies to evolve. The apps in some cities are a promising sign but aren't universal.
I find that this is super convenient that this is happening during COVID restrictions.
I'm not needing a taxi/uber/lyft for leaving the bar. I'm not going out to a restaurant with friends. I'm not traveling for work/fun and needing an lift to the hotel.
My usage of uber/lyft/taxis went from 100s per month down to 0. If this change happened in 2019, I'd of had significant changes to my daily routine. Today, this changes nothing.
I'm not needing a taxi/uber/lyft for leaving the bar. I'm not going out to a restaurant with friends. I'm not traveling for work/fun and needing an lift to the hotel.
My usage of uber/lyft/taxis went from 100s per month down to 0. If this change happened in 2019, I'd of had significant changes to my daily routine. Today, this changes nothing.
We don’t want to suspend operations.
So don't.
Either give the drivers what the California politicians are saying all Californians should have as a minimum benefit, and then go to court to argue why Lyft drivers should get something else, or let Lyft drivers set their own prices as they should be able to as independent contractors.
So don't.
Either give the drivers what the California politicians are saying all Californians should have as a minimum benefit, and then go to court to argue why Lyft drivers should get something else, or let Lyft drivers set their own prices as they should be able to as independent contractors.
Are they not able to set their own prices/minimums? I just had a notification pop up this week at the airport that the nearby drivers were charging more and I'd need to accept a surge price or wait longer. I'm not sure if this is just a clever rewording of the surge pricing policy or an actual change on the driver side. For what it's worth, it was after 16 hours of travel, so I wasn't paying super close attention.
That's Lyft setting the prices, not individual drivers.
Ah at least for Uber (unclear on Lyft) it is able to be set by the drivers: https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/
> Either give the drivers what the California politicians are saying all Californians should have as a minimum benefit, and then go to court to argue why Lyft drivers should get something else, or let Lyft drivers set their own prices as they should be able to as independent contractors.
Both companies did go to court (which is why the shutdown is happening now and not eight months ago) and Uber does allow drivers to set their own rates.[1]
The people involved in these economic transactions know what they're getting into and consent. The negative externalities created (pollution, congestion, increased accidents, road wear & tear) are paid for by gas taxes, liability insurance, and road/bridge tolls. There are positive externalities such as lives saved due to fewer drunk drivers. It seems crazy to stop consenting adults from doing an activity that, as far as I can tell, mutually benefits everyone involved.
1. https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/
Both companies did go to court (which is why the shutdown is happening now and not eight months ago) and Uber does allow drivers to set their own rates.[1]
The people involved in these economic transactions know what they're getting into and consent. The negative externalities created (pollution, congestion, increased accidents, road wear & tear) are paid for by gas taxes, liability insurance, and road/bridge tolls. There are positive externalities such as lives saved due to fewer drunk drivers. It seems crazy to stop consenting adults from doing an activity that, as far as I can tell, mutually benefits everyone involved.
1. https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/
Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Doesn't seem like it would be feasible to maintain all drivers as employees.
It’s going to be impossible to just casually drive for them too.
Service will degrade too. "Your driver will be here in 45 minutes" type of stuff going forward. A huge incentive of using uber/lyft was that in major cities you could literally be picked up in a few minutes of requesting the ride.
They could make changes to their offering (like showing the end location, etc) to avoid this, which they are avoiding.
Definitely not feasible to keep drivers on as employees legally. Some issues that come to mind that seem incredibly hard for uber/lyft to enforce but are mandatory for California employees:
* Meal & rest breaks
* Callback pay
* Split Shift premiums
* Reporting premium (if you show up to work, but less work to do than half your scheduled shift)
The only way I see this working is somebody started some "Driver Pool" company that employed drivers fulltime and then Uber/Lyft/Doordash/Grubhub/etc all use that company.
* Meal & rest breaks
* Callback pay
* Split Shift premiums
* Reporting premium (if you show up to work, but less work to do than half your scheduled shift)
The only way I see this working is somebody started some "Driver Pool" company that employed drivers fulltime and then Uber/Lyft/Doordash/Grubhub/etc all use that company.
It would be like TriNet, but for drivers only
AB5 explicitly allowed for flexible hours- it did not require "shifts" like you're talking about. It made allowances to give drivers the flexibility they want, but Uber and Lyft are upset that it also requires them to provide the option for insurance and that they'd have to pay into the unemployment pool.
They cannot be classified as employees to begin with. AB5 also harmed non-Uber/Lyft drivers, I came across several posts for programming gigs that said that they would not be able to accept offers from programmers in CA due to AB5. It's broken.
Meal and rest breaks would be easy-ish. Have a button in the driver app to take a rest break available every so often. If it's been too long, force it and don't show rides. Same for meals.
Callback, split shift, and reporting premiums only apply to my knowledge if the shifts are scheduled. I guess it depends if they go towards scheduled shifts over show up whenever, and/or if they can make it 'i'd like to work: yes/no'
Callback, split shift, and reporting premiums only apply to my knowledge if the shifts are scheduled. I guess it depends if they go towards scheduled shifts over show up whenever, and/or if they can make it 'i'd like to work: yes/no'
California (govt) is fantastic at making California worse.
Genuine question: what state government would you look to for a better model?
Not many states are in the position California is. No matter how poorly run the state might be, people are unlikely to leave due to existing business and weather. Hard to compare.
Exactly Californians will succeed no matter what the government does.
What's that mean exactly? There are a lot of people having a hard time in this state.
This. It's basically a hostage situation. With the exception of not enforcing non-competes, I can't think of a single thing that makes California great that is the result of government.
Hollywood is there because of the weather. The central valley is there because of the weather and the soil. The tech industry is there because of the defense industry in WWII and the importance of the west coast to the war effort in the Pacific. There almost 1000 miles of beautiful coast and some of the best National Parks and National Forests in the country are in California.
The geography and the weather is the root of why California is successful. That has attracted and kept talent and created a positive feedback loop between talent and natural resources.
The California government has the luxury of being able to be the most mismanaged because they don't even have to try. Tax money is abundant from all the economic activity and they have captive industries that would have a hard time relocating elsewhere.
Hollywood is there because of the weather. The central valley is there because of the weather and the soil. The tech industry is there because of the defense industry in WWII and the importance of the west coast to the war effort in the Pacific. There almost 1000 miles of beautiful coast and some of the best National Parks and National Forests in the country are in California.
The geography and the weather is the root of why California is successful. That has attracted and kept talent and created a positive feedback loop between talent and natural resources.
The California government has the luxury of being able to be the most mismanaged because they don't even have to try. Tax money is abundant from all the economic activity and they have captive industries that would have a hard time relocating elsewhere.
I could not disagree more. I work for a film company and believe me Hollywood has had nothing to do with the weather for fifty years. Very little is actually shot on location in Los Angeles, yet it remains a center.
Silicon Valley is because of the defense industry in WW2? OK sure, but then why not Detroit, Boston, Philadelphia etc. The aerospace industry was in Los Angeles, but that moved, so why couldn't tech move?
Here is my alternate hypothesis: California has always been relatively welcoming to people from all around the world. Places like San Francisco (in particular) and Los Angeles have a very long history of being accepting of new ideas, religions, different ethnicity. Not completely, just more than a lot of other places in the US. So it has been a place where people with new ideas come.
As far as the state government-- yeah it could be better. But so could a lot of states. It is not clear to me that California is a worse run state than many others. Still we all should expect improvement.
Silicon Valley is because of the defense industry in WW2? OK sure, but then why not Detroit, Boston, Philadelphia etc. The aerospace industry was in Los Angeles, but that moved, so why couldn't tech move?
Here is my alternate hypothesis: California has always been relatively welcoming to people from all around the world. Places like San Francisco (in particular) and Los Angeles have a very long history of being accepting of new ideas, religions, different ethnicity. Not completely, just more than a lot of other places in the US. So it has been a place where people with new ideas come.
As far as the state government-- yeah it could be better. But so could a lot of states. It is not clear to me that California is a worse run state than many others. Still we all should expect improvement.
> Hollywood has had nothing to do with the weather for fifty years.
It simply wouldn't be there in the first place had the weather not been as good as it was.
Part of the reason you're now seeing other cities blossom in importance in film has to do with weather no longer being as important. What continues to be important that preserves Hollywood is the concentration of talent, which itself still has as its root the great weather that helped the industry establish itself there in the first place.
While the weather may no longer be as important, it's the "natural resource" that made the region the epicenter of film in the first place.
> Silicon Valley is because of the defense industry in WW2? OK sure, but then why not Detroit, Boston, Philadelphia etc. The aerospace industry was in Los Angeles, but that moved, so why couldn't tech move?
I mentioned this exactly in the comment you're replying to and you ignored it. There was exactly one thing California got right and that is not enforcing non-compete agreements. This is why Fairchild Semiconductor spawned an entire industry and why companies like DEC around Route 128 did not.
> Here is my alternate hypothesis: California has always been relatively welcoming to people from all around the world.
Agree. But government has absolutely nothing to do with that.
The California government is no different than a trust fund kid failing upwards.
It simply wouldn't be there in the first place had the weather not been as good as it was.
Part of the reason you're now seeing other cities blossom in importance in film has to do with weather no longer being as important. What continues to be important that preserves Hollywood is the concentration of talent, which itself still has as its root the great weather that helped the industry establish itself there in the first place.
While the weather may no longer be as important, it's the "natural resource" that made the region the epicenter of film in the first place.
> Silicon Valley is because of the defense industry in WW2? OK sure, but then why not Detroit, Boston, Philadelphia etc. The aerospace industry was in Los Angeles, but that moved, so why couldn't tech move?
I mentioned this exactly in the comment you're replying to and you ignored it. There was exactly one thing California got right and that is not enforcing non-compete agreements. This is why Fairchild Semiconductor spawned an entire industry and why companies like DEC around Route 128 did not.
> Here is my alternate hypothesis: California has always been relatively welcoming to people from all around the world.
Agree. But government has absolutely nothing to do with that.
The California government is no different than a trust fund kid failing upwards.
Sorry about missing your point about non-competes. You are right that is a big part of it. But I don't think all of it.
>> The California government is no different than a trust fund kid failing upwards.
The Government is a reflection of the people. California has a more liberal government than some states because the voters are more liberal-- in general-- particularly socially. I am fifth generation, and lots of my relatives are very conservative but still pretty accepting of different beliefs and lifestyles.
There's clearly some downside to that liberalism. You can see how countries in Europe struggle with having the taxes, the protections, and a healthy economy. But California tends to pull toward that model and other states pull to other models. Those other models also have downsides.
>> The California government is no different than a trust fund kid failing upwards.
The Government is a reflection of the people. California has a more liberal government than some states because the voters are more liberal-- in general-- particularly socially. I am fifth generation, and lots of my relatives are very conservative but still pretty accepting of different beliefs and lifestyles.
There's clearly some downside to that liberalism. You can see how countries in Europe struggle with having the taxes, the protections, and a healthy economy. But California tends to pull toward that model and other states pull to other models. Those other models also have downsides.
> You are right that is a big part of it. But I don't think all of it.
Completely agree that that's not all of it. Not enforcing non-competes is just the only piece of it that I can identify that can be credited to the California government.
I'm not arguing that California isn't successful. It's very successful. I'm arguing that California is successful despite its government and that most policies passed by the government are well intentioned but counterproductive.
We shouldn't compare California to other states because every state has different circumstances. We should compare California as it is to what it could be. You could get rid of most of California's governance and the state would do be even more successful because politicians wouldn't be messing things up. For example, there are reasons why California has the highest poverty rate when adjusting for cost of living and a lot has to do with well-meaning but counterproductive policies.
Completely agree that that's not all of it. Not enforcing non-competes is just the only piece of it that I can identify that can be credited to the California government.
I'm not arguing that California isn't successful. It's very successful. I'm arguing that California is successful despite its government and that most policies passed by the government are well intentioned but counterproductive.
We shouldn't compare California to other states because every state has different circumstances. We should compare California as it is to what it could be. You could get rid of most of California's governance and the state would do be even more successful because politicians wouldn't be messing things up. For example, there are reasons why California has the highest poverty rate when adjusting for cost of living and a lot has to do with well-meaning but counterproductive policies.
Ones where people aren't mass emigrating from, to start.
you won't find many because only Michigan and Texas have smaller departure rates as a percentage of their population, and California remains the most popular state for international immigrants in the US.
I’ve always wondered what is the best-run state
If you're asking for better run states, it looks like Texas is doing well but I'm unfamiliar with most other states to give you a good answer.
As 20 year California resident, what I do know is that nothing has gotten better here over that time frame. Everything from infrastructure to taxes to city planning is much worse now than ever. CCPA is probably the only good outcome I can think of.
As 20 year California resident, what I do know is that nothing has gotten better here over that time frame. Everything from infrastructure to taxes to city planning is much worse now than ever. CCPA is probably the only good outcome I can think of.
The state that scared uber and lyft off with background requirements, fingerprinting, and restricting bikelanes? I think maybe the grass is just greener.
I agree with those policies so it counts as better run for me. As far as I can tell, Uber and Lyft do operate in Texas today so it looks like everything worked out?
Yeah, they're operating again. I have little doubt that Uber and Lyft will continue to operate in california once they a) adjust their business model to pay people appropriately (they seem to be able to roll out new software quite quickly) and b) stop throwing a tantrum (which is what happened in austin).
California is one of USA's biggest markets. Even if they don't get their shit together, one of CA's many entrepreneurs will. Who wants free VC bucks?
California is one of USA's biggest markets. Even if they don't get their shit together, one of CA's many entrepreneurs will. Who wants free VC bucks?
It was the City of Austin that scared off Uber and Lyft for a time not the state. Lots of West coasters came to Austin and brought their political problems with them. The City of Austin is CA lite basically.
Same sentiment here as well. Its a tangent but I feel like we get the least benefit from the highest taxes. Possibly some of the worst roads in the country with outdated and dangerous interstate designs because cars are bad and public transit is good but there is no public transit. =/
I live in California and I think the state government does things that make it better and worse at the same time. Look many many laws that we take for granted origin from California. For example, SF was the first city to start granting marriage licenses to LGBT couples. Now most states follow that rule. CA was first to implement mileage requirements. Now many states follow that rule. CA was first to subsidize clean air vehicles. Now it is common across the nation. CA was ahead with medical marijuana and recognizing the role of marijuana as recreational. So it seems like government is making it worse, CA legislature is always pushing the limits and seems worse because it is the first one to do so. I bet that there will be some middle ground in the gig economy due to this law, which will become the model for the rest of the country.
That said, this particular bill is pretty bad
That said, this particular bill is pretty bad
Thoughts on speculation that this will cause drunk driving deaths to increase?
It absolutely will increase. But this is tempered by the current coronavirus situation
I used to drive for Uber, a few hours a week during my downtime when I was bored and had nothing better to do.
The earnings weren’t great, but it was very helpful as an extra. I had a fuel efficient car and kept track of all my expenses for deductions and made above minimum wage.
I’ve met plenty of lovely and fascinating people and had great, enjoyable conversations. I barely had any issues with riders.
This extra income helped me buy more stocks and make just a little bit more progress towards my financial goals. These stocks are still compounding away.
I’m a bit sad that this opportunity is now taken away from Californians.
The earnings weren’t great, but it was very helpful as an extra. I had a fuel efficient car and kept track of all my expenses for deductions and made above minimum wage.
I’ve met plenty of lovely and fascinating people and had great, enjoyable conversations. I barely had any issues with riders.
This extra income helped me buy more stocks and make just a little bit more progress towards my financial goals. These stocks are still compounding away.
I’m a bit sad that this opportunity is now taken away from Californians.
My close friend drove for Uber and Lyft in Los Angeles. He was constantly abused and berated by drunk and rude passengers (which he couldn't refuse), drove more just to have Uber slash his take-home rate by 60%, and even invested in a larger van so he could drove pool (or whatever the name is for large groups) which never materialized. He's extremely happy to see them go.
How much are Uber and Lyft paying him now?
He left them a while ago. Couldn't make a living driving for both.
Cool story, like a mini american dream! Some drivers have differing views on the topic though :(
If driving is what someone has decided to solely do for a living, then they should get a driving job. There's plenty of driving jobs that aren't driving gigs. In my mind, the definition of "gig" sets the expectation for the type of work it will be.
then they should get a driving job
Why? I’m a consultant - and this is what I do for a living. Why isn’t freelance work respectable or acceptable in your view?
Why? I’m a consultant - and this is what I do for a living. Why isn’t freelance work respectable or acceptable in your view?
I suspect you're being disingenuous since I never said either of those things, so I will ignore your second question.
As to your first question, I've never met a consultant that enjoys all the benefits of the full-time employees at the companies they consult for. The term "consultant" sets the expectation that one would not enjoy those benefits during their work there.
As to your first question, I've never met a consultant that enjoys all the benefits of the full-time employees at the companies they consult for. The term "consultant" sets the expectation that one would not enjoy those benefits during their work there.
I suspect you're being disingenuous since I never said either of those things, so I will ignore your second question.
You used the word should - should get a full time job. Based on what you say, you don’t think freelance work is acceptable. If you considered it acceptable then you wouldn’t be admonishing people, telling them what they should do.
I've never met
You’re just full of assumptions. I get paid crazy-well - much higher than the salaried employees I work with, and unlike them I can bill off-hours. I don’t have a company retirement plan but that’s cheap with the excess I get paid over salary. And I write my own vacations.
The term "consultant" sets the expectation that one would not enjoy those benefits during their work there.
No, it sets the expectation that I’m consulting. That’s all.
You used the word should - should get a full time job. Based on what you say, you don’t think freelance work is acceptable. If you considered it acceptable then you wouldn’t be admonishing people, telling them what they should do.
I've never met
You’re just full of assumptions. I get paid crazy-well - much higher than the salaried employees I work with, and unlike them I can bill off-hours. I don’t have a company retirement plan but that’s cheap with the excess I get paid over salary. And I write my own vacations.
The term "consultant" sets the expectation that one would not enjoy those benefits during their work there.
No, it sets the expectation that I’m consulting. That’s all.
I suppose all I can do at this point is invite you to review the HN guidelines. Good day.
I think it’s great that you’re reviewing them! Check out the section on “shallow dismissals”.
Thank you.
I used to drive a taxi...
Hopefully the companies and government can come to a middle ground that solves both problems. There are quite a few people that drive for supplemental income and don't need all the stuff that the law is now requiring, and there are some people that do it full time and would benefit from the perks of a more traditional full time job.
The bummer is, as usual, the policy makers aren't seeing the nuance between the two and now drivers have to suffer the consequences and lost wages until the dust settles. Either the politicians are ignorant, or they're willfully ignoring the facts. Honestly neither would surprise me, it is CA after all :)
The bummer is, as usual, the policy makers aren't seeing the nuance between the two and now drivers have to suffer the consequences and lost wages until the dust settles. Either the politicians are ignorant, or they're willfully ignoring the facts. Honestly neither would surprise me, it is CA after all :)
This is where the gig economy shines, when people want to use it to make extra money on the side or push to achieve financial goals. However, by your own admission you did it because you were "bored" and wanted to make some money.
Unfortunately many gig workers don't have the privilege. I'm assuming here but you probably had another job and benefits. There are many workers who don't, and are turning to Uber or Lyft just to put food on the table and are being forced into working without paid vacation, sick leave, or benefits simply because they have no other options.
I think corporations taking advantages of the imbalances is a race to the bottom. I believe we should find a 21st century approach to fixing these imbalances so that we don't take opportunities like yours away, but also work to protect labor rights/power that has been much eroded in the last decades.
Unfortunately many gig workers don't have the privilege. I'm assuming here but you probably had another job and benefits. There are many workers who don't, and are turning to Uber or Lyft just to put food on the table and are being forced into working without paid vacation, sick leave, or benefits simply because they have no other options.
I think corporations taking advantages of the imbalances is a race to the bottom. I believe we should find a 21st century approach to fixing these imbalances so that we don't take opportunities like yours away, but also work to protect labor rights/power that has been much eroded in the last decades.
Driving jobs already exist if that’s what they wanted. Turning ridesharing into full-time employment doesn't solve anything other than removing the freelance opportunity for many who find it fits their situation best.
> Nobody is being forced into anything. They're choosing this because it's the best opportunity.
That is such a lazy take. Of course people are forced to take whatever job is available: humans need food, shelter and healthcare. If society doesn't collectively agree about a minimum standard of what a job entails, you inevitably ends up with the "bottom of the barrel" living in inhumane conditions. As a society, it is our duty to lift up the standards, not lower them and trample on the already destitute.
That is such a lazy take. Of course people are forced to take whatever job is available: humans need food, shelter and healthcare. If society doesn't collectively agree about a minimum standard of what a job entails, you inevitably ends up with the "bottom of the barrel" living in inhumane conditions. As a society, it is our duty to lift up the standards, not lower them and trample on the already destitute.
Anybody who thinks you can't be "forced into a job" has never been desperately poor.
Why don't these people accept the existing full-time driving jobs then? Is it because flexibility is paramount and they might already have other commitments?
Why convert many existing opportunities into fewer worse jobs? What's that solve exactly? Do you think there should be no independent contractors? Do you also object to freelancer writers or artists?
Why convert many existing opportunities into fewer worse jobs? What's that solve exactly? Do you think there should be no independent contractors? Do you also object to freelancer writers or artists?
> Why don't these people accept the existing full-time driving jobs then?
I expect that the number of full-time driving opportunities available would cover maybe a single-digit percentage of (pre-covid) Lyft/Uber drivers.
I expect that the number of full-time driving opportunities available would cover maybe a single-digit percentage of (pre-covid) Lyft/Uber drivers.
> Why don't these people accept the existing full-time driving jobs then?
Which jobs? The ones that got slaughtered when Uber&co undercutted the whole market because they did not have to provide their workers with the basic standards that their competitors have to (i.e insurance, benefits, min. wage)?
> Is it because flexibility is paramount and they might already have other commitments?
How is that related? Flexibility doesn't mean having no rights. You can absolutely have a flexible schedule as an employee.
> Why convert many existing opportunities into fewer worse jobs? What you call opportunity, I call exploitation in the current way Uber&co run their businesses.
> Do you think there should be no independent contractors? Do you also object to freelancer writers or artists?
How is that related? The relationship and power balance between Uber and their drivers is not even close to "two independant parties", and the courts of California and many other countries around the world agree with me. There is nothing "freelance" about being an Uber driver.
Which jobs? The ones that got slaughtered when Uber&co undercutted the whole market because they did not have to provide their workers with the basic standards that their competitors have to (i.e insurance, benefits, min. wage)?
> Is it because flexibility is paramount and they might already have other commitments?
How is that related? Flexibility doesn't mean having no rights. You can absolutely have a flexible schedule as an employee.
> Why convert many existing opportunities into fewer worse jobs? What you call opportunity, I call exploitation in the current way Uber&co run their businesses.
> Do you think there should be no independent contractors? Do you also object to freelancer writers or artists?
How is that related? The relationship and power balance between Uber and their drivers is not even close to "two independant parties", and the courts of California and many other countries around the world agree with me. There is nothing "freelance" about being an Uber driver.
Buses, trucking, shuttles, delivery, emergency, construction, medical transport, etc. Many exist that are unfilled right now. Explain why they're unfilled and yet ridesharing has so many people?
What rights are missing? Be specific.
What's lacking in the power balance? How is different than any other contractor position? Is it a problem if contract writers are told what to write? Is it a problem if contract tech support are told to deal with customers? Why or why not?
What rights are missing? Be specific.
What's lacking in the power balance? How is different than any other contractor position? Is it a problem if contract writers are told what to write? Is it a problem if contract tech support are told to deal with customers? Why or why not?
> Unfortunately many gig workers don't have the privilege.
Gig work turning into full time work out of necessity is the band-aid on the bullet wound. The unemployment numbers were down, in large part due to gig work, but that work never should've been counted as real employment.
So rather than address the underlying problem with something like the New Deal's Works Progress Administration, which was the real and necessary answer, we papered things over with gig work out of a deep-seated philosophical hatred of government as a primary employer.
Now, rather than admit gig work was never a real solution for employment, we're trying to force it to be that by fiat, and acting shocked when this wrongheaded strategy isn't working.
Gig work turning into full time work out of necessity is the band-aid on the bullet wound. The unemployment numbers were down, in large part due to gig work, but that work never should've been counted as real employment.
So rather than address the underlying problem with something like the New Deal's Works Progress Administration, which was the real and necessary answer, we papered things over with gig work out of a deep-seated philosophical hatred of government as a primary employer.
Now, rather than admit gig work was never a real solution for employment, we're trying to force it to be that by fiat, and acting shocked when this wrongheaded strategy isn't working.
I have a strong suspicion that the Works Progress Administration may come about if Biden wins the election. There's a lot of bridges going into disrepair, new transit projects we _should_ pursue- not to say that everyone employed by this program is necessarily qualified to build a bridge, but if the opportunity is there I wouldn't be shocked if it drew unemployed folks.
But again, "if".
But again, "if".
Maybe it’s due to where I live, but I’ve never understood throwing money in to roads and the like as stimulus. Construction crews are already busy all the time, and a company isn’t going to hire another 100 untrained workers to tackle an additional project and then fire them again.
I remember one local road being resurfaced during the 2008 stimulus that was perfectly fine before. It was just an easy road for them to shut down.
I remember one local road being resurfaced during the 2008 stimulus that was perfectly fine before. It was just an easy road for them to shut down.
From what I understand, the biggest economic lever the government has to boost the economy is the humble food stamp. However, the second-biggest lever is building infrastructure.
The reverse-lever for economic stimulus is tax cuts.
The reverse-lever for economic stimulus is tax cuts.
There's plenty of long term work available that isn't a waste. Modernizing plumbing and sewage systems, running fiber connections to all homes, building public transit systems, etc. All of these would take decades and provide for long careers.
Isn’t there a shortage of trade workers already?
If the gov’t decides to fund a bunch of infrastructure projects, I don’t see a mad rush of people deciding to make a career in the trades.
If the gov’t decides to fund a bunch of infrastructure projects, I don’t see a mad rush of people deciding to make a career in the trades.
Then increase the pay until they do.
The pay is quite good right now. A skilled welder willing to move around can clear $100K per year and it can go above that, especially if you run your own business.
Lots of folks don't consider the trades "prestigious" enough.
Lots of folks don't consider the trades "prestigious" enough.
Obviously it's not good enough. Bump up the pay to $500k, and it will magically become "prestigious" enough. I also wouldn't want to wreck my body for $100k if I can make $80k sitting in an office at a keyboard doing a Mon-Fri 8AM to 5PM and get to sleep at home every night. And work from home during a pandemic.
Right now, society is taking advantage of people who have to sacrifice their bodies because they have no other options. If the supply of people having to sacrifice their bodies drops, then the price point has to rise to compensate for that.
Right now, society is taking advantage of people who have to sacrifice their bodies because they have no other options. If the supply of people having to sacrifice their bodies drops, then the price point has to rise to compensate for that.
Well, the people not going into the trades don't have an $80k office job option. They're alternative is a $30k retail job and they still don't want to go into the trades.
It's more than just money.
It's more than just money.
If there is a shortage of them, clearly there is a more attractive alternative, even if it’s a $30k retail job.
Money is the tool used to incentivize people to do things.
Money is the tool used to incentivize people to do things.
The world has changed, homie. The construction unions will slay you if you try to substitute their labour with lots of other people. You will lose the game.
If you have a WPA, it'll look like this:
* Funding for existing construction companies
* Higher pay for construction workers
* Roughly the same employment
You've got to remember that high employment is not a union goal. If they can get five $250k construction workers over fifteen $80k construction workers, they'll do it. That's not a criticism. It's a transparent aim that unions fight for their members. That's what makes them worthwhile.
If you have a WPA, it'll look like this:
* Funding for existing construction companies
* Higher pay for construction workers
* Roughly the same employment
You've got to remember that high employment is not a union goal. If they can get five $250k construction workers over fifteen $80k construction workers, they'll do it. That's not a criticism. It's a transparent aim that unions fight for their members. That's what makes them worthwhile.
> You will lose the game.
Until you don't. Just ask the air traffic controllers' union.
I don't mean this to say I'm anti-union, but just there are net-good and net-bad employers, there are net-good and net-bad unions. For things to get better at the national level everyone is going to have to sacrifice.
Until you don't. Just ask the air traffic controllers' union.
I don't mean this to say I'm anti-union, but just there are net-good and net-bad employers, there are net-good and net-bad unions. For things to get better at the national level everyone is going to have to sacrifice.
All right, I guess we'll see. Life is good for construction workers, right now. Lots of work to go around. I don't think they'll change that.
"Everyone has to make a sacrifice" doesn't mean anything when you can't make them.
"Everyone has to make a sacrifice" doesn't mean anything when you can't make them.
My point with the air traffic controllers is just that: you absolutely can make them. The air traffic controllers thought they had a supreme bargaining position, but then suddenly they discovered that their power was a social construct and could be ripped away when they overplayed their hand.
I don't think it will happen, but my point is that it can if they overplay their hand.
I don't think it will happen, but my point is that it can if they overplay their hand.
Right. I know what you're saying and I hope for it to be true. I'm just sceptical they don't have the power.
What were these people doing before Uber and Lyft came around?
fizzled(2)
Taking similar gig in other industries, such as gardening, constructions, telemarketing and support, pet care, beauty industry, etc.
The gig economy did not start with Uber or AirBnB.
The gig economy did not start with Uber or AirBnB.
Except now with AB5, those populations are at risk too.
I don't disagree, the current politicians need to find a solution to provide people with meaningful opportunities to protect them from the fallout of these changes. I think the danger of allowing this exploitation to continue, if we examine the precedent of the previous decades, is too large though and we need to act before the erosion continues.
I’m not familiar with the proposition, but lets say that you are right for the sake of argument:
Now we have two possibilities:
a) We could fight against it and try to get it revoked. Go back to the status quo where those workers keep working—potentially underpaid—without getting any of the benefits full-time workers rely on.
b) We could ask for a new proposal that would give gig workers these benefits and guarantee them a minimum wage.
Now we have two possibilities:
a) We could fight against it and try to get it revoked. Go back to the status quo where those workers keep working—potentially underpaid—without getting any of the benefits full-time workers rely on.
b) We could ask for a new proposal that would give gig workers these benefits and guarantee them a minimum wage.
Nah, they're not. In the undocumented economy, there are lots of things you do that don't show up. It's not like you're filing taxes when you drive up to Lowe's and ask the guys waiting in the parking lot to help you with some construction. That shit is going straight cash-to-cash.
Those jobs are shittier (that's why people drive instead of doing them) but they will still exist.
Those jobs are shittier (that's why people drive instead of doing them) but they will still exist.
Just go to upwork or similar sites and see how people are refusing to hire workers (including programmers) in CA because of AB5. This affected way more people than just drivers.
Let me rephrase that:
So they are refusing to hire workers because they are not allowed to misuse contractors to circumvent giving fair wages and benefits?
So they are refusing to hire workers because they are not allowed to misuse contractors to circumvent giving fair wages and benefits?
The funny thing is that he's replying to me, one of the people who has stopped using California contractors except among trusted relationships (which is non-Upwork).
I don't know what your experience is with contractors (I use Upwork - which is an awesome platform - extensively) but that's not it. The savings come from the fact that you don't need 100% of their time, you don't need to recruit, and you can slide easily along the performance vs. price on the scale.
One is when you want an expert: for instance, we don't retain in-house counsel. We don't need it 100% of the time, but for the short periods we need it, we need the 99th percentile guy. And we can't afford the 99th percentile guy 100% of the time.
And then it's when you want drudge work but it's spiky: like you need things labelled or whatever. Upwork is like AWS for people and it's really, really good for all the reasons AWS is good.
If I suddenly have to work out payroll and benefits and all that shit, that's instantly non-viable. It's all right, the world is a big place, and things I can contract out I can just as well contract out outside of California and eventually outside the US. 90% of the time I'm doing Anglophone-adjacent nations anyway. Americans are too expensive for this work and they're equivalent performance anyway.
And for the stuff like law? Well, there I'll go with the 99th percentile guy. I know he's powerful enough to get his carve-out (as he has).
I don't know what your experience is with contractors (I use Upwork - which is an awesome platform - extensively) but that's not it. The savings come from the fact that you don't need 100% of their time, you don't need to recruit, and you can slide easily along the performance vs. price on the scale.
One is when you want an expert: for instance, we don't retain in-house counsel. We don't need it 100% of the time, but for the short periods we need it, we need the 99th percentile guy. And we can't afford the 99th percentile guy 100% of the time.
And then it's when you want drudge work but it's spiky: like you need things labelled or whatever. Upwork is like AWS for people and it's really, really good for all the reasons AWS is good.
If I suddenly have to work out payroll and benefits and all that shit, that's instantly non-viable. It's all right, the world is a big place, and things I can contract out I can just as well contract out outside of California and eventually outside the US. 90% of the time I'm doing Anglophone-adjacent nations anyway. Americans are too expensive for this work and they're equivalent performance anyway.
And for the stuff like law? Well, there I'll go with the 99th percentile guy. I know he's powerful enough to get his carve-out (as he has).
Hahaha, that's a really funny reply considering this comment I made a couple of hours ago¹. I guess you're right. I didn't think other people were also doing this.
> Upwork sent around a "Don't worry about AB5" email but I'm not taking chances. Just ended everything with Cali contractors.
¹ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24228083
> Upwork sent around a "Don't worry about AB5" email but I'm not taking chances. Just ended everything with Cali contractors.
¹ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24228083
> Unfortunately many gig workers don't have the privilege. I'm assuming here but you probably had another job and benefits. There are many workers who don't, and are turning to Uber or Lyft just to put food on the table and are being forced into working without paid vacation, sick leave, or benefits simply because they have no other options.
These drivers who can't put food on the table without Uber(which I've personally never met) in Califoria seem in a far worse position now.
No one is forcing them to do anything. They not only get to decide if they want to work, but how much, and when.
And every time these laws are passed most Uber and Lyft drivers always seem far more worried they will lose their income source than they are excited they might get benefits.
And almost all of my Uber and Lyft drivers had another source of income, were retired, were raising children, or had a medical condition that kept them from holding down a full time job.
These drivers who can't put food on the table without Uber(which I've personally never met) in Califoria seem in a far worse position now.
No one is forcing them to do anything. They not only get to decide if they want to work, but how much, and when.
And every time these laws are passed most Uber and Lyft drivers always seem far more worried they will lose their income source than they are excited they might get benefits.
And almost all of my Uber and Lyft drivers had another source of income, were retired, were raising children, or had a medical condition that kept them from holding down a full time job.
> No one is forcing them to do anything. They not only get to decide if they want to work, but how much, and when.
No they don't.. Their material conditions dictate how much they need to work to meet their basic needs (food, utilities, rent).
You're assuming that people who are living paycheck to paycheck, who are backed against a wall, have the option to pick and choose if, when, and how much they work. The people in those situations are the ones we need to work the hardest to protect because they are the most vulnerable to poor conditions and exploitation/coercion. Without protections they contribute to the race to the bottom simply by nature of having no other options, making them willing to work without benefits or for low wages.
> And almost all of my Uber and Lyft drivers had another source of income, were retired, were raising children, or had a medical condition that kept them from holding down a full time job.
This is entirely anecdotal, on top of the fact that "raising children" or "having a medical condition" should not be an excuse to be denied economic stability and benefits.
No they don't.. Their material conditions dictate how much they need to work to meet their basic needs (food, utilities, rent).
You're assuming that people who are living paycheck to paycheck, who are backed against a wall, have the option to pick and choose if, when, and how much they work. The people in those situations are the ones we need to work the hardest to protect because they are the most vulnerable to poor conditions and exploitation/coercion. Without protections they contribute to the race to the bottom simply by nature of having no other options, making them willing to work without benefits or for low wages.
> And almost all of my Uber and Lyft drivers had another source of income, were retired, were raising children, or had a medical condition that kept them from holding down a full time job.
This is entirely anecdotal, on top of the fact that "raising children" or "having a medical condition" should not be an excuse to be denied economic stability and benefits.
"This is entirely anecdotal, on top of the fact that "raising children" or "having a medical condition" should not be an excuse to be denied economic stability and benefits."
well they sure as shit aren't getting _anything_ now. What a hollow victory.
well they sure as shit aren't getting _anything_ now. What a hollow victory.
Sorry I meant no one is forcing them to work for Lyft/Uber. Everyone who decided to work for Lyft and Uber because it made their life better. Would they have made that same choice if they had a trust fund that met all their basic needs? Probably not.
> This is entirely anecdotal, on top of the fact that "raising children" or "having a medical condition" should not be an excuse to be denied economic stability and benefits.
Yes I'm using anecdotes from talking with Uber drivers, which isn't as good as a study. But it is better than what you are doing which is speculating. Have you had the experience that almost all of your Uber drivers were hoping for full time employment, with a boss, and working on a set schedule?
This bill will completely change what a job looks like for Uber and Lyft. People choose to work for Uber and Lyft for the flexibility that accommodates different life circumstances not for the pay. This bill will destroy that flexibility, it will improve the lives of a small % of Uber and Lyft's drivers who want to work full time and get benefits from Lyft and Uber. But this will worsen the lives of everyone who works there precisely because of the flexibility.
> This is entirely anecdotal, on top of the fact that "raising children" or "having a medical condition" should not be an excuse to be denied economic stability and benefits.
Yes I'm using anecdotes from talking with Uber drivers, which isn't as good as a study. But it is better than what you are doing which is speculating. Have you had the experience that almost all of your Uber drivers were hoping for full time employment, with a boss, and working on a set schedule?
This bill will completely change what a job looks like for Uber and Lyft. People choose to work for Uber and Lyft for the flexibility that accommodates different life circumstances not for the pay. This bill will destroy that flexibility, it will improve the lives of a small % of Uber and Lyft's drivers who want to work full time and get benefits from Lyft and Uber. But this will worsen the lives of everyone who works there precisely because of the flexibility.
> Unfortunately many gig workers don't have the privilege. I'm assuming here but you probably had another job and benefits. There are many workers who don't, and are turning to Uber or Lyft just to put food on the table and are being forced into working without paid vacation, sick leave, or benefits simply because they have no other options.
Agreed, but is that a problem with the gig economy itself or our entire welfare system?
I agree we can make life better for the workers that remain on Lyft/Uber, but what happens to the workers who were "fired" as a result of reduced ridership?
Agreed, but is that a problem with the gig economy itself or our entire welfare system?
I agree we can make life better for the workers that remain on Lyft/Uber, but what happens to the workers who were "fired" as a result of reduced ridership?
How much did the wear and tear on the car take out? I've been thinking of doing the same, but i keep hearing that when you factor in all the repairs you'll have to do, then it comes out at pretty much a wash.
Fun fact: the average pay per mile is less than the US Government's Standard driving deduction.
I can personally testify to this. My rule of thumb as a driver was that I had to drive roughly twice as many miles as dollars I needed, i.e. $0.50 a mile.
It was absolutely a lifesaver and exactly what I needed at the time. But it's debatable whether it could have been sustained long term.
Personally, I think if instead of chasing imaginary Level 5 autonomy madness with billions of dollars, they had done the unsexy thing and simply paid drivers better, they might not be in this mess. It's pretty insane that they take half of every fare and still can't turn a profit-- seems like a clear sign somebody screwed up &/or made the wrong bet.
It was absolutely a lifesaver and exactly what I needed at the time. But it's debatable whether it could have been sustained long term.
Personally, I think if instead of chasing imaginary Level 5 autonomy madness with billions of dollars, they had done the unsexy thing and simply paid drivers better, they might not be in this mess. It's pretty insane that they take half of every fare and still can't turn a profit-- seems like a clear sign somebody screwed up &/or made the wrong bet.
The IRS driving reimbursement rate where I am is $0.575/mile. So, if you make less than that, it seems as if you're not making money (as an 'average' driver). You'll just be trading the mileage on your tires/transmission/axels for cash today.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-20-05.pdf
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-20-05.pdf
So this is basically an admission that the ridesharing business model is not viable without worker exploitation?
People freely working is not exploitation. Full time driving jobs already exist if you wanted that instead of freelance rideshare driving.
They exist, but those opportunities exist not in as numerous quantities because they are undercut by Lyft/Uber, which are only able to do so because they are operating unsustainably. The latter just need to either increase their prices to make the rideshare job more profitable and acceptable or, if that’s truly impossible as they suggest, I guess we’ll have to go back to cab rides.
Uber/Lyft are both profitable in many markets. The system is perfectly sustainable.
It's the service, not the price, that made the biggest difference for users. And this service requires having thousands of drivers able to start at a moment's notice, which is not viable under an employee-shift driven model.
It's the service, not the price, that made the biggest difference for users. And this service requires having thousands of drivers able to start at a moment's notice, which is not viable under an employee-shift driven model.
If it’s so profitable, they should be able to pass on those profits to the drivers. If they were already doing that, we wouldn’t be where we are.
People freely worked under abusive conditions in factories in the Industrial Revolution before the labour rights movement. No one wants to go back to that.
This is a tired argument. Please name the abusive conditions that actually apply here.
AB5 affects more than just ridesharing too. Many writers, artists and other creative professionals are suffering as well. What abuse are they affected by?
AB5 affects more than just ridesharing too. Many writers, artists and other creative professionals are suffering as well. What abuse are they affected by?
you dont get vacation days.
you re not paid for national holidays off days.
you dont get sick days.
you may say it’s what contract is. but without me being able to see where to drive, whom to drive and set price as I wish, without affecting my rating - it’s just talk.
you may say it’s what contract is. but without me being able to see where to drive, whom to drive and set price as I wish, without affecting my rating - it’s just talk.
That's not abuse. You work whenever you want, whether it's a holiday or not. That's the whole point of being freelance and applies to any other industry.
And you can set the price. You can't see the destination but you do know the approximate time and direction.
And you can set the price. You can't see the destination but you do know the approximate time and direction.
>Tough to call anything done as voluntary with a gun held up to the head.
If you don't have total control and transparency of the contract you pick up then it isn't contracting
If you don't have total control and transparency of the contract you pick up then it isn't contracting
The point is that Industrial Revolution capitalists used the same argument that you're using. Those people were "freely" working, except that it was the only real work that could be had. Are people working for Uber/Lyft for whom it's the only way to feed their families, or to supplement their income enough to pay the mortgage or make the rent still "freely" working? If everyone had secure salaries with healthcare and vacation days, how many of those people would "freely" choose to continue working for Uber and Lyft?
> People freely working is not exploitation.
Just because someone freely accepts work, doesn't mean its automatically free of exploitation. Exploitation just means one party is taking advantage of another parties weakness.
Rideshare specifically - I don't think this exploitation is unilateral, but it does exist.
Example - UAE commercial builders freely attracting Pakistan/India laborers and then holding their passports hostage when they realize it's not worth it. https://www.rt.com/news/353432-uae-migrant-workers-slavery/
EDIT: I should clarify - there are degrees of exploitation, the UAE example is an extreme (but used as an example because its so clear cut). My overall point has more to do with people "freely choosing to work" as an idea that people can't be exploited as a result.
Just because someone freely accepts work, doesn't mean its automatically free of exploitation. Exploitation just means one party is taking advantage of another parties weakness.
Rideshare specifically - I don't think this exploitation is unilateral, but it does exist.
Example - UAE commercial builders freely attracting Pakistan/India laborers and then holding their passports hostage when they realize it's not worth it. https://www.rt.com/news/353432-uae-migrant-workers-slavery/
EDIT: I should clarify - there are degrees of exploitation, the UAE example is an extreme (but used as an example because its so clear cut). My overall point has more to do with people "freely choosing to work" as an idea that people can't be exploited as a result.
You're comparing this to poor laborers held hostage?
Drivers are not forced into anything. They apply and can quit anytime. Earnings and fares are completely transparent. Their schedule is determined by them. Where's the exploitation?
Have you ever driven for Uber? I find it odd that so many people claim to know better for others without any experience of the situation.
Drivers are not forced into anything. They apply and can quit anytime. Earnings and fares are completely transparent. Their schedule is determined by them. Where's the exploitation?
Have you ever driven for Uber? I find it odd that so many people claim to know better for others without any experience of the situation.
Laborers in India/Pakistan were not forced to fly to UAE to take the job, but they did anyway.
> Have you ever driven for Uber? I find it odd that so many people claim to know better for others without any experience of the situation.
I have not, but calculating the economics is pretty damn simple, and their earnings are shit (most drivers dont take into account taxes, car costs, gas, car depreciation, etc.).
I think the problem is that you have to bifurcate those who want a full-time-like salary with those who drive to earn a few bucks, otherwise the discussion breaks down.
> Have you ever driven for Uber? I find it odd that so many people claim to know better for others without any experience of the situation.
I have not, but calculating the economics is pretty damn simple, and their earnings are shit (most drivers dont take into account taxes, car costs, gas, car depreciation, etc.).
I think the problem is that you have to bifurcate those who want a full-time-like salary with those who drive to earn a few bucks, otherwise the discussion breaks down.
Again, having your wages and passport stolen is not "freely" working and completely incomparable to ridesharing.
Earnings vary wildy by person. Some people do great, others don't. There's no universal calculation. Ridesharing has always been about flexibility, not full-time employment, even though some people work full-time hours.
There are numerous other driving jobs if you wanted employment instead of being independent. Perhaps suggesting that instead of changing the law for everyone else would be the better option.
Earnings vary wildy by person. Some people do great, others don't. There's no universal calculation. Ridesharing has always been about flexibility, not full-time employment, even though some people work full-time hours.
There are numerous other driving jobs if you wanted employment instead of being independent. Perhaps suggesting that instead of changing the law for everyone else would be the better option.
> Again, having your wages and passport stolen is not "freely" working and completely incomparable to ridesharing.
See my edit - I clarified this.
> Ridesharing has always been about flexibility, not full-time employment, even though some people work full-time hours.
Have you ever driven for Uber? This is not correct. Why would drivers sue Uber/Lyft if that wasn't the case?
> Earnings vary wildy by person. Some people do great, others don't. There's no universal calculation.
And some earnings don't even give people enough money to live. Do you understand why most modern societies have minimum wage?
See my edit - I clarified this.
> Ridesharing has always been about flexibility, not full-time employment, even though some people work full-time hours.
Have you ever driven for Uber? This is not correct. Why would drivers sue Uber/Lyft if that wasn't the case?
> Earnings vary wildy by person. Some people do great, others don't. There's no universal calculation.
And some earnings don't even give people enough money to live. Do you understand why most modern societies have minimum wage?
GP isn't comparing anything. They're pointing out how laughable a maxim like "People freely working is not exploitation." is.
It's laughable to think that having your passport taken is considered "freely" working.
You should explain exactly how these drivers are not free before arguing to take their freedom of work away.
You should explain exactly how these drivers are not free before arguing to take their freedom of work away.
Your central error is in assuming that people work because they want to ("freely"), rather than because they have to.
If you can't understand why people have to work, I don't think I can help explain that.
If you can't understand why people have to work, I don't think I can help explain that.
That’s so vague as to be meaninglessness. Everyone has to work to provide for themselves.
Your example does not match the Uber/Lyft situation. They are free to stop driving at any time and are not stranded in a foreign land without vital identification.
Yes people can freely work for Lyft/Uber, but they can't work free. As in, the designation "independent contractor" means they should have a lot more freedom in how they conduct their personal business than they do at the moment.
Lyft/Uber keep their drivers on a leash while saying they're independent contractors. And that is exploitation.
Lyft/Uber keep their drivers on a leash while saying they're independent contractors. And that is exploitation.
I disagree with what you claim is a "leash". Have you ever driven for Uber? They have already made tweaks to give drivers more control over their fares and you always had control over when and where you work, along with which ride you accept.
More importantly these definitions are decades old and need updating for the modern era. The better solution would be to create a new classification between employee and freelance.
More importantly these definitions are decades old and need updating for the modern era. The better solution would be to create a new classification between employee and freelance.
IIRC they only made these tweaks are being pressured by the government. They were perfectly happy breaking the law when it allowed them to grow quickly.
At that point it's full blown Stockholm syndrome, they somehow managed to make people believe it's in their own interest to be denied basic worker rights. Make them believe they are "their own boss" and they'll accept everything, even if they're just a tiny cog in the giant money printing machine (money they'll never see the color of)
Basic worker rights? Have you ever worked as an independent contractor? What rights are you specifically talking about?
People who have no idea or experience of others but want to remove their freedom and tell them what's best for them is far more insidious and dangerous.
People who have no idea or experience of others but want to remove their freedom and tell them what's best for them is far more insidious and dangerous.
> People who have no idea or experience of others but want to
That's the basis of society, people who have a better overall views of things decide for you all the time, and it should be like that.
What's the opposite ? Private for profit companies deciding what's better for "you" ? That's what Uber and Amazon are trying to do and that's why they lose dozens of court cases about workers rights all over the world.
I don't even get your point, "it's not as bad as X", ok but what's the goal ? Raise the bar so that everyone has access to safe, sustainable jobs or lower the bar to the lowest acceptable working conditions ?
That's the basis of society, people who have a better overall views of things decide for you all the time, and it should be like that.
What's the opposite ? Private for profit companies deciding what's better for "you" ? That's what Uber and Amazon are trying to do and that's why they lose dozens of court cases about workers rights all over the world.
I don't even get your point, "it's not as bad as X", ok but what's the goal ? Raise the bar so that everyone has access to safe, sustainable jobs or lower the bar to the lowest acceptable working conditions ?
The issue is that people making these laws do not have a better overall view of things. When you go against the majority because you personally think something without experience or evidence, that's a major problem.
When did I make the point that "it's not as bad as X"? Both full-time driving jobs and freelance ride-sharing exist. Drivers can already choose what works for them, and many choose ride-sharing for the flexibility it offers and because it's what works in addition to their prior commitments.
Why do you want to take away that opportunity or think that people are incapable of making that choice for themselves?
When did I make the point that "it's not as bad as X"? Both full-time driving jobs and freelance ride-sharing exist. Drivers can already choose what works for them, and many choose ride-sharing for the flexibility it offers and because it's what works in addition to their prior commitments.
Why do you want to take away that opportunity or think that people are incapable of making that choice for themselves?
Personally I don’t think Uber drivers are as stupid as you think they are. They legitimately want to be able to drive flexibly. Also they keep about 75% of receipts for their driving (average gross margin for Uber is under 25%).
> Also they keep about 75% of receipts for their driving
That's good because that way they can pay for their car insurance, health insurance, pension, gas, car maintenance, self employment taxes, frequent car cleaning, &c.
I'm not saying the drivers are stupid, I'm saying Uber &co are very smart.
That's good because that way they can pay for their car insurance, health insurance, pension, gas, car maintenance, self employment taxes, frequent car cleaning, &c.
I'm not saying the drivers are stupid, I'm saying Uber &co are very smart.
When you're pulling the "Stockholm syndrome" card you're basically implying the drivers are stupid and unable to recognize they're victims.
Not sure how else to read your previous statement.
Not sure how else to read your previous statement.
No, I think it’s two fold. One it means they believe increasing rates would make their business less viable and second it’s likely a tactic to force the government to reconsider.
The gov will have to weigh the benefit of people having affordable rides on demand plus people who want “side money” vs higher fares plus people who now are either out of a job or out of side money.
The gov will have to weigh the benefit of people having affordable rides on demand plus people who want “side money” vs higher fares plus people who now are either out of a job or out of side money.
The State of California doesn't care about workers, they care about the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars they want from payroll and unemployment taxes, in addition to revenue from automatic withholdings for people whom would otherwise be below the reporting limit.
The vast majority of freelancers do not feel like they are being exploited.
Source: I run a company that helps freelance/contract software engineers find work.
Source: I run a company that helps freelance/contract software engineers find work.
I have you ever worked as a freelancer? I have and so do many many people I know. Go to a bar with all your freelancing friends and play this drinking game: take a drink every time your client has shafted you.
You will be drunk very quickly.
https://vimeo.com/22053820
You will be drunk very quickly.
https://vimeo.com/22053820
I have worked as a freelancer for many years. I now run a company that finds work and manages clients for freelancers.
The belief that consenting adults who voluntarily apply and work for a company as they choose are being "exploited" speaks volumes about your beliefs of the average person's intelligence and capabilities. Perhaps it is the class of individuals who internalize beliefs of another class of people being effectively brainless cattle who must be shepherded and protected -- perhaps it is they who are actually exploiting workers for their own social and political ends.
Sort of, the rub is the model can't work for both über and lyft. Their competing triggers a race to the bottom price war exacerbated by the lack of platform lock-in.
In other words, I as a rational consumer will use the service that is cheapest when all other factors are identical. Driver's as rational actors will do precisely the opposite - the one paying me the most - as neither platform found a way to differentiate themselves on driver benefits.
This system behaves according to market principles and as such, costs need to be constantly cut to fight off competing rideshare services.
Über needs lyft to die and vice versa. The real battle can be further abstracted to the investment firms supporting each company. Since the investors know that so long as their bet is funded and working towards one of the two endgames for rideshares (full self driving or death of competition) it doesn't matter how much money is lost per ride.
In other words, I as a rational consumer will use the service that is cheapest when all other factors are identical. Driver's as rational actors will do precisely the opposite - the one paying me the most - as neither platform found a way to differentiate themselves on driver benefits.
This system behaves according to market principles and as such, costs need to be constantly cut to fight off competing rideshare services.
Über needs lyft to die and vice versa. The real battle can be further abstracted to the investment firms supporting each company. Since the investors know that so long as their bet is funded and working towards one of the two endgames for rideshares (full self driving or death of competition) it doesn't matter how much money is lost per ride.
Because the previous medallion system was so much better.
Either the driver rented the car to a middleman who rented the medallion from a rich owner, or said owner was selling and financing (most banks won't touch these medallions!) a medallion at a ridiculous interest rate to a driver that plans to use it as his retirement savings.
Pre-Uber, the more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their industry was a pyramid schemed aimed at helping established rent-seeker take advantage of often poor new immigrants. Uber brought a breeze of fresh air: Someone could simply buy a car, calculate the depreciation and it's value on the market (since unlike medallions cars are relatively liquid assets!) do rideshare and calculate their profits or loss. They can get out of the game at anytime.
Either the driver rented the car to a middleman who rented the medallion from a rich owner, or said owner was selling and financing (most banks won't touch these medallions!) a medallion at a ridiculous interest rate to a driver that plans to use it as his retirement savings.
Pre-Uber, the more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their industry was a pyramid schemed aimed at helping established rent-seeker take advantage of often poor new immigrants. Uber brought a breeze of fresh air: Someone could simply buy a car, calculate the depreciation and it's value on the market (since unlike medallions cars are relatively liquid assets!) do rideshare and calculate their profits or loss. They can get out of the game at anytime.
>"Either the driver rented the car to a middleman who rented the medallion from a rich owner, or said owner was selling and financing (most banks won't touch these medallions!)"
There are plenty of commercial banks that have underwritten loans for taxi medallions and built up a significant portfolio Just in NY for example - North Fork Bank, Capital One, Provident and Signature Bank, See:
https://www.autofinancenews.net/allposts/finance/loss-mitiga...
https://nyrej.com/print/18823
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200117005338/en/Sig...
There are plenty of commercial banks that have underwritten loans for taxi medallions and built up a significant portfolio Just in NY for example - North Fork Bank, Capital One, Provident and Signature Bank, See:
https://www.autofinancenews.net/allposts/finance/loss-mitiga...
https://nyrej.com/print/18823
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200117005338/en/Sig...
Of course there are, but as with any not so liquid and extremely volatile asset, the interest rates are going to be horrible. It's not like a car or a house.
[deleted]
it's not even viable with worker exploitation. Lyft has literally never not lost money.
I dislike the moving of the goalposts about what is "worker exploitation". The workers aren't being exploited, they're working. Worker exploitation would be forcing them to work 80 hours a week without the ability to say no.
Well it’s not even ridesharing as such. I think Uber and Lyft would have avoided legal issues, had they been actual ridesharing companies. Driving around picking up people and driving them to destination where you don’t need to go is called being a taxi.
I really wish we could stop calling Uber ridesharing, when the majority of their business is in fact not. It cause problems for actual ridesharing, which do enjoy some legal protection in some countries.
I really wish we could stop calling Uber ridesharing, when the majority of their business is in fact not. It cause problems for actual ridesharing, which do enjoy some legal protection in some countries.
California has proven itself again and again to be really good at centrally planning the economic activities of individuals so I think this will work out pretty well in the end.
This is why I’m leaving California.
That is why the California economy is collapsing. /s
Everybody likes to complain about California. When I was born here it was about 15m people. Now its 40m. If you are unhappy, please leave to a lower cost, lower tax state. People have been predicting California's decline my entire life and the real problem is it can't handle the growth. Also, California has been sucking up employing the young and of mid-west and south for a century. Now those states get mad when "Californians" move to places like Austin. Where do you think they came from originally?
Everybody likes to complain about California. When I was born here it was about 15m people. Now its 40m. If you are unhappy, please leave to a lower cost, lower tax state. People have been predicting California's decline my entire life and the real problem is it can't handle the growth. Also, California has been sucking up employing the young and of mid-west and south for a century. Now those states get mad when "Californians" move to places like Austin. Where do you think they came from originally?
Do you have a similar "love it or leave it" attitude when people complain about America? Not very Californian of you.
Unlike international immigration, US inter-state immigration is comparatively quite simple and built-in as a feature.
That's a good point. I think immigration is great for the country. And I never mind it my neighbors come from the mid-west or from Central America or wherever. I just get sick of people bashing California. It outgrows the rest of the country at an amazing rate, spawns world beating companies, and then people say it is socialist.
California also has the highest poverty rate in the country when you adjust for cost of living.
The successes of people within a state might be because the state. Or it might be despite the state. I think a lot of California’s success is despite the state’s actions or policies. Reasonable minds can disagree.
The successes of people within a state might be because the state. Or it might be despite the state. I think a lot of California’s success is despite the state’s actions or policies. Reasonable minds can disagree.
Nah. CA funds healthcare, environmental laws, a great public university system, CCPA etc and in general enacts many pro-people laws. Many of these are then enacted nationally. So its disingenuous to characterize the state as obstructing progress when its clearly done the opposite.
The comparison I like to make is with TX. If Texas was even moderately liberal/centrist and enacted commonsense policies (Medicaid expansion, State taxes to fund healthcare education etc) it would do a LOT better. Now, Texas HAS been successful despite its Government doing nothing/actively getting in the way.
The comparison I like to make is with TX. If Texas was even moderately liberal/centrist and enacted commonsense policies (Medicaid expansion, State taxes to fund healthcare education etc) it would do a LOT better. Now, Texas HAS been successful despite its Government doing nothing/actively getting in the way.
> So its disingenuous to characterize the state as obstructing progress when its clearly done the opposite.
If by progress you mean increase poverty then we agree. Otherwise I didn’t talk about “progress” one way or another.
> If Texas was even moderately liberal/centrist and enacted commonsense policies (Medicaid expansion, State taxes to fund healthcare education etc) it would do a LOT better.
Maybe. Or maybe Texas would do worse and their poverty rate would grow to match California!
California is able to pass all kinds of bills and spend all kinds of money because it is a very very wealthy state. Did California policies directly cause that wealth or is Hollywood + Silicon Valley a matter of luck? Or perhaps out of California’s thousands of policies only a couple (such as non-compete) had a significant influence on their economic bounty.
If by progress you mean increase poverty then we agree. Otherwise I didn’t talk about “progress” one way or another.
> If Texas was even moderately liberal/centrist and enacted commonsense policies (Medicaid expansion, State taxes to fund healthcare education etc) it would do a LOT better.
Maybe. Or maybe Texas would do worse and their poverty rate would grow to match California!
California is able to pass all kinds of bills and spend all kinds of money because it is a very very wealthy state. Did California policies directly cause that wealth or is Hollywood + Silicon Valley a matter of luck? Or perhaps out of California’s thousands of policies only a couple (such as non-compete) had a significant influence on their economic bounty.
The "liberal states bad" trope has popped up on conservative media in the last year or so, so you'll see a lot more of it on places like HN.
Yeah, pretty much all of the best state economies are extremely liberal (1). I think the anti-tax sentiment on HN is from people who make a lot of money and then realize they have to pay taxes. They attribute their success entirely to themselves and then whine about giving anything back to the environment that enabled them. California certainly has giant problems but don't let it distract you from the big picture.
(1) https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/economy
(1) https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/economy
I'd like to see the p-value on states' political lean vs the size of their economy. Looking at the top 10 state economies on your list, 3 are swing states and 3 are red states, leaving only 4 (far from "pretty much all") as blue states. Even looking 10 states further down, into the top 20, adds 5 red states, 3 swing states, and only 2 blue states.
Your framing of the list is more than a bit disingenuous. 4/5 of the top economies are blue. 6/10 are blue, 1/10 is a swing state, and 3/10 are red (1). When you dive a bit deeper, you can also see that all 3 red states border much bigger and richer blue states (Utah -> Colorado, Idaho -> Washington/Oregon, Arizona -> California). Perhaps a better way is to break it down by district (2). If you look at the house of representatives and sum up the GDP by party, democrats account for ~$10T and republicans account for ~$6T.
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
(2) https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/15/charts-democrats-represent-m...
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
(2) https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/15/charts-democrats-represent-m...
What if we looked at things like tax rate and cost of living?
People make more money in California, but they also spend more on housing, taxes, food, gas, etc.
People make more money in California, but they also spend more on housing, taxes, food, gas, etc.
If you look at quality of life indicators instead of economic strength, California certainly falls more than a bit but the red/blue divide grows even larger (1). From purely a quality of life standpoint, 8 of the best 10 are blue and 8 out of the worst 10 are red.
(1) https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings
(1) https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings
Trying to build rankings of something like 'quality of life' seems pretty dense
Half of the top ten in that list cannot be called "extremely liberal" (or for some, even moderately liberal) -- Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Florida, and Arizona; even fewer in the next ten.
I don't disagree with you vis-a-vis the anti-tax sentiment, but you're making a strong claim that extremely liberal state government policies drive economies, and that's a reach.
I don't disagree with you vis-a-vis the anti-tax sentiment, but you're making a strong claim that extremely liberal state government policies drive economies, and that's a reach.
4 out of the top 5 are extremely liberal. In the top ten, let's calculate by population.
Blue: 66.8M (5.7 + 7.6 + 39.5 + 4.2 + 6.8 + 3)
Red: 12.3M (3.2 + 1.8 + 7.3)
Swing (aka Florida): 21.5M
This can be a bit confusing so let's skip straight to the point. If you take the house of representatives and add up GDP by district, democrats account for $10.2T and republicans account for $6.2T (1). The differences don't stop there. Republican districts have slower economic growth, less skilled labor, less educated workers, and a host of other bad indicators.
(1) https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/15/charts-democrats-represent-m...
Blue: 66.8M (5.7 + 7.6 + 39.5 + 4.2 + 6.8 + 3)
Red: 12.3M (3.2 + 1.8 + 7.3)
Swing (aka Florida): 21.5M
This can be a bit confusing so let's skip straight to the point. If you take the house of representatives and add up GDP by district, democrats account for $10.2T and republicans account for $6.2T (1). The differences don't stop there. Republican districts have slower economic growth, less skilled labor, less educated workers, and a host of other bad indicators.
(1) https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/15/charts-democrats-represent-m...
Interesting discussion. Take some of the districts shown in your source: NY-10, a Democratic district, is like half of Manhattan plus bits of Brooklyn. PA-13, a Republican district, is 98% rural Pennsylvania with some small towns thrown in.
Rural districts lean Republican, and urban districts lean Democratic. I'd wager that the bad indicators you mention are better explained by the rural/urban divide more so than political leanings. A central business district of a major city is going to have better economic growth, higher-skilled and more educated labor, and a host of other good indicators compared to farmland.
I agree there is correlation between dense urban areas (which are more likely to lean Democratic) having a higher GDP output and rural areas (which are more likely to lean Republican) having a lower GDP output. However, you would need to provide stronger evidence that there is any causality established there.
I'd say the causality runs the other way around: people in high density living situations (which for better or worse have been the primary driver of GDP growth since the industrial revolution) are amenable to more government regulation, simply by virtue of the problems caused by that same density -- people encounter "this is why we can't have nice things" kinds of situations, and want regulation to counter those, a lot more often when squeezed into big cities. Therefore those places lean Democratic in the US. The opposite applies for rural areas. I don't think you can claim that you could take a rural (and therefore Republican-leaning) area, turn the voters there Democratic, and cause economic growth to happen, without first turning it into a dense city.
Rural districts lean Republican, and urban districts lean Democratic. I'd wager that the bad indicators you mention are better explained by the rural/urban divide more so than political leanings. A central business district of a major city is going to have better economic growth, higher-skilled and more educated labor, and a host of other good indicators compared to farmland.
I agree there is correlation between dense urban areas (which are more likely to lean Democratic) having a higher GDP output and rural areas (which are more likely to lean Republican) having a lower GDP output. However, you would need to provide stronger evidence that there is any causality established there.
I'd say the causality runs the other way around: people in high density living situations (which for better or worse have been the primary driver of GDP growth since the industrial revolution) are amenable to more government regulation, simply by virtue of the problems caused by that same density -- people encounter "this is why we can't have nice things" kinds of situations, and want regulation to counter those, a lot more often when squeezed into big cities. Therefore those places lean Democratic in the US. The opposite applies for rural areas. I don't think you can claim that you could take a rural (and therefore Republican-leaning) area, turn the voters there Democratic, and cause economic growth to happen, without first turning it into a dense city.
The causality is certainly confusing and not clear cut. It does seem that these small towns are in desperate need of liberal economic policies yet they vote the opposite. Rural areas need investment in education, infrastructure, and job retraining. If you turned Republican towns blue, you'd almost certainly help their cause.
I am by no means conservative but the taxes on regular people in California are so high because the taxes on longtime landowners are low. And I also don’t think the taxes are being spent well enough to justify them. It’s also quite a stretch to call anything about obstructionist NIMBYism “liberal”
Also many of the people paying the highest taxes in CA are not even from there (executives, tech workers, entertainment workers), which kind of breaks down the argument of giving back to the environment that produced you.
I would be perfectly happy with paying income and sales taxes as high as they are in California if they were assessed more fairly (no low taxes because your grandparents lived here) and if I felt like I got enough out of public services.
Also many of the people paying the highest taxes in CA are not even from there (executives, tech workers, entertainment workers), which kind of breaks down the argument of giving back to the environment that produced you.
I would be perfectly happy with paying income and sales taxes as high as they are in California if they were assessed more fairly (no low taxes because your grandparents lived here) and if I felt like I got enough out of public services.
> are not even from there (executives, tech workers, entertainment workers), which kind of breaks down the argument of giving back to the environment that produced you.
This doesn't make sense. Are you saying people should only pay taxes in the state they were born in forever? That's not how taxation works.
This doesn't make sense. Are you saying people should only pay taxes in the state they were born in forever? That's not how taxation works.
Not exactly, what I’m saying is I don’t buy any argument that the taxes are so high in CA because they need to be to provide the services that allow it to have a good economy. The only possible exception to this is the UC system. Other than that I think California has a good economy mostly as a result of its location, size, and geography
Man, if ever there was a proposition that need to be repealed. I lived in NorCal for 22 years. Prop 13 is why schools in non-rich neighborhoods are literally collapsing. There are schools in South Sacto that have been holding classes in "temporary" trailers for over 20 years. What a huge mistake 1978 made.
> Prop 13 is why schools in non-rich neighborhoods are literally collapsing.
Let's say Prop 13 was repealed. Rich neighborhoods would still get more property tax revenue than poor neighborhoods, because the properties in rich neighborhoods are worth more.
If you want to solve the disparity in school funding you need to stop basing it on the values of the homes in the neighborhoods surrounding the schools.
Repealing Prop 13 will give schools in poor areas more money than they have now, but they will never get as much money as schools in rich areas as long as the property tax funding model persists.
Let's say Prop 13 was repealed. Rich neighborhoods would still get more property tax revenue than poor neighborhoods, because the properties in rich neighborhoods are worth more.
If you want to solve the disparity in school funding you need to stop basing it on the values of the homes in the neighborhoods surrounding the schools.
Repealing Prop 13 will give schools in poor areas more money than they have now, but they will never get as much money as schools in rich areas as long as the property tax funding model persists.
[deleted]
If California had the weather of South Dakota no one would live there. California is the state version of being born on third base and thinking you hit a triple.
If Texas had California's oil, no one would live there.
I think we should not talk about regions of the country like they are sports teams that we root for or against. Texas is very nice with lots of nice people California is very nice with lots of nice people.
I wish it could be cordial but that time is over. The very nice people of Texas are supporting a traitor inviting Russian interference, destroying a constitutionally provisioned mail service, and actively overseeing one of the largest wealth transfers from poor to rich in the history of the US. 58K Americans died in Vietnam. More than twice that have died unnecessarily due to Covid-19 due to purely political reasons. Situations of this gravity force us to dispose of the niceties.
I find it hard to blame Trump solely for the fact that capitalism has gloriously failed to provide anything in way of an adequate response to a global pandemic. And our government for longer than trump has been captured by our economy. A statement like "more than twice have died unnecessarily due to covid" is rather hard to take seriously. As if there was something reactionary anybody could have done to prevent _all_ the covid deaths.
Huh? Texas and California both have high quality of life, and also both have large amounts of oil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_oil_and_gas_industr...
Not sure what you're trying to say here.
Not sure what you're trying to say here.
Your comment is extremely misleading. Texas has 8x the proved oil reserves (1) and 10x the current oil production (2). Texas produces 41% of the oil in the US. California is 4%. Texas also provides processing and distribution to the greater Gulf of Mexico oil production states. When it comes to quality of life indicators, Texas is clearly the bottom half in states (3), (4) .
(1) https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_a_EPC0_R01_mmbbl_a...
(2) https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
(3) https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings
(4) https://wallethub.com/edu/best-states-to-live-in/62617/#main...
(1) https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_a_EPC0_R01_mmbbl_a...
(2) https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
(3) https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings
(4) https://wallethub.com/edu/best-states-to-live-in/62617/#main...
Fair enough, thanks for the data!
This is more true than people realize: sure, silicon valley could've happened anywhere (and almost did) - but California won the lottery many times over, between the gold and silver rushes, early Hollywood needing reliable sunshine and varied terrain, and massive farming operations (incl Napa Valley) needing mild, reliable weather, and of course, coastal tourism and people staying "for the lifestyle."
https://www.google.com/search?q=history+of+hollywood+film+in...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_Lode
https://www.google.com/search?q=history+of+hollywood+film+in...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_Lode
> If you are unhappy, please leave to a lower cost, lower tax state.
People are, by the millions.
People are, by the millions.
Certainly! My whole life it has gotten more expensive and lots of people can't afford it. That's not different than New York City or London.
But unlike many other states, the population of California has not actually gone down (see below). Maybe it will, but why is that a problem when traffic and housing costs are such an issue?
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=populat...
But unlike many other states, the population of California has not actually gone down (see below). Maybe it will, but why is that a problem when traffic and housing costs are such an issue?
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=populat...
When California had 15m, most of the controls in place now did not yet exist.
It does sound like sarcasm, and I certainly hope it is.
California is so well managed the state never has issues with bare essentials like power, water, or housing.
You forgot to add the /s, but I guess it's obvious enough. This will definitely not turn out well for individuals living in California.
True. That's why nobody wants to live there.
> Instead, what Sacramento politicians are pushing is an employment model that 4 out of 5 drivers don’t support.
Is that stat accurate? If so, what is the argument for imposing a model that the vast majority of drivers don't support?
Is that stat accurate? If so, what is the argument for imposing a model that the vast majority of drivers don't support?
100% of the thousands of Uber drivers I've talked to over the past 8 years have said work flexibility is their greatest advantage. Many of them already have other commitments and drive for extra income. If they wanted a FT driving job, they would've gotten one.
Thinking through this more. I've noticed that a lot of drivers work both Uber and Lyft (flexibility allows this). Would that go away in the employee model?
Yes. While you can be employed by multiple companies, it's unlikely you'll have the flexibility to do so because they will implement shift schedules to maximize employee driving time and coverage.
Yes. You can’t be on the clock at two employers at the same time
I would think so, no more running multiple apps as a driver if you're employed.
Because the pool of drivers for a particular company would be massively reduced as well, driver down-time between rides on their platform may be expected to significantly decrease, which was a major reason for running multiple apps in the first place. Basically the remaining drivers will essentially partition themselves into two pools, driving exclusively for either Uber or Lyft. I'm not saying anything about whether that's good or bad, but it seems a likely outcome.
Because the pool of drivers for a particular company would be massively reduced as well, driver down-time between rides on their platform may be expected to significantly decrease, which was a major reason for running multiple apps in the first place. Basically the remaining drivers will essentially partition themselves into two pools, driving exclusively for either Uber or Lyft. I'm not saying anything about whether that's good or bad, but it seems a likely outcome.
Thanks for taking it a step further. I didn't think about that perspective but I could see it playing out that way.
If the only option is to be full time I imagine it must. You can't bee full time on both services.
AB5 left that flexibility in place. It allows for flexible hours and the ability to pick and choose the rides they accept.
Nothing about this legislation or the court case before it took that flexibility away. Nothing about it requires people to be "full time" either.
Nothing about this legislation or the court case before it took that flexibility away. Nothing about it requires people to be "full time" either.
True but the problem is that it mandates presence-based earnings (by the hour) and not output-based. That is the reason it does not work with the model Uber & Lyft built.
Obviously, Lyft and Uber could've anticipated this and could've decided months ago to work on an alternative. Instead they let it come to a head and now they are trying to a dramatic PR push to get the law changed.
Obviously, Lyft and Uber could've anticipated this and could've decided months ago to work on an alternative. Instead they let it come to a head and now they are trying to a dramatic PR push to get the law changed.
The fact that Uber and Lyft had a model that relied on not paying people for the time they are working but not accepting rides is kind of the point.
Employees were always able to have flexible hours, there's nothing new about that. The major change is that employee classification means predetermined shifts.
Uber/Lyft will control when and where and how long work is. That changes everything about the service (which is what matters more than the price) and makes it nonviable outside of a few major urban areas.
Uber/Lyft will control when and where and how long work is. That changes everything about the service (which is what matters more than the price) and makes it nonviable outside of a few major urban areas.
The legislation doesn't outright ban those things, but the economics won't work out at scale if Uber has to classify the drivers as employees.
Do you want low-commitment employment (from both sides) or do you want employee benefits. You can't have both.
Do you want low-commitment employment (from both sides) or do you want employee benefits. You can't have both.
If the economics of Uber don't work when Uber is responsible for treating their drivers right, giving them a minimum wage, and offering benefits- then it sounds like their business model is simply exploiting the working class.
You are using a completely subjective opinion of "treating their drivers right". Have you spoken to many drivers about what they actually want?
What do you think independent contractor means? Do you think that nobody should be independent then? Do you realize that full-time driving jobs already exist? Why do you presume that drivers can't make this choice for themselves? Why can't the people who are unhappy with the earnings just stop driving? Why is it better for both riders and drivers to lose this service and income by forced legislation when it already works fine for millions?
What do you think independent contractor means? Do you think that nobody should be independent then? Do you realize that full-time driving jobs already exist? Why do you presume that drivers can't make this choice for themselves? Why can't the people who are unhappy with the earnings just stop driving? Why is it better for both riders and drivers to lose this service and income by forced legislation when it already works fine for millions?
You're asking a lot of questions that can be answered with Google.
With regards to my experiences- I've spent years as an independent contractor. My linkedin is in my profile, feel free to confirm. I know the pros and cons of being an independent contractor and have followed the changes in the law both on the federal and local level. I'd say I'm fairly well versed in it.
Your argument about how "employee == full time" is just a straw man. No one is requiring people to be full time. In fact "flexibility"- which in most survays done on drivers is one of their top concerns- is preserved with the legal cases and subsequent AB5 legislation. The only difference is that as employees drivers would also get paid for idle time while waiting for rides, would have the option of benefits, and Uber would be responsible for paying unemployment taxes for when those riders lose their jobs (like when a pandemic hits).
With regards to my experiences- I've spent years as an independent contractor. My linkedin is in my profile, feel free to confirm. I know the pros and cons of being an independent contractor and have followed the changes in the law both on the federal and local level. I'd say I'm fairly well versed in it.
Your argument about how "employee == full time" is just a straw man. No one is requiring people to be full time. In fact "flexibility"- which in most survays done on drivers is one of their top concerns- is preserved with the legal cases and subsequent AB5 legislation. The only difference is that as employees drivers would also get paid for idle time while waiting for rides, would have the option of benefits, and Uber would be responsible for paying unemployment taxes for when those riders lose their jobs (like when a pandemic hits).
So you didn't talk to any drivers? None of those questions are for Google. They question your position, and it seems that's why you didn't answer.
Why did you ever work as a contractor if you're against not having a min wage and benefits? You claim that's "right" so what changed? Why impose that on others instead of choosing for yourself?
Flexibility means work when, where, and however long you want. AB5 removes this. Employee classification means preset shifts, which means it's only viable with fewer drivers working set schedules in dense areas instead of the fluid supply/demand with high coverage that exists today. This fundamentally changes the service from what consumers want, and that's why it doesn't work.
Why did you ever work as a contractor if you're against not having a min wage and benefits? You claim that's "right" so what changed? Why impose that on others instead of choosing for yourself?
Flexibility means work when, where, and however long you want. AB5 removes this. Employee classification means preset shifts, which means it's only viable with fewer drivers working set schedules in dense areas instead of the fluid supply/demand with high coverage that exists today. This fundamentally changes the service from what consumers want, and that's why it doesn't work.
So what you're saying is that surveys with statistically significant numbers or respondents are not as important as the anecdotal evidence that comes with talking to a handful of people.
I don't drive often- I use public transit and lyft. I have talked to drivers, and most of them are pissed that their wages are dropping every year but they can't do things like unionize as they aren't "real employees". My anecdotal evidence, which you value so highly, lines up with what I've been saying.
> Employee classification means preset shifts
This is factually wrong. California doesn't have any law requiring "shifts". It does have a law saying that companies which enforce shifts (such as saying someone needs to be in the office from nine to five) give a minimum of four hours pay if they send people home early, but that's a huge difference from what you're saying.
There are tons of examples of this too- "work from home data entry" is a big field in California, and while they often have deadlines they rarely schedule specific shifts.
I don't drive often- I use public transit and lyft. I have talked to drivers, and most of them are pissed that their wages are dropping every year but they can't do things like unionize as they aren't "real employees". My anecdotal evidence, which you value so highly, lines up with what I've been saying.
> Employee classification means preset shifts
This is factually wrong. California doesn't have any law requiring "shifts". It does have a law saying that companies which enforce shifts (such as saying someone needs to be in the office from nine to five) give a minimum of four hours pay if they send people home early, but that's a huge difference from what you're saying.
There are tons of examples of this too- "work from home data entry" is a big field in California, and while they often have deadlines they rarely schedule specific shifts.
What I'm saying is what I said. Why don't you answer the questions?
Wages decrease because there's more supply than demand. That's why surge pricing exists. The issue isn't the feedback (surveys align with the thousands I've talked to), it's that you don't think AB5 affects flexibility.
However paying by time requires shifts. Ridesharing needs to meet demand. Employees have to be placed in the best location and time to avoid idle drivers. This would lead to fewer drivers working longer hours and less coverage. This changes the service that people expect and pay for, leading to less riders and then even less drivers in a bad feedback loop.
All because some people don't think other people can choose how to spend their own time.
Wages decrease because there's more supply than demand. That's why surge pricing exists. The issue isn't the feedback (surveys align with the thousands I've talked to), it's that you don't think AB5 affects flexibility.
However paying by time requires shifts. Ridesharing needs to meet demand. Employees have to be placed in the best location and time to avoid idle drivers. This would lead to fewer drivers working longer hours and less coverage. This changes the service that people expect and pay for, leading to less riders and then even less drivers in a bad feedback loop.
All because some people don't think other people can choose how to spend their own time.
The problem is that many drivers prefer having the flexibility to work 5 hours one week and then 50 hours the next. With the new rules, this would not be possible. By taking away this option, you are telling drivers they need to commit to Uber as a legit job. Considering the vast majority of Uber drivers I've ever spoken to use it as a side gig to earn extra cash, I will bet they side with Uber on this one.
The idea that someone can clock-in, work 2-3 hours, clock-out and then clock in again in 2 weeks tells me this isn't a real job. We need another classification.
And the problem here isn't that Uber's model doesn't work. Uber can transition to this new classification and adjust their business model to make it work, the bigger problem is that the drivers don't want it to work this way. The service works because it can respond to minute-by-minute demand. That's not possible with the new rules.
The idea that someone can clock-in, work 2-3 hours, clock-out and then clock in again in 2 weeks tells me this isn't a real job. We need another classification.
And the problem here isn't that Uber's model doesn't work. Uber can transition to this new classification and adjust their business model to make it work, the bigger problem is that the drivers don't want it to work this way. The service works because it can respond to minute-by-minute demand. That's not possible with the new rules.
If they work fifty hours in a week then 10 hours would be overtime. This is something that's been enshrined in our laws for quite a bit of time now.
Outside of the fact that uber would have to pay them more, there is nothing stopping them from working five hours one week and fifty the next.
Outside of the fact that uber would have to pay them more, there is nothing stopping them from working five hours one week and fifty the next.
Overtime averaging arrangements are not unheard of.
The point is they may work full-time one week, and then not work for 6 months, or ever again. Once you start classifying people as employees, this low commitment approach becomes nearly impossible to maintain.
> Many of them already have other commitments and drive for extra income.
Exactly, why are so many people forgetting this aspect of ridesharing? The whole point is that you can pick it up and put it down whenever you want for a little extra cash. VERY early on people were able to make a killing doing Uber and that gave others a false impression that this was somehow a viable full time job. It's been years and years since it made economic sense to do Uber on a fulltime basis. Giving drivers benefits isn't going to change the effective hourly rate of $7/hr or whatever it's been for a while.
Exactly, why are so many people forgetting this aspect of ridesharing? The whole point is that you can pick it up and put it down whenever you want for a little extra cash. VERY early on people were able to make a killing doing Uber and that gave others a false impression that this was somehow a viable full time job. It's been years and years since it made economic sense to do Uber on a fulltime basis. Giving drivers benefits isn't going to change the effective hourly rate of $7/hr or whatever it's been for a while.
Isn't that the point? They spent more than sustainable by paying better than anybody else.
Now they are trying to avoid the laws that made them unprofitable in the first term.
it was unsustainable from the beggining, they just expected to gain the public opinion to change the laws
Now they are trying to avoid the laws that made them unprofitable in the first term.
it was unsustainable from the beggining, they just expected to gain the public opinion to change the laws
It's no different than any other supply and demand market. If you open a new business selling shoes, nobody guarantees you an income or protection from competitors who take all the customers.
A low-skill contract like driving casual passengers just has too much competition to be worth a full-time position, but it's still a great way for extra income with little commitment.
A low-skill contract like driving casual passengers just has too much competition to be worth a full-time position, but it's still a great way for extra income with little commitment.
It is... there is same data from uber. This is a classic case of politicians and pundits not understanding the reality on the ground.
This might not be the case here but I notice that CA often creates laws that are unrealistic and don't work. So while I don't have the data in this case it would not surprise me if true.
If true, it's also selection bias. Current drivers like the current situation. Current non-drivers might join the workforce under new circumstances. Obviously its just speculation but you should take the statistics with a grain of salt.
Probably, but I bet the 1/5 of drivers that support the getting classified as employees represent a disproportionate amount of driver hours spent on the app. If you are logged in 8.5h a day as your primary source of income, becoming an employee is probably beneficial. If you only log in for likely surge events a few hours a week, you largely won't get to do that anymore.
Why can't we have a new worker classification that allows gig workers to have both the flexibility the job entails + better benefits/protections?
I think that’s what is proposed in prop 22. Maybe it could be argued it needs to do more ... but seems like a step towards it.
Better yet would be to have universal healthcare to decouple access to healthcare from being employed.
100% this. This wouldn't be a political fight if people weren't worried about not being taken care of when they or a family member gets sick or hurt.
Seems like that's what Lyft was hoping would be sufficient compromise. Per the release:
"We’ve spent hundreds of hours meeting with policymakers and labor leaders to craft an alternative proposal for drivers that includes a minimum earnings guarantee, mileage reimbursement, a health care subsidy, and occupational accident insurance, without the negative consequences."
"We’ve spent hundreds of hours meeting with policymakers and labor leaders to craft an alternative proposal for drivers that includes a minimum earnings guarantee, mileage reimbursement, a health care subsidy, and occupational accident insurance, without the negative consequences."
That's what AB5 did. It allowed for a new type of worker that was still partially an employee but would also allow for flexible hours and the ability for drivers to reject rides.
That's what's so disingenuous about this campaign by Uber and Lyft. They're pretending that being an employee would take away all of this flexibility, but the reality is the legislation left that flexibility in place. This is entirely an argument about benefits and protections, but Lyft and Uber are trying to pretend otherwise.
That's what's so disingenuous about this campaign by Uber and Lyft. They're pretending that being an employee would take away all of this flexibility, but the reality is the legislation left that flexibility in place. This is entirely an argument about benefits and protections, but Lyft and Uber are trying to pretend otherwise.
Everything I look up says AB5 makes rideshare drivers wholesale employees with the obligations and benefits that carries. Can you explain what you mean?
That's nothing new. Employees can already have flexible hours and part-time employment.
The issue is that they're still considered employees which means predetermined shifts and control rather than fluid supply meeting demand by the minute. This changes the service (which matters more than the price for customers) so that it no longer works at the current scale.
The issue is that they're still considered employees which means predetermined shifts and control rather than fluid supply meeting demand by the minute. This changes the service (which matters more than the price for customers) so that it no longer works at the current scale.
> The issue is that they're still considered employees which means predetermined shifts
Is there anything in California labour law or AB5 that requires predetermined shifts? What would prevent Uber/Lyft from allowing its now-employees to volunteer for an X-hour shift at any point that demand forecasts suggest it would be useful?
Is there anything in California labour law or AB5 that requires predetermined shifts? What would prevent Uber/Lyft from allowing its now-employees to volunteer for an X-hour shift at any point that demand forecasts suggest it would be useful?
That's a predetermined shift. Your only option is to accept it or not. Not work when and where and however long you want.
There's nothing in California law that requires predetermined shifts. The only rules are that if you do have predetermined shifts, you have to pay for at least half the shift even if you send someone home early. All of these people talking about predetermined shifts are just pretty FUD with no backing in reality.
Are you assuming that Uber will pay you for time and yet let you just turn on the app and sit in a parking lot wherever you want?
What do you call it when Uber tells an employee where, when and how long to work?
What do you call it when Uber tells an employee where, when and how long to work?
Because there’s no problems with “part time jobs” classification, other than that employers are required to observe laws and protect workers?
[deleted]
Because benefits (healthcare) are so costly that the rideshare business model becomes nonviable. To that, some might claim that no business model deserves to exist if it cannot provide all of these benefits. I think that’s misguided.
The very idea that health benefits are tied to employment is the real problem. In Canada they aren’t and thus it’s far more reasonable to work as a ride share driver here. If we could go even further and add pharmacare, dental, and even basic income to the services provided by the government, then we could get rid of minimum wage laws as well. When people are truly free to walk away from any job, then the market will decide the appropriate wage. Any job offering truly unacceptable wages at that point becomes a ripe target for automation.
The very idea that health benefits are tied to employment is the real problem. In Canada they aren’t and thus it’s far more reasonable to work as a ride share driver here. If we could go even further and add pharmacare, dental, and even basic income to the services provided by the government, then we could get rid of minimum wage laws as well. When people are truly free to walk away from any job, then the market will decide the appropriate wage. Any job offering truly unacceptable wages at that point becomes a ripe target for automation.
When Tesla/Waymo/Uber/Lyft roll out actual self-driving technology in the future and people complain "robots are taking our jobs!" we can point to this legislation and say "actually, no, it was the politicians"
Automation is coming regardless of policies.
Automation isn’t done for automation’s sake. Business people don’t think that way. It’s done to save money or make money. Also, business owners are not quick to break a system that makes money for a few extra pennies. Politicians like to flip the scales, and business owners react predictably.
Well, actually it was the margins that did it, but finance can be a little abstract when you're populist.
[deleted]
That's interesting since Craigslist has operated a rideshare marketplace for 20+ years and runs at an 80% profit margin. They've also never ran afoul of contractor vs. employee scrutiny.
Could it be that perhaps Uber and Lyft are simply poorly ran organizations who only excel at burning VC money?
Could it be that perhaps Uber and Lyft are simply poorly ran organizations who only excel at burning VC money?
Well both of the statements can be true.
If you had commodity full self driving, how could a human compete at almost any price point? You can run the car all day and night. Lack of this legislation didn't stop factory automation. I can't help but think this is a bad take.
I'm not wholly convinced drivers were ever really contractors, but by what measure are drivers employees? We really need a third classification
deadmik3(1)
You could read the new law, or a summary. It's not super hard to understand.
I suspect that California is going to backpedal on this pretty quickly. Uber and Lyft are popular. Going back to taxis is going to be very unpopular.
IMO, if the California Republican party was smart they would make this a wedge issue in the next election. "Elect us, and we'll make it possible to use Uber again."
IMO, if the California Republican party was smart they would make this a wedge issue in the next election. "Elect us, and we'll make it possible to use Uber again."
The State of California doesn't care about workers, they care about the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars they want from payroll and unemployment taxes, in addition to revenue from automatic withholdings for people whom would otherwise be below the reporting limit.
Those things seem like reasonable things for a government to care about.
I think it's reasonable for a government to crack down on businesses where the entire operational structure is designed to subvert that government's tax code and regulations.
I swear people forget how Uber got popular in the first place.
By providing a service that was more convenient, safer and affordable than the alternatives protected by regulatory rent-seeking.
Lol.
Haha.
You mean, overcrowding a market with underpaid positions, sold with lies and marketing to make them sound better than they are, to force people with full time jobs out of work so that people could get a ride in a vehicle with no safety, security, (or originally) background verification while doing all they could to cheat regulations, driver and user privacy, tax laws, climate change, and eventually, now, rent-seek, to boost stock prices to pad Vegas parties and investor portfolios.
Modern ride sharing is not sustainable, environmentally friendly, or a 'job' and this doesn't exempt the bad behaviors by taxi companies, but understand this is the end destination of capitalism invading a regulated economy.
You mean, overcrowding a market with underpaid positions, sold with lies and marketing to make them sound better than they are, to force people with full time jobs out of work so that people could get a ride in a vehicle with no safety, security, (or originally) background verification while doing all they could to cheat regulations, driver and user privacy, tax laws, climate change, and eventually, now, rent-seek, to boost stock prices to pad Vegas parties and investor portfolios.
Modern ride sharing is not sustainable, environmentally friendly, or a 'job' and this doesn't exempt the bad behaviors by taxi companies, but understand this is the end destination of capitalism invading a regulated economy.
Playing devil's advocate here, but how do you think they managed to make a more affordable solution? If you think it's entirely due to their technology, I'm afraid you'd be mistaken.
Not obvious, but entirely plausible. I'd be curious to see what a more sustainable pricing would look like on the consumer's end.
[deleted]
More than plausible. The fact that Uber does not generate profit means they are effectively subsidizing rides with VC and IPO funds.
Who do you think ends up paying that money? Uber/Lyft? Not a chance! This cost always gets passed down the the individuals in the form of smaller cuts of the pie.
SCOTUS came to a different conclusion in Gregory v Helvering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering
Government doesn't exist to collect taxes. They are there to provide governance. Taxes are a necessary evil that should be kept to a minimum to provide the service of governance.
If someone can come up with a legal operational structure that gets around taxes then that the government didn't do its job.
It's only easy to get around taxes when the taxes aren't closely tied to the service the government is providing. i.e. when you taxing one individual or business for a service provided to other individuals or businesses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering
Government doesn't exist to collect taxes. They are there to provide governance. Taxes are a necessary evil that should be kept to a minimum to provide the service of governance.
If someone can come up with a legal operational structure that gets around taxes then that the government didn't do its job.
It's only easy to get around taxes when the taxes aren't closely tied to the service the government is providing. i.e. when you taxing one individual or business for a service provided to other individuals or businesses.
> If someone can come up with a legal operational structure that gets around taxes then that the government didn't do its job.
Right, they passed a law, AB5, to better do that job.
Right, they passed a law, AB5, to better do that job.
Wait, the SC ruled in favor of the government in that case, overruling the district court.
"The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted."
From the ruling that the SC upheld:
"To dodge the shareholders' taxes is not one of the transactions contemplated as corporate "reorganizations."
And from the SC ruling:
"The whole undertaking, though conducted according to the terms of [the statute], was in fact an elaborate and devious form of conveyance masquerading as a corporate reorganization, and nothing else. ... [T]he transaction upon its face lies outside the plain intent of the statute. To hold otherwise would be to exalt artifice above reality and to deprive the statutory provision in question of all serious purpose."
If there's no business purpose beyond tax avoidance, the government can indeed hold you to the higher tax rate. I don't think that's what happened here, i think there are legitimate non-tax reasons for Uber/Lyft's structure, but it's not a completely unreasonable take to disagree with that.
And even if not, the government is free to change the law to fix things, which it did.
"To dodge the shareholders' taxes is not one of the transactions contemplated as corporate "reorganizations."
And from the SC ruling:
"The whole undertaking, though conducted according to the terms of [the statute], was in fact an elaborate and devious form of conveyance masquerading as a corporate reorganization, and nothing else. ... [T]he transaction upon its face lies outside the plain intent of the statute. To hold otherwise would be to exalt artifice above reality and to deprive the statutory provision in question of all serious purpose."
If there's no business purpose beyond tax avoidance, the government can indeed hold you to the higher tax rate. I don't think that's what happened here, i think there are legitimate non-tax reasons for Uber/Lyft's structure, but it's not a completely unreasonable take to disagree with that.
And even if not, the government is free to change the law to fix things, which it did.
[deleted]
They care about the burden these employees put on the system when they get sick or injured which costs tax money. Most people don't use Uber or Lyft, why should they have to subsidize these companies.
That sounds very good.
Who forced Lyft to shut down? Was it the state, or did they freely choose to cease operations? Obviously, spin will characterize this in any way that's advantageous. But nobody 'forced' Lyft to close.
Their business model is on-demand transportation. The business model doesn't work if the workforce is not also on-demand. I don't think that's spin, but maybe society decides that we don't like on-demand businesses.
> The business model doesn't work if the workforce is not also on-demand.
Have they tried it to confirm it 'doesn't work'? Maybe rideshare companies need to reduce their cut, and start putting more of that money into the driver's pocket. Doesn't mean it can't be a profitable business, though possibly low-margin. Have they tried paring back development costs, marketing costs, etc?
Have they tried it to confirm it 'doesn't work'? Maybe rideshare companies need to reduce their cut, and start putting more of that money into the driver's pocket. Doesn't mean it can't be a profitable business, though possibly low-margin. Have they tried paring back development costs, marketing costs, etc?
They're already losing money as is...
Converting someone to an employee means a lot more than just paying them more. There is entirely new infrastructure that has to exist now.
Lyft already has the infrastructure in place, as they already have employees.
Are you implying that Lyft is going to give every driver a salary, or are you intentionally being obtuse? This is like saying "you should be able to make dinner for a restaurant, as you already have a kitchen"
[deleted]
Uber and Lyft aren't profitable, never have been and may never be. The idea is that if only you build a strong enough brand and network, somehow there will be money in it.
In the meantime, they'll operate at a loss. If they leave the California market, they'll simple lose money slower.
In the meantime, they'll operate at a loss. If they leave the California market, they'll simple lose money slower.
I never understood the way Uber wanted to win. There is essentially zero moat, especially because the drivers are not employees in their model. So even a small competitor can just slightly pay more to the drivers, and cost slightly less to the riders, to grow. The only way out is replacing the driver, and protecting that technology. I don't see either of that happening. If technology gets good enough, Tesla/GM/VW will have it too. And they have a cheaper access to cars.
Does the cab model not work?
Taxis are either independent contractors driving their own or company cars and getting most or part of the fare, or employees paid by the hour who are pushed to get a particular revenue per hour. Yes, the contractors will now have to be employees in California, so that model is gone there.
The former tends to adapt okay to predictable demand, the latter tends to not at all.
Before Lyft and Uber, my usual wait time for a Taxis in the Seattle area was on the order of 45 minutes to an hour. Since the rideshare companies became common, the wait time for taxis has gone down, but its still longer than the wait for Lyft.
The former tends to adapt okay to predictable demand, the latter tends to not at all.
Before Lyft and Uber, my usual wait time for a Taxis in the Seattle area was on the order of 45 minutes to an hour. Since the rideshare companies became common, the wait time for taxis has gone down, but its still longer than the wait for Lyft.
There's actually jurisprudence that taxi drivers can be employees, not independent contractors, even when they are working for fares and lease the vehicle. See Linton v. DeSoto Cab.
The state doesn't need to allow a business to continue just because they invented a business model that requires exploitative labor practices. Whether Lyft can exist is not an aspect that enters into labor law.
The business model doesn't require exploitative business practices; Lyft has chosen their prices, and chosen what they'll pay their drivers.
If prices were to go up, sure, Lyft would have less business, but presumably there is some price point that pays drivers enough and also makes the economics work for Lyft.
If prices were to go up, sure, Lyft would have less business, but presumably there is some price point that pays drivers enough and also makes the economics work for Lyft.
The statement was "The business model doesn't work if ..." and I'm saying that doesn't matter. Whether it's true or false doesn't enter in to the debate.
> Whether it's true or false doesn't enter in to the debate.
Yes it does matter in the debate.
Because when we are passing laws, we should care about both the pros and the cons of a particular policy.
You can feel free to say that the pros outweight the cons for these laws, but you still need to recognize that shutting down ride sharing is a con of these laws.
Those are the drawbacks of these laws, and it is OK for people to care about these drawbacks, and bring them up into the debate.
Yes it does matter in the debate.
Because when we are passing laws, we should care about both the pros and the cons of a particular policy.
You can feel free to say that the pros outweight the cons for these laws, but you still need to recognize that shutting down ride sharing is a con of these laws.
Those are the drawbacks of these laws, and it is OK for people to care about these drawbacks, and bring them up into the debate.
McDonalds provides on-demand fast food and its employees are not independent contractors.
There are peculiarities to Lyft and Uber’s business model, being on demand is not one.
There are peculiarities to Lyft and Uber’s business model, being on demand is not one.
To be equivalent, you'd have to say that McDonalds is able to provide food anywhere at any time. My house at 6am, downtown at lunch, late night at 2am. In fact, the only way to do this is to use Uber Eats or something similar. And no, delivery drivers have never been that ubiquitous.
Your definition of on-demand is more like a bus or train, not lyft or uber. i.e. you have to actually go to a bus stop or train stop, which could be out of the way, and you have to deal with their schedule. That's hardly on-demand.
Uber and lyft's business model is absolutely based on being on-demand. I would take a bus or train if it was even close to as convenient.
Your definition of on-demand is more like a bus or train, not lyft or uber. i.e. you have to actually go to a bus stop or train stop, which could be out of the way, and you have to deal with their schedule. That's hardly on-demand.
Uber and lyft's business model is absolutely based on being on-demand. I would take a bus or train if it was even close to as convenient.
They also work a schedule and do not get to work at BK and Mcds at the same time waiting for the next order.
Uber operates in other countries which require them to use employees and not contractors (e.g. Germany), and it works fine. So it certainly isn't impossible.
There is no evidence that the business model doesn't work, otherwise traditional cab companies would've never survived. Rideshare companies undercut traditional cabs by operating illegally, but that doesn't mean a regulated model can't work.
The state made their business model illegal. Yes, technically that’s not the same thing as shutting them down, since they could have switched to a different business model, but it’s a distinction without a difference.
Their business model was illegal before they formed the business.
I don't know whether that's true or not, but I don't think it changes my point.
The Dynamex Decision [0] has held that the State of California has always considered drivers to be employees.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamex_Operations_West,_Inc._...
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamex_Operations_West,_Inc._...
It was made illegal by the law that was just passed. You can't try to claim it was illegal beforehand in good faith
They can still run the same business model, they will just have to increase employee compensation (and fares).
This is like saying that raising the minimum wage will drive McDonald's out of business. At the current prices, sure, but McDonald's will raise prices 10% to compensate (wages are not 100% of the cost of a burger) and keep on trucking.
This is like saying that raising the minimum wage will drive McDonald's out of business. At the current prices, sure, but McDonald's will raise prices 10% to compensate (wages are not 100% of the cost of a burger) and keep on trucking.
[deleted]
Maybe in normal times, but in pandemic times who knows? Most things are shut down right now, add uber/lyft to the list and see if people actually care.
In Portland, Radio Cab has an Android/iOS app. I switched to them once they modernized. In this case, Lyft/Uber caused taxis to improve infrastructure. That's a win.
Competition tends to force organizations to evolve to meet the threat. That is, unless some government intervenes in the market, distorting the effect. Then you get a distorted market with inefficient allocation of resources.
Seems to happen quite a bit in monoideological areas.
Seems to happen quite a bit in monoideological areas.
Drivers choose to make their living with Lyft and Uber. California is starting to feel the repercussions of their far left policies. It hurts consumers (fare prices rise), stifles innovation, pushes entrepreneurs out of the state, and the irony is it ended up hurting the drivers.
Lyft _chose_ to hurt the drivers instead of complying with the law.
This is a transparent ploy by Lyft and Uber to try and extort the state into changing the law by holding their drivers' livelihoods ransom.
This is a transparent ploy by Lyft and Uber to try and extort the state into changing the law by holding their drivers' livelihoods ransom.
Or perhaps it's basic business and economics. Lyft and Uber's business is built on the assumption that drivers provide on-demand transportation. The business model doesn't work if the workforce is not also on-demand. Instead of vilifying companies, perhaps it might be beneficial to understand the business aspects of decisions instead of jumping to conclusions based on knee jerk emotional outrage.
Did their business model work even when their workforce was on-demand?
Lyft isn't a charity and should not be expected to operate in an unprofitable market.
Neither Lyft nor Uber has ever made a profit. Drivers aren't the only ones being fleeced.
[deleted]
California's far left policies?
When did California eliminate private property? When did it hand over the means of production to the proletariat?
Last I checked, capitalism was alive and well in California, which is the dearly beloved home of the most successful capitalist entities and richest people on the planet.
If California's policies really were far left, all those companies would be owned and run by their workers, and no one would be richer than anyone else.
But that's not California, is it?
When did California eliminate private property? When did it hand over the means of production to the proletariat?
Last I checked, capitalism was alive and well in California, which is the dearly beloved home of the most successful capitalist entities and richest people on the planet.
If California's policies really were far left, all those companies would be owned and run by their workers, and no one would be richer than anyone else.
But that's not California, is it?
California literally paid billions in unemployment to rideshare drivers during Corona, funds that Uber and Lyft didn't contribute a cent to, but you feel it's sensible Republican policy to declare "next year, we'll do it all over again"?
Republican party is completely dead in California. Last time they had some power they kept manufacturing crises and shutting down the government. After Trump they've gone all in on the national Republican party's white-hot hatred of the state.
A couple of years ago, the Quebec government introduced additional restrictions on ridesharing companies. Uber got up on their soapbox and said they were pulling out of Quebec. The government called their bluff and basically said "Okay, bye" and Uber backpedaled. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens here.
This happened in Sep 2017. Then, the transport minister for Quebec changed in Oct 2017, and Uber said later in Oct that they would not pull out because they saw an opportunity for constructive dialogue with the new transport minister. By the time Bill 17 was passed in 2019 and Uber became officially legal beyond its pilot project, taxi drivers were protesting the Quebec government's actions.
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/uber-is-officially-allowed-in-qu...
I wouldn't describe what happened in Quebec as a loss for Uber.
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/uber-is-officially-allowed-in-qu...
I wouldn't describe what happened in Quebec as a loss for Uber.
You're assuming competitors with actually viable business models weren't waiting for exactly this opportunity. Spoiler: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/uber-and-lyft-competitors-pr...
Am I nuts, or is the heart of this issue really the fact that our healthcare system is built on tying benefits to full time jobs?
The heart of the issue is big labor unions want more power, and independent contractor status is a threat to their power.
Can you provide some sources on this? Would like to read about it.
[deleted]
Here is where the primary AB5 bill sponsors get their money:
https://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=37194&defa...
https://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=133178&def...
List of all sponsors:
https://legiscan.com/CA/sponsors/AB5/2019
As you can see "Labor" is by far the biggest sponsor to the politicans who pushed through this initiative.
https://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=37194&defa...
https://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=133178&def...
List of all sponsors:
https://legiscan.com/CA/sponsors/AB5/2019
As you can see "Labor" is by far the biggest sponsor to the politicans who pushed through this initiative.
I don’t understand, why is that surprising? After all the reason behind this bill is to prevent unfair labor conditions. It is literally the job of labor unions to push forward and lobby for bills like these.
I think you are guilty of bad faith reasoning here. First you state that “big labor unions want more power” and your evidence for that claim is “Labor unions push for bills that prevent bad labor practices”.
I think you are guilty of bad faith reasoning here. First you state that “big labor unions want more power” and your evidence for that claim is “Labor unions push for bills that prevent bad labor practices”.
Instead of accusing me of acting in bad faith, how about you do some research instead of mudslinging on the internet. I have provided evidence. You have provided none.
To help point you in the right direction, why are the United Auto Workers acting in California when there are no unionized auto workers in California? These unions are always seeking to increase there member base because the more members they have the more powerful they are as an entity.
To help point you in the right direction, why are the United Auto Workers acting in California when there are no unionized auto workers in California? These unions are always seeking to increase there member base because the more members they have the more powerful they are as an entity.
It is bad faith because the evidence you provide is accusing the unions of working towards their expressed interest, to protect the workers from bad labor practices.
Unions also have a notion of solidarity. What is good for workers in California is usually good for workers in New York. That is why you will often see unions acting across state (and industry) boundaries, in solidarity with other unions and non-union workers.
Unions also have a notion of solidarity. What is good for workers in California is usually good for workers in New York. That is why you will often see unions acting across state (and industry) boundaries, in solidarity with other unions and non-union workers.
Your argument is as naive as saying politicians act in the best interest of their voters or that companies act in the best interests of their consumers.
Entities act in the best interests of themselves.
Entities act in the best interests of themselves.
Unsure why this is getting downvoted. Anyone who actually follows the money in this debate knows that the unions are very heavily financially invested in this and donate tons of money to the politicians that support anything that increases their power and influence.
If unions were truly invested in the best interest of workers instead of the best interest of the union, they would value the desires of the 4/5 of drivers that want independent work as much as the 1/5 of drivers that want to be employees with benefits.
If unions were truly invested in the best interest of workers instead of the best interest of the union, they would value the desires of the 4/5 of drivers that want independent work as much as the 1/5 of drivers that want to be employees with benefits.
Is there an Uber/Lyft driver union?
No and prop 22 would make it near impossible to create some
This is an unfair critique. The whole point is that the drivers will get regular employment (as opposed to being contracted) and will be able to unionize under any driver’s union (or create a new union, or even some other more generic union).
It is being downvoted because it is making an unsound claim without any backing.
Most likely there is not a single explanation, usually issues like these are more complicated then that. There is no consensus on whether unions are more powerful in the US then elsewhere, I’m sure you can easily find examples—or spin the narrative—to back either case. And finally there is no evidence for some ulterior motive of driver’s unions, nor even a convincing narrative. Quite the contrary there is both evidence and a somewhat convincing narrative for why the ride-share companies would want to keep their workers from unionizing and asking for full-time worker’s benefits.
Most likely there is not a single explanation, usually issues like these are more complicated then that. There is no consensus on whether unions are more powerful in the US then elsewhere, I’m sure you can easily find examples—or spin the narrative—to back either case. And finally there is no evidence for some ulterior motive of driver’s unions, nor even a convincing narrative. Quite the contrary there is both evidence and a somewhat convincing narrative for why the ride-share companies would want to keep their workers from unionizing and asking for full-time worker’s benefits.
[deleted]
Labor unions in the US are comparatively powerless next to countries with actual, functional unions that are quite capable of striking, and have little lobby.
No, the heart of the issue is definitely the dismal state of health care in the US.
No, the heart of the issue is definitely the dismal state of health care in the US.
Joe Biden, who many believe will be the next US president has stated "I am a union man, plain and simple". His whole political career has basically been bankrolled by labor unions. If that doesn't indicate the power labor unions have in the US, I don't know what else does.
Teachers Unions, UAW, and the AFLCIO are pretty much the strongest lobbies in America.
Teachers Unions, UAW, and the AFLCIO are pretty much the strongest lobbies in America.
The campaign contributions of many other industry interest groups dwarfs those other interests, and that is evidently obvious when looking at the policies of the Democratic party, which would not even be a center left moderate party in most EU countries with actually strong labor interests.
[deleted]
You are not nuts.
I keep paying my health insurance premium at my home country just because the health insurance in the US is completely broken. I feel that if you get seriously sick in the US you're in an almost sure path to financial insolvency.
My employer pays probably a shit ton of money for my health insurance and what I get is the most subpar, confusing, broken and sometimes blatantly extortive service ever.
I live in Austin and sometimes I think if I really need a major procedure it would be just simpler to drive to Mexico and get it done there. In fact, that's what many people in South Texas do, so there's your benchmark for how broken is healthcare in the US.
My employer pays probably a shit ton of money for my health insurance and what I get is the most subpar, confusing, broken and sometimes blatantly extortive service ever.
I live in Austin and sometimes I think if I really need a major procedure it would be just simpler to drive to Mexico and get it done there. In fact, that's what many people in South Texas do, so there's your benchmark for how broken is healthcare in the US.
[deleted]
> I live in Austin and sometimes I think if I really need a major procedure it would be just simpler to drive to Mexico and get it done there.
This even has a name: Medical Tourism.
This even has a name: Medical Tourism.
Friend does this - she raves about the results.
I definitely recommend it for dental work. You can easily find a dentist in Mexico that went to school in the US and has the same credentials. You'll save so much money.
I recommended a friend who needed heart surgery with less than great US health insurance go to India to have it done. US trained doctors, recuperated in accommodations equivalent to a five star resort. Cheap enough they could pay for it in cash.
I am downright surprised I haven't seen a YC startup that performs this sort of medical tourism brokerage to be honest. Take this business model! I'll be your first angel investment.
I am downright surprised I haven't seen a YC startup that performs this sort of medical tourism brokerage to be honest. Take this business model! I'll be your first angel investment.
I love the idea, I imagine it's in a tricky legal area though. And perhaps the people that could pull it off are all profiting off of the US healthcare system well enough to not need to pursue this.
I know the insurance plan that Utah government employees are on will pay you to go to Mexico to get your prescriptions filled. Airfare, hotel, and medication costs are all covered. Free vacation just so the company doesn't have to pay the US prices for drugs.
I know the insurance plan that Utah government employees are on will pay you to go to Mexico to get your prescriptions filled. Airfare, hotel, and medication costs are all covered. Free vacation just so the company doesn't have to pay the US prices for drugs.
Just remember that you might be displacing poor locals from getting the treatment instead. Poor countries have bigger shortage of good doctors and they prioritise foreign appointments due to getting paid more than the local prices.
Edit: This is true for India which is a top medical tourism place:
https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/implications-india-me...
https://scroll.in/article/931857/with-20-medical-professiona...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC404528
http://www.who.int/hrh/resources/16058health_workforce_India...
Edit: This is true for India which is a top medical tourism place:
https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/implications-india-me...
https://scroll.in/article/931857/with-20-medical-professiona...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC404528
http://www.who.int/hrh/resources/16058health_workforce_India...
You just made this up.
No, really: you just, flat out, made this up.
You have no way of knowing that demand for services in every single country with medical tourism outstrips supply of professionals. You just assumed it.
If it doesn't, which is just as likely (I think more, but I also don't know, and unlike you I won't pretend to know), then you're injecting money into the local economy, while getting medical/dental care at a lower price: win win.
The US has a uniquely onerous path of education and accreditation for medical professionals, with substantial supply-side limitation in the form of slots for medical school. Other places aren't so burdened.
Something to think about.
No, really: you just, flat out, made this up.
You have no way of knowing that demand for services in every single country with medical tourism outstrips supply of professionals. You just assumed it.
If it doesn't, which is just as likely (I think more, but I also don't know, and unlike you I won't pretend to know), then you're injecting money into the local economy, while getting medical/dental care at a lower price: win win.
The US has a uniquely onerous path of education and accreditation for medical professionals, with substantial supply-side limitation in the form of slots for medical school. Other places aren't so burdened.
Something to think about.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I wonder if medical tourism provides a capitalist solution to the healthcare problem in the US. Could it be cheaper for a health insurance company to pay for flights to and from other countries along with procedures in those countries? There are a lot of non-emergency medical issues which can be serviced this way. In the long run, such insurance would drive down the price of traditional health insurance as well as the price of the procedures themselves locally.
My state does this for public employees: https://www.sltrib.com/mexico-pharmacy-tourism/
They literally already do this
This employer is already doing that (and pays some of the savings out to the employee/patient)...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/09/business/medical-tourism-...
Though, I'm not convinced that's the "correct" solution from a broad societal perspective.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/09/business/medical-tourism-...
Though, I'm not convinced that's the "correct" solution from a broad societal perspective.
One glance once you cross over to Nuevo Laredo will show you this isn't a novel thought. Especially for dental and smallish out-patient procedures.
syshum(2)
You don't even necessarily have the option to shop for service in the USA.
Earlier this year my family had a medical emergency that resulted in us being billed a truly staggering amount of money for services that were technically elective, somewhat unproven, and not necessarily even recommended by the standard of care, and for which the actual sticker price varies wildly from hospital to hospital. But, when an emergency happens, you don't get to shop for hospitals, and you more-or-less unthinkingly do what the care team recommends, because there's simply no opportunity to stop and do any sort of cost/benefit analysis. As luck would have it, we ended up at a hospital that both tends toward the more liberal end of the spectrum in terms of what they do, and tends toward the more expensive end of the price range.
Fortunately our financial hit won't be too bad, because we have decent employer-provided insurance, and that cushions the blow quite a bit. If there's a silver lining, it's that we hit our out of pocket expense limit in the first part of the year, so we basically get everything for free for the rest of the year. But that whole situation is also a big part of the problem. We're nominally in the driver's seat, but, in practice, we really aren't in charge. Because we don't have access to a lot of the information necessary to make informed decisions, but also because we've been insulated from some of the major factors that might motivate an informed decision.
Social criticism in the USA tends to revolve around the "theater" metaphor. We have security theater, we have hygiene theater. I would characterize the underlying principle of the USA's health care system as agency theater.
Earlier this year my family had a medical emergency that resulted in us being billed a truly staggering amount of money for services that were technically elective, somewhat unproven, and not necessarily even recommended by the standard of care, and for which the actual sticker price varies wildly from hospital to hospital. But, when an emergency happens, you don't get to shop for hospitals, and you more-or-less unthinkingly do what the care team recommends, because there's simply no opportunity to stop and do any sort of cost/benefit analysis. As luck would have it, we ended up at a hospital that both tends toward the more liberal end of the spectrum in terms of what they do, and tends toward the more expensive end of the price range.
Fortunately our financial hit won't be too bad, because we have decent employer-provided insurance, and that cushions the blow quite a bit. If there's a silver lining, it's that we hit our out of pocket expense limit in the first part of the year, so we basically get everything for free for the rest of the year. But that whole situation is also a big part of the problem. We're nominally in the driver's seat, but, in practice, we really aren't in charge. Because we don't have access to a lot of the information necessary to make informed decisions, but also because we've been insulated from some of the major factors that might motivate an informed decision.
Social criticism in the USA tends to revolve around the "theater" metaphor. We have security theater, we have hygiene theater. I would characterize the underlying principle of the USA's health care system as agency theater.
Can confirm. I drove from Austin to Nuevo Laredo for dental work. Park up, walk across the bridge, get dental work for a fraction the of the US price and walk back. Most painful part of the process is going back though US border control.
This is an interesting idea. Is this an unintended consequence of binding health insurance to your employment?
According to the NYT: "During World War II, federal wage controls prevented employers from wooing workers with higher pay, so companies started offering health insurance as a way around the law. Of course, this form of nonmonetary compensation is still pay. When the war ended, the practice stuck."
I would much rather have a system where I was paid more and got to choose my health insurance provider. That way I could keep my insurance when I change jobs or if I wanted to freelance.
I run a company that helps software engineers find contract work, and the #1 question we get is "how much should I charge?". The #2 question is "what do I do for health insurance?"
It would seem like businesses brought this on themselves by offering benefits to get around compensation limits imposed by the government. Or you could say that this was caused by the government imposing limits on compensation. Super interesting to think that the root cause of our current problem could have been created 80 years ago.
According to the NYT: "During World War II, federal wage controls prevented employers from wooing workers with higher pay, so companies started offering health insurance as a way around the law. Of course, this form of nonmonetary compensation is still pay. When the war ended, the practice stuck."
I would much rather have a system where I was paid more and got to choose my health insurance provider. That way I could keep my insurance when I change jobs or if I wanted to freelance.
I run a company that helps software engineers find contract work, and the #1 question we get is "how much should I charge?". The #2 question is "what do I do for health insurance?"
It would seem like businesses brought this on themselves by offering benefits to get around compensation limits imposed by the government. Or you could say that this was caused by the government imposing limits on compensation. Super interesting to think that the root cause of our current problem could have been created 80 years ago.
Moving to a single payer system would unleash a lot of latent entreprenurial activity and free companies of all sizes from having to provide health insurance. Great documentary here on the business case for moving to single payer: http://fixithealthcare.com/
I think part of the problem in the US is that the current status is so bad, that everyone has a different proposed solution.
Single payer is also seen as too paternalistic by a large minority of the US, so there is that as well.
Single payer is also seen as too paternalistic by a large minority of the US, so there is that as well.
The real problem is that the current status is so bad, that those who are relatively better off (probably still bad) are scared of change because they've seen what "worse" looks like and a better system seems mostly aspirational.
There is a reason why ACA messaging from Democrats always included the fact that you could keep your existing insurance if you wanted.
There is a reason why ACA messaging from Democrats always included the fact that you could keep your existing insurance if you wanted.
> I think part of the problem in the US is that the current status is so bad, that everyone has a different proposed solution.
“Everyone has different solutions” as in the two parties, both corporatist through and through, are only willing to offer solutions that nip around the edges of the problem with ridiculously complex regulations that ultimately result in less competition and higher profits for healthcare conglomerates.
Single payer in the vein of “Medicare for All” is popular for voters of both parties. It’s just that our representatives represent us in name only.
> Single payer is also seen as too paternalistic by a large minority of the US, so there is that as well.
Again there’s a disconnect between the discourse you can see on corporate cable news and major newspapers and what people actually think and want.
That said, the corporate media and Dems/Rs have been very very successful in 50 years of messaging that everything the government does = bad, inefficient, rationing. And everything corporate = dynamic, efficient, desirable. Almost everything that can be privatized has been privatized via crony capitalism, but they can still say “govt has big budgets, shitty results” when it’s their privatization that is the exact reason for the decay.
It’s depressing how effective it all is.
“Everyone has different solutions” as in the two parties, both corporatist through and through, are only willing to offer solutions that nip around the edges of the problem with ridiculously complex regulations that ultimately result in less competition and higher profits for healthcare conglomerates.
Single payer in the vein of “Medicare for All” is popular for voters of both parties. It’s just that our representatives represent us in name only.
> Single payer is also seen as too paternalistic by a large minority of the US, so there is that as well.
Again there’s a disconnect between the discourse you can see on corporate cable news and major newspapers and what people actually think and want.
That said, the corporate media and Dems/Rs have been very very successful in 50 years of messaging that everything the government does = bad, inefficient, rationing. And everything corporate = dynamic, efficient, desirable. Almost everything that can be privatized has been privatized via crony capitalism, but they can still say “govt has big budgets, shitty results” when it’s their privatization that is the exact reason for the decay.
It’s depressing how effective it all is.
I don't watch cable news. I know dozens of people who are vehemently opposed to single-payer. The reasons are paternalism and distrust of government to get things right.
To a certain extent, I agree with the second; I'm kind of glad that the current administration doesn't have control over my health care...
To a certain extent, I agree with the second; I'm kind of glad that the current administration doesn't have control over my health care...
It would seem like businesses brought this on themselves ...
It's potentially good for employers, as it increases friction in the labor market.
It's potentially good for employers, as it increases friction in the labor market.
Good point. Health insurance is a form of golden handcuffs. The pain of switching health insurance providers has definitely deterred me from changing jobs before. Microsofts insurance in the early 2000's was so good, I stayed there long enough to become grossly underpaid. When I finally did leave, my salary increased by 50%!
There is really isn't much incentive for companies to stop offering health insurance as a benefit.
There is really isn't much incentive for companies to stop offering health insurance as a benefit.
I'm surprised that you'd suggest that "businesses brought this on themselves." It's a cut and dry government failure.
Another big bit is tax deductions. I believe when the employer provides healthcare, the amount they pay and the employee pays is 100% pre-tax.
If you pay for medical insurance yourself, it starts getting complicated[0]. They honestly just need to make it so any medical insurance payments should be 100% deductible, regardless of anything else. It would help level the playing field.
[0] https://www.investopedia.com/are-health-insurance-premiums-t...
If you pay for medical insurance yourself, it starts getting complicated[0]. They honestly just need to make it so any medical insurance payments should be 100% deductible, regardless of anything else. It would help level the playing field.
[0] https://www.investopedia.com/are-health-insurance-premiums-t...
>>It would seem like businesses brought this on themselves by offering benefits to get around compensation limits imposed by the government.
That is a strange way to Phrase that... Government imposes unethical pay caps, and the "business" brought this on, not government?
No this problem is 100% the fault of the government not business
That is a strange way to Phrase that... Government imposes unethical pay caps, and the "business" brought this on, not government?
No this problem is 100% the fault of the government not business
> I would much rather have a system where I was paid more and got to choose my health insurance provider. That way I could keep my insurance when I change jobs or if I wanted to freelance.
I would rather see employment and health insurance totally separated from each other.
But if people aren't open to that for whatever reason, one alternative would be a system where the employee freely picks any insurance plan, but the employer pays the premiums tax-free like they do now.
If you make it so the set of insurance choices is the same for all employers and for individuals paying their own way, then you could move around between employers or freelance.
Right now, big employers have bargaining power due to their size, so you'd lose that, but perhaps stronger competition (from everyone freely choosing) would make up for it.
I would rather see employment and health insurance totally separated from each other.
But if people aren't open to that for whatever reason, one alternative would be a system where the employee freely picks any insurance plan, but the employer pays the premiums tax-free like they do now.
If you make it so the set of insurance choices is the same for all employers and for individuals paying their own way, then you could move around between employers or freelance.
Right now, big employers have bargaining power due to their size, so you'd lose that, but perhaps stronger competition (from everyone freely choosing) would make up for it.
A lot of these issues would go away if employers weren't responsible for providing healthcare group plans. But then again Europe also has similar drives to classify Uber/Lyft drivers as full time employees so they are entitled to other benefits and employment securities (but those don't exist in a very strong form in the USA anyways).
Employers are not required to provide health plans. The issue is that Uber provides _some_ employees with health plans while keeping their lower-paid workers classified as contractors, even if they work essentially full-time.
> Employers are not required to provide health plans.
Employers are required to provide health plans to any part or full time employees (excluding contractors) who work more than 30 hours a week.
Employers are required to provide health plans to any part or full time employees (excluding contractors) who work more than 30 hours a week.
As soon as you're 50+ folks, you're required to provide health insurance. The US system is broken enough that you will do it before then too.
All founders I've talked with about it find it crazy that they're determining the healthcare choices for their team, and it's much worse when they are supporting a diverse team.
"""Fred has 3 kids and cares about their dental, Tim mostly cares about mental health, Alice runs ultramarathons, and Bob just got married. The main things we have in common are we like building cryptocurrency tech and work in similar time zones."""
All founders I've talked with about it find it crazy that they're determining the healthcare choices for their team, and it's much worse when they are supporting a diverse team.
"""Fred has 3 kids and cares about their dental, Tim mostly cares about mental health, Alice runs ultramarathons, and Bob just got married. The main things we have in common are we like building cryptocurrency tech and work in similar time zones."""
Am I an employee of the bottle machine company if I deposit bottles I find? Do they owe me healthcare and a minimum wage if I took more than an hour to find so many bottles? How is uber any different?
I think you can employ W-2-style employees without providing them healthcare. It’s a perk, but not legally required to have a W-2 employee.
I think the heart of the issue is the entirely artificial split between the concept of employee and contractor. (Much like the arbitrary split between taxi and car service in nyc.)
Making everyone a contractor for every job, with the terms of the job specified in the contract, seems much more straightforward. I don’t think that the concept of “employment” needs to be one size fits all, like standard W-2 is today in the US.
It’s an artifact of tax law, the scam that is withholding (make most people not “feel” their taxes), and a dominant manufacturing economy model that no longer exists in the US.
I think the heart of the issue is the entirely artificial split between the concept of employee and contractor. (Much like the arbitrary split between taxi and car service in nyc.)
Making everyone a contractor for every job, with the terms of the job specified in the contract, seems much more straightforward. I don’t think that the concept of “employment” needs to be one size fits all, like standard W-2 is today in the US.
It’s an artifact of tax law, the scam that is withholding (make most people not “feel” their taxes), and a dominant manufacturing economy model that no longer exists in the US.
Does that mean that when I remodel my house, I would have to negotiate on time and materials terms, lest the contractor accidentally underbid and end up with less than minimum wage?
I think the law rightfully distinguishes between truly negotiable contracts and take-it-or-leave-it terms offered by a party with more negotiating power.
I think the law rightfully distinguishes between truly negotiable contracts and take-it-or-leave-it terms offered by a party with more negotiating power.
Of course not. The prices someone sets are not related to the wages they're paid. You're paying a price; you're not paying a wage. The contractors are paid a wage by the business owner; if he pays them less than minimum wage it's illegal; if he pays them more, but does not recoup that cost on the job because he underbid it, that's a business loss.
I'm not talking about a general contractor, I'm talking about when I hire one guy to do some work on my house.
> think you can employ W-2-style employees without providing them healthcare. It’s a perk, but not legally required to have a W-2 employee.
It's not mandated but Obama care did introduce tax penalties for those that don't. Exact rules are complicated.
It's not mandated but Obama care did introduce tax penalties for those that don't. Exact rules are complicated.
> I think you can employ W-2-style employees without providing them healthcare. It’s a perk, but not legally required to have a W-2 employee.
If you have fewer than 50 full time employees, yes (depending on the state).
If you have 50 or more employees, you have to offer healthcare (or pay penalties).
If you have fewer than 50 full time employees, yes (depending on the state).
If you have 50 or more employees, you have to offer healthcare (or pay penalties).
I think the heart of the issue is VC-backed startups trying their hardest to circumvent laws until they are big enough that enforcing the laws makes people mad.
Perhaps laws should actually reflect what the citizens want.
What citizens want is fickle and entirely depends on framing and knowledge.
Citizens want goods for cheaper, obviously. But citizens also like the concept of people and companies doing "their fair share". For example a fair amount of people were outraged when it was revealed that official Walmart policy was to direct underpaid employees into Medicaid, EBT, etc. rather than just paying them to afford basic life expenses. And the gig economy if anything manages to be even more exploitative than that.
Citizens want goods for cheaper, obviously. But citizens also like the concept of people and companies doing "their fair share". For example a fair amount of people were outraged when it was revealed that official Walmart policy was to direct underpaid employees into Medicaid, EBT, etc. rather than just paying them to afford basic life expenses. And the gig economy if anything manages to be even more exploitative than that.
Citizens also want to be able to earn income as independent contractors, the way they have for decades in many other industries. But above all, citizens would like to be able to choose for themselves instead of having a few people with no idea of their experience tell them what they must do.
You mean like the way all citizens are entitled to choose their representatives that passed AB5 in the first place?
California has a strong history of voters holding politicians doing unpopular things accountable (see: Gray Davis) or doing things that override the will of politicians (see: Prop 13). There has not been strong voter organization against AB5, which speaks volumes about how much of a non-issue it is for voters.
California has a strong history of voters holding politicians doing unpopular things accountable (see: Gray Davis) or doing things that override the will of politicians (see: Prop 13). There has not been strong voter organization against AB5, which speaks volumes about how much of a non-issue it is for voters.
In reality, most voters are ignorant and irrational while the state govt is especially dysfunctional, unrepresentative, and full of graft. That's why there are so many problems here in the first place. When CA gives more rights to illegal immigrants than tax-paying citizens, there's clearly something wrong.
It's not. That issue is tangential at best. If it was the crux of the issue here, you'd see many more companies going belly-up rather than pay for health insurance.
For this change, companies like Uber and Lyft will have to completely reorganize their internal systems, ranging from their relationships with drivers to their tooling for organizing their drivers.
They say things like "passengers would experience reduced service, especially in suburban and rural areas" when what they really mean is "lyft would have to pay drivers to be available in that area even when demand is low, and Lyft doesn't want to pay drivers to idle in low demand spaces". There are various solutions to this, but they would all cost Lyft and Uber money, and heaven forbid they not be able to pass those expenses onto others, such as drivers that would hang around those areas _without_ any compensation.
The real heart of the matter here is that 10 years ago Uber disrupted the taxi industry. Now that they're the incumbents, changes like these put Uber and Lyft in a position to be disrupted by newer companies that more easily adapt to regulatory changes, or possibly the taxi companies they disrupted a decade ago. What we're seeing now is Lyft taking drastic measures to try and enrage the public against these policies.
This is a kid throwing a tantrum because they aren't getting cake after refusing to their chores.
For this change, companies like Uber and Lyft will have to completely reorganize their internal systems, ranging from their relationships with drivers to their tooling for organizing their drivers.
They say things like "passengers would experience reduced service, especially in suburban and rural areas" when what they really mean is "lyft would have to pay drivers to be available in that area even when demand is low, and Lyft doesn't want to pay drivers to idle in low demand spaces". There are various solutions to this, but they would all cost Lyft and Uber money, and heaven forbid they not be able to pass those expenses onto others, such as drivers that would hang around those areas _without_ any compensation.
The real heart of the matter here is that 10 years ago Uber disrupted the taxi industry. Now that they're the incumbents, changes like these put Uber and Lyft in a position to be disrupted by newer companies that more easily adapt to regulatory changes, or possibly the taxi companies they disrupted a decade ago. What we're seeing now is Lyft taking drastic measures to try and enrage the public against these policies.
This is a kid throwing a tantrum because they aren't getting cake after refusing to their chores.
Also poor mass transit.
Ever heard of this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
In an nutshell: USA auto manufacturers purchased and dismantled the streetcar business to force people to have to buy cars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
In an nutshell: USA auto manufacturers purchased and dismantled the streetcar business to force people to have to buy cars.
Wow, basically "who Framed Roger Rabbit" was based on a true story.
I don't think that changing driers to employee status will necessarily give them health benefits. I'm not an expert, but while ERISA generally requires uniform benefit options for all employees in a similar class, the companies could chose to not schedule the drivers as full time employees, use contract labor services, raise the employee contribution to unaffordable level, etc. Many companies with large numbers of employees have large fractions of their employees without health insurance (Walmart, for instance).
[deleted]
That would not be an issue at all if anticompetitive licensure requirements hasn't driven up healthcare prices to insane levels.
not just healthcare. sufficient income to support the basics of survival in our society are tied to full time jobs as well.
companies and their employees would both be better supported if we established a Universal Basic Income.
companies and their employees would both be better supported if we established a Universal Basic Income.
You also would have to worry about housing payments. A very easy and progressive solution to this problem is that the government should construct housing that citizens can stay in.
While they are at it, they could also provide basic food.
That way, with your UBI, housing, and food you could live a dream life. We won't call them 'camps' though, but give them a hip millenial-approved name. Maybe 'launch centers'?
While they are at it, they could also provide basic food.
That way, with your UBI, housing, and food you could live a dream life. We won't call them 'camps' though, but give them a hip millenial-approved name. Maybe 'launch centers'?
[deleted]
A fact that will not change for the next...idk ten years.
Both parties have supported Fed leadership that relied on worker insecurity to keep people in their jobs:
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/business/job-insecurity-o...
America does not have a stories history of being labor friendly. It’s pretty much old European pissing competitions imported anew after WW2. Identity which the country had begun to schlep off between the Gilded Age and WW1. Refugees brought it back over.
The best part of all this is Adam Smith only ever mentions markets in the context of a free labor market, buoyed by government support of equality of condition.
But Smith and Aristotle, who wrote Democracy is likely the most moral government, are cast aside for James Madison who wrote the Senate ought to protect the rich from Democracy or the people will take all the aristocrats stuff.
This is all 2,000+ years old rhetoric. Human biology hasn’t evolved so fast in that time that such concerns of the past are rendered obsolete.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/business/job-insecurity-o...
America does not have a stories history of being labor friendly. It’s pretty much old European pissing competitions imported anew after WW2. Identity which the country had begun to schlep off between the Gilded Age and WW1. Refugees brought it back over.
The best part of all this is Adam Smith only ever mentions markets in the context of a free labor market, buoyed by government support of equality of condition.
But Smith and Aristotle, who wrote Democracy is likely the most moral government, are cast aside for James Madison who wrote the Senate ought to protect the rich from Democracy or the people will take all the aristocrats stuff.
This is all 2,000+ years old rhetoric. Human biology hasn’t evolved so fast in that time that such concerns of the past are rendered obsolete.
Were I rich right now, being educated enough to understand history, and looking at the relative income gap being larger than the french revolution, I'd be wanting to redistribute some wealth right now myself, lest it be taken by force. A 3% wealth tax seems "extreme" right now, but it will be preferable if the wedge making the poor fight each other breaks down.
The people who become obscenely wealthy in this country become so precisely because they have so little regard for others and almost no comprehension of the long-term impacts of massive inequality (either to the nation or their own physical security). And the system has become so perverse and adept at indoctrination that these people are heralded as heros when they drop a few crumbs from the table.
Aristotle considered democracy a deviant form of a polity. His views on democracy are more negative and complex than you're making it sound, which leads me to doubt what you're saying about the rest.
To learn more: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/
To learn more: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/
Forgive me for not satisfying you with a nuanced treatise on a casual forum. Aristotle’s ultimate conclusion was that “for the average person” Democracy was the moral government.
He was not of average status. His nuance and negativity was, to my mind, self preservation driven. Nonetheless, he understood the benefits of Democracy to what we’d call “Main Street” life as obvious. He dismissed on those grounds as well, given the threat to his status. He got what it meant as an idea and agreed it would be a moral win for the public.
Ultimately I’m not writing a biography here. This isn’t rocket science and there’s little new territory to really be walked.
America of a generation ago had high taxes flooding communities with money. Now that generation is wielding a nations wealth against the next generation.
America is a lot of control freaks policing each other for compliance to sound economics and calling it freedom.
He was not of average status. His nuance and negativity was, to my mind, self preservation driven. Nonetheless, he understood the benefits of Democracy to what we’d call “Main Street” life as obvious. He dismissed on those grounds as well, given the threat to his status. He got what it meant as an idea and agreed it would be a moral win for the public.
Ultimately I’m not writing a biography here. This isn’t rocket science and there’s little new territory to really be walked.
America of a generation ago had high taxes flooding communities with money. Now that generation is wielding a nations wealth against the next generation.
America is a lot of control freaks policing each other for compliance to sound economics and calling it freedom.
Health insurance is a major component. However, the broader theme is the offloading of risk from the company onto their workers, including not only health risk but also for example, accident risk.
Most rideshare drivers are not properly insured — while passengers are well-covered, the drivers and their vehicles are not. Because the drivers are contractors and must navigate the insurance system as individuals, many do not possess adequate knowledge and statistically speaking, a large number are guaranteed to make mistakes when purchasing coverage.
If drivers were employees, then accident coverage for drivers and their vehicles becomes the responsibility of the rideshare companies. There would be fewer bad outcomes for drivers, but because the rideshare companies would bear greater risk, their profits would be reduced.
Most rideshare drivers are not properly insured — while passengers are well-covered, the drivers and their vehicles are not. Because the drivers are contractors and must navigate the insurance system as individuals, many do not possess adequate knowledge and statistically speaking, a large number are guaranteed to make mistakes when purchasing coverage.
If drivers were employees, then accident coverage for drivers and their vehicles becomes the responsibility of the rideshare companies. There would be fewer bad outcomes for drivers, but because the rideshare companies would bear greater risk, their profits would be reduced.
This is why I think it was a mistake for the ACA to limit catastrophic care to people under 30 (unless you get a hardship waiver [0]). That policy makes the cheapest non-job insurance that a lot of people can get cost >$500/month, whereas a catastrophic plan costs a lot less (about $120/month when I had such a plan in 2016).
For a lot of people who drive Lyft, catastrophic care could be a good fit, e.g. people in between jobs who expect to have a company plan at their next full-time position. This wouldn't entirely close the gap towards providing gig workers with benefits, but it would have helped.
There's also people for whom Lyft is a second job -- I'm thinking of a ride with a Chicago public school teacher who drove on weekends and breaks -- and I don't think it makes sense to force Lyft to provide them with insurance.
[0] https://www.healthcare.gov/health-coverage-exemptions/2019-e....
For a lot of people who drive Lyft, catastrophic care could be a good fit, e.g. people in between jobs who expect to have a company plan at their next full-time position. This wouldn't entirely close the gap towards providing gig workers with benefits, but it would have helped.
There's also people for whom Lyft is a second job -- I'm thinking of a ride with a Chicago public school teacher who drove on weekends and breaks -- and I don't think it makes sense to force Lyft to provide them with insurance.
[0] https://www.healthcare.gov/health-coverage-exemptions/2019-e....
Where do you see those numbers? ACA offers catastrophic plans to those under 30 and they're not nearly that expensive. I just did a quick check for someone with no subsidy in San Fransisco using the age of 25 and a catastrophic plan from Oscar showed up at $223.46/month. This includes zero subsidy. Using a $30k income and rerunning the numbers, a bronze plan form Kaiser with subsidy comes out at $47.83/month.
Look, I'm not happy about health care costs either, but ACA plans for young are really not that expensive. Further, plans prior to ACA offered terrible coverage. Yes, people got to say they had coverage, but the lifetime caps bankrupted people repeatedly. Eliminating the caps and mandating minimum essential coverage was absolutely essential to eliminating what really were scams of coverage. Further, even if you really want to get terrible coverage for less money, you can always use the loop hole and purchase coverage through a health care sharing ministry, which are even cheaper. Though, I strongly recommend against that because there's no guarantee that a bill will be covered.
Look, I'm not happy about health care costs either, but ACA plans for young are really not that expensive. Further, plans prior to ACA offered terrible coverage. Yes, people got to say they had coverage, but the lifetime caps bankrupted people repeatedly. Eliminating the caps and mandating minimum essential coverage was absolutely essential to eliminating what really were scams of coverage. Further, even if you really want to get terrible coverage for less money, you can always use the loop hole and purchase coverage through a health care sharing ministry, which are even cheaper. Though, I strongly recommend against that because there's no guarantee that a bill will be covered.
Sorry if this wasn't clear -- I'm saying that I wish that catastrophic plans were available to people over 30 as well.
My numbers are based on my own experiences shopping for healthcare in an ACA exchange in NY.
My numbers are based on my own experiences shopping for healthcare in an ACA exchange in NY.
OK, cool. Every state is different, so I'm always a bit curious as to how high premiums are set in different places. I just took a look at plans for those in NYC. For someone aged 35, it still looks like they're offering catastrophic plans. Fidelis has one at $178.75/month with no subsidy. For someone making $30k/year, the subsidy drops a bronze Fidelis plan to $16.59/month.
And, to be sure, coverage is still pretty bad. Just because someone has coverage doesn't mean they have the money to use coverage. Unless there's another subsidy, and there may be, that bronze Fidelis plan has a $8150 out of pocket max and it's unlikely someone making $30k/year is going to have that much money laying around. That said, at least the plan has a couple of free PCP visits.
Anyway, my intention here isn't to beat a dead horse. It's really important to me that people get health care coverage and costs are a barrier. I believe ACA plans to be far more affordable than people think them to be. I don't doubt that you saw a price in the realm you mentioned because they're out there, but often better pricing can be found and I end up doing these searches a lot.
And, to be sure, coverage is still pretty bad. Just because someone has coverage doesn't mean they have the money to use coverage. Unless there's another subsidy, and there may be, that bronze Fidelis plan has a $8150 out of pocket max and it's unlikely someone making $30k/year is going to have that much money laying around. That said, at least the plan has a couple of free PCP visits.
Anyway, my intention here isn't to beat a dead horse. It's really important to me that people get health care coverage and costs are a barrier. I believe ACA plans to be far more affordable than people think them to be. I don't doubt that you saw a price in the realm you mentioned because they're out there, but often better pricing can be found and I end up doing these searches a lot.
Not just healthcare- but other beenfits like sick leave, etc. and collecting taxes like unemployment insurance. When you do this -you better not leave any loopholes because companies have proven they will use it. IF Uber was successful, other companies would start fractional hiring of employees. I only need Finance people 2 days/week- they can come in anytime they like, work as long as they want and can work at other companies too. We'll save on taxes and benefits and they will enjoy their freedom. Too bad the Govt will lose taxes and the workers their benefits.
Yes this is a shitty patch job at best. It’s going to restrict individuals and not even solve the root issue.
milofeynman(12)
This seems lazy by CA.
We either have "full time = forty hours of work and tons of benefits that have been shoehorned into employment because our government doesn't provide it" or "part time = less than forty hours and you get abused"
I'm not privy so I won't pretend to have the right idea, but it seems like there should be a middle ground.
We either have "full time = forty hours of work and tons of benefits that have been shoehorned into employment because our government doesn't provide it" or "part time = less than forty hours and you get abused"
I'm not privy so I won't pretend to have the right idea, but it seems like there should be a middle ground.
It's not lazy, it's _greedy_. The state is only interesting in getting a share of the Uber/Lyft pie via payroll and unemployment taxes. They would also get automatic deduction of taxes from peoples' paychecks who would otherwise be under the reporting limit.
Independent contractors pay both sides of the payroll tax, don't they? So there's no greed there.
Unemployment is a different case, but here, it would actually make the state liable for more money—it would be a pretty weird greed situation.
Unemployment is a different case, but here, it would actually make the state liable for more money—it would be a pretty weird greed situation.
> Independent contractors pay both sides of the payroll tax, don't they? So there's no greed there.
Not if they are under the reporting limit, which many drivers are.
Not if they are under the reporting limit, which many drivers are.
I wonder what new app will spring up in place of Uber and Lyft. This is a huge opportunity for some aspiring entrepreneur. Of course, they're probably bluffing and will be back soon.
Would an app that defies this order even be allowed on the App Store?
Who said the competitor has to defy the order? Lyft is choosing not to abide by it. Whether Apple would permit it or not, who knows, they tend to apply policy unevenly. On Android, apps can be side-loaded so no need to get App Store approval.
The move seems to be specifically in response to the recent court order:
> Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman ruled Monday [August 10, 2020] that Lyft and Uber's thousands of contract drivers should be given the same protections and benefits under labor law as other employees of the ride-hailing companies.
> The judge said Uber and Lyft have refused to comply with a California law passed last year that was supposed to make it harder for companies in the state to hire workers as contractors, so gig economy workers such as drivers for the ride-hailing companies would receive health insurance, workers' compensation and paid sick and family leave. As independent contractors, Uber and Lyft drivers are not provided these benefits.
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/10/901099643/california-judge-or...
> Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman ruled Monday [August 10, 2020] that Lyft and Uber's thousands of contract drivers should be given the same protections and benefits under labor law as other employees of the ride-hailing companies.
> The judge said Uber and Lyft have refused to comply with a California law passed last year that was supposed to make it harder for companies in the state to hire workers as contractors, so gig economy workers such as drivers for the ride-hailing companies would receive health insurance, workers' compensation and paid sick and family leave. As independent contractors, Uber and Lyft drivers are not provided these benefits.
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/10/901099643/california-judge-or...
Interesting how cities are being allowed to violate the same by not holding their own taxi services into account[0] that they regulate thereby letting them skirt the law. This is likely because these companies tend to put good money into local political campaigns.
This law is impacting people outside of Uber and Lyft but those two are highlighted because it thwarted the lock down many municipalities had over cab companies and they did not want to give up the side benefits of that cash into their political coffers.
Then throw in that Uber and Lyft were truly effective alternatives to unionized mass transit lines operated in many cities and you can see the entirety of the political graft that was being upended. If you want more you just jump into that this is part of undoing decades of jobs bounded up in occupational licensing which only serves to protect vested interest who again are quick to maintain their political donations.
If they were out to protect workers they had many more ways to do it.
[0]https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-s-gi...
This law is impacting people outside of Uber and Lyft but those two are highlighted because it thwarted the lock down many municipalities had over cab companies and they did not want to give up the side benefits of that cash into their political coffers.
Then throw in that Uber and Lyft were truly effective alternatives to unionized mass transit lines operated in many cities and you can see the entirety of the political graft that was being upended. If you want more you just jump into that this is part of undoing decades of jobs bounded up in occupational licensing which only serves to protect vested interest who again are quick to maintain their political donations.
If they were out to protect workers they had many more ways to do it.
[0]https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-s-gi...
> Then throw in that Uber and Lyft were truly effective alternatives to unionized mass transit lines operated in many cities
No they weren't. It's called "mass transit" for a reason - replacing trains and buses with masses of individuals riding in separate cars is not an effective alternative. While Uber and Lyft are more convenient for certain trips, mass transit still has a place due to capacity constraints.
> If they were out to protect workers they had many more ways to do it.
Such as what? Strengthening collective bargaining rights? Oh wait, you don't like unions either.
No they weren't. It's called "mass transit" for a reason - replacing trains and buses with masses of individuals riding in separate cars is not an effective alternative. While Uber and Lyft are more convenient for certain trips, mass transit still has a place due to capacity constraints.
> If they were out to protect workers they had many more ways to do it.
Such as what? Strengthening collective bargaining rights? Oh wait, you don't like unions either.
This is what I don't get about the outrage against Uber/Lyft. Where is the outrage against regular taxi companies? They were using contractors long before and still are. Not to mention the corrupt medallion systems.
Maybe some of the drivers can come together to create a driver owned ride sharing app. A good example of this is http://www.rideaustin.com/
I haven’t used that one since Uber and Lyft were briefly shut down in Austin. Didn’t realize it was still a thing.
How does it compare?
How does it compare?
> the rest would have scheduled shifts, and capped hourly earnings.
I don't really understand why this is necessary. Can't there still be flexible arrangements with drivers simply clocking their work and then getting some kind of salary derived from that? Can't they still get paid bonuses for driving in particularly unwanted hours?
Sure, this would be a complex contract, but I don't see how this is impossible. But I'm not a USA citizen so maybe there is something I'm missing.
I don't really understand why this is necessary. Can't there still be flexible arrangements with drivers simply clocking their work and then getting some kind of salary derived from that? Can't they still get paid bonuses for driving in particularly unwanted hours?
Sure, this would be a complex contract, but I don't see how this is impossible. But I'm not a USA citizen so maybe there is something I'm missing.
I had the same thought. Lyft and Uber are already employers in the view of the state. No further modification is necessary.
What I'm guessing is that having people waiting being paid $0 is a core principal of Uber and Lyft. They hinge on over-supply. If they have to pay minimum wage to everyone who signs on, they need to be a lot more careful about who they allow to sign on, and when.
Saying it'll go to shift work though seems a bit extreme. Sounds like a tantrum to me.
What I'm guessing is that having people waiting being paid $0 is a core principal of Uber and Lyft. They hinge on over-supply. If they have to pay minimum wage to everyone who signs on, they need to be a lot more careful about who they allow to sign on, and when.
Saying it'll go to shift work though seems a bit extreme. Sounds like a tantrum to me.
No one would work when you wanted them to work unless you make them. Would you work a busy Friday night dealing with drunk people and missing your friends when you could get the same money for doing nothing on a Tuesday morning?
That's why I mentioned bonuses. You are getting paid more if no one wants to drive, but there is some kind of base payment you can expect to get.
I mean, what you're describing without realizing it is just a cab company except you pay everyone a 30+ hours a week for doing nothing on top of what you pay them for actually working...
This is why cab companies don't already let drivers pick their own hours (assuming they don't use the uber-lite approach of people just hiring the cab\medallion).
This is why cab companies don't already let drivers pick their own hours (assuming they don't use the uber-lite approach of people just hiring the cab\medallion).
Whoa, uber/lyft are just cab companies with more flexible work-schemes? Tell me something new.
The flexibility around time worked is contingent on flexibility around pay. Flexibility around pay is being banned.
I get that some flexibility is lost. But I would argue that
1. It is by far not as bad as Lyft and Uber present this and 2. I think this is a good thing overall. Less payment flexibility means a more stable income. Sure, some drivers don't need that stability, but those who do need it, really need it and this is more important in my mind.
The second point also fits into the narrative that this only benefits 1/5 of the drivers but that these drivers are doing a majority of the rides. I don't have a citation for that, so take it with a grain of salt :)
1. It is by far not as bad as Lyft and Uber present this and 2. I think this is a good thing overall. Less payment flexibility means a more stable income. Sure, some drivers don't need that stability, but those who do need it, really need it and this is more important in my mind.
The second point also fits into the narrative that this only benefits 1/5 of the drivers but that these drivers are doing a majority of the rides. I don't have a citation for that, so take it with a grain of salt :)
Without scheduled shifts, drivers will purposefully all sign up for the same shift to induce supply overflow.
In this situation, drivers can game the flexibility of the system to collect a paycheck while sitting in their cars doing nothing.
Even if drivers don't game the system, there will always be natural imbalance between supply and demand. Surge bonuses can mitigate this imbalance, but scheduling shifts is the more economically efficient way to solve the imbalance problem (hence why they say schedule flexibility will no longer be a feature in a driver employment model).
Even if drivers don't game the system, there will always be natural imbalance between supply and demand. Surge bonuses can mitigate this imbalance, but scheduling shifts is the more economically efficient way to solve the imbalance problem (hence why they say schedule flexibility will no longer be a feature in a driver employment model).
Then put some kind of system in place to have on-call duty, where you get a small share of the normal payment for being available and then getting the normal rate while you are driving to the customer and driving them to their destination.
All of this is already practiced in some place in the world. Sure, it's not as easy as creating an account on the app and off you go, but the driver flexibility of choosing when to drive doesn't seem to be so hard to me.
All of this is already practiced in some place in the world. Sure, it's not as easy as creating an account on the app and off you go, but the driver flexibility of choosing when to drive doesn't seem to be so hard to me.
Drivers will still take advantage of such a system. Whenever a market is over-supplied, drivers will sign in to collect their free "on-call duty" checks for doing nothing.
That's what contracts are for. Let's say that you can only pass on some small amount of rides or your on-call duty is terminated. Or go further and state in your contract that you have to take rides if you're on on-call duty. If you have too many drivers, don't 'hire' more. If you have too few riders on the important times, increase the bonus.
There are all kinds of adjustments you can make.
Another thing: you don't get paid for "doing nothing", you are getting paid for dropping everything when needed. On these conditions you're limited in all kinds of ways, e.g.
Taking care of a small kid alone? - not possible. Going shopping? - not really possible.
There are all kinds of adjustments you can make.
Another thing: you don't get paid for "doing nothing", you are getting paid for dropping everything when needed. On these conditions you're limited in all kinds of ways, e.g.
Taking care of a small kid alone? - not possible. Going shopping? - not really possible.
Ultimately, scheduling shifts is going to be both easier to manage and more cost efficient than what you're suggesting. Uber has a good idea of how many drivers they need at any given time. This ideal distribution of supply will never align perfectly with the supply pool's natural scheduling preferences. You can try to use economic incentives to force these two distributions to overlap, or you can just exert control (that you rightfully have over employees) and force your employees to work when you need them.
Yeah, I was a bit optimistic or even idealistic in thinking that Uber&Lyft are then treating their employees like independent contractors simply because they did before. I just want to stress that no one is really preventing them from doing so. It's "just" expensive and would need them to trust their employees to an extent.
Spitballing here:
Option 1: Deny any attempts to "clock in" whenever the number of drivers waiting in a region exceeds a certain density.
Option 2: Your shift starts when you pick up a passenger, and ends when you drop them off. (I have no idea whether this actually meets the state's requirements. I do suspect that there exists an equally clever solution that will work.)
Uber and friends built their entire businesses in working around existing laws. I'm sure they can figure out how to navigate the new laws.
Option 1: Deny any attempts to "clock in" whenever the number of drivers waiting in a region exceeds a certain density.
Option 2: Your shift starts when you pick up a passenger, and ends when you drop them off. (I have no idea whether this actually meets the state's requirements. I do suspect that there exists an equally clever solution that will work.)
Uber and friends built their entire businesses in working around existing laws. I'm sure they can figure out how to navigate the new laws.
We had this same thing happen in Austin when Uber and Lyft pulled out after having a hissy fit about fingerprinting and background checks and not parking in the bus lanes. As soon as they pulled out half a dozen alternatives sprung up that paid better (I always used Ride Austin, a not-for-profit). If you're a rider just take the bus, bike, or get any other cab service (seriously, they all have apps now and they maintain a fleet so drivers don't get stuck with repair bills). If you're a driver it's going to suck for a few weeks, you may have to find other opportunities, but more places will pop up and there will be better competition and better pay pretty quickly if the Austin example holds true.
TL;DR it's easy to flip out because Uber and Lyft are big names, but there are plenty of other good services, just use those instead.
TL;DR it's easy to flip out because Uber and Lyft are big names, but there are plenty of other good services, just use those instead.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I read RideAustin was going to shut down[1] this year and so did Fasten and Fare a few years ago
[1] https://communityimpact.com/austin/central-austin/impacts/20....
[1] https://communityimpact.com/austin/central-austin/impacts/20....
That's extremely sad; I moved away towards the end of last year so I haven't been keeping up with it sadly :(
This is not a good comparison because they're dismantling the whole business model with this ruling.
With the new requirements in place (e.g. actually hiring employees and providing benefits) the barrier to entry here is waaaaay higher than before. I would argue Ride Austin would have never even started (especially as a non profit) if these requirements were in place the last time Uber/Lyft shut down in Austin.
With the new requirements in place (e.g. actually hiring employees and providing benefits) the barrier to entry here is waaaaay higher than before. I would argue Ride Austin would have never even started (especially as a non profit) if these requirements were in place the last time Uber/Lyft shut down in Austin.
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/9/6/20851575/uber-lyf...
There's no objective "better" here. Some drivers may have done better with higher fares being passed onto them. On the other hand, 59% of Lyft/Uber riders ceased to use ride-hailing services.
There CSAT wasn't that great either; ride volume of competitors dropped significantly (Ride Austin lost 55% of riders within a week of Uber and Lyft returning).
The fundamental problem we have here is that pricing is being set by a heavily competitive market-place -- the clearance wage however is below what many see as a living wage. The most just thing to do may be to introduce a pricing floor (raise fares and raise driver income/benefits), but it's important to be honest about the trade-offs.
There's no objective "better" here. Some drivers may have done better with higher fares being passed onto them. On the other hand, 59% of Lyft/Uber riders ceased to use ride-hailing services.
There CSAT wasn't that great either; ride volume of competitors dropped significantly (Ride Austin lost 55% of riders within a week of Uber and Lyft returning).
The fundamental problem we have here is that pricing is being set by a heavily competitive market-place -- the clearance wage however is below what many see as a living wage. The most just thing to do may be to introduce a pricing floor (raise fares and raise driver income/benefits), but it's important to be honest about the trade-offs.
This could not be further from the truth. As someone who was driving full-time in Austin when this happened, I can absolutely say this hurt both the drivers and the passengers.
The apps were extremely buggy for both drivers and passengers causing missed rides, multiple drivers showing up to the same rider, etc. Fasten paid the best, but it still would only be marginally better if not the exact same as I was making with Uber or Lyft.
As far as what happened in Austin, there were absolutely no good replacements and us drivers (at least the ones I talked to) were very happy when they returned.
The apps were extremely buggy for both drivers and passengers causing missed rides, multiple drivers showing up to the same rider, etc. Fasten paid the best, but it still would only be marginally better if not the exact same as I was making with Uber or Lyft.
As far as what happened in Austin, there were absolutely no good replacements and us drivers (at least the ones I talked to) were very happy when they returned.
Can you give us some anecdata and what the affect on riders pay was? Was it a significant drop in pay, or mostly poor service and inconvenience?
Yes, voters in the US want to give people education, healthcare, and unemployment (or basic income-ish) benefits.
Voters in the US also don’t want to pay for any of this.
Hence, the politicians that get elected are ones that give people education via student loans, and healthcare/unemployment benefits tied to employer/employment status. Those politicians get to claim they helped people, and they get to claim they kept taxes low.
The game is to try to reduce your tax burden as much as possible, and don’t slip up and end up in the bottom 3, maybe even 4 income quintiles.
Voters in the US also don’t want to pay for any of this.
Hence, the politicians that get elected are ones that give people education via student loans, and healthcare/unemployment benefits tied to employer/employment status. Those politicians get to claim they helped people, and they get to claim they kept taxes low.
The game is to try to reduce your tax burden as much as possible, and don’t slip up and end up in the bottom 3, maybe even 4 income quintiles.
Medicare for All is widely popular in the US. The insurance industry, hospitals, and employers who want leverage over workers buy off politicians to prevent it from happening.
Just my humble opinion, but it seems Medicare for all would only exacerbate the actual problem of medical costs being too high due to government subsidization. I'll take my down votes and go now...
HN's guidelines discourage commenting on downvotes; you may wish to remove the last sentence.
I will say that I recently had to deal with the medical system for a family member, and he was on decent private insurance. We actually would have received better care at a lower cost if he was on Medicare instead. N=1, of course.
I'm pretty sure that Medicare has been shown to be a more effective negotiator than the private insurers and generally operates more efficiently, but I may be misremembering.
Disclaimer that I don't support medicare for all myself, I'd much prefer a model closer to the NHS, with caveats (federal funding, county administration, state oversight).
I will say that I recently had to deal with the medical system for a family member, and he was on decent private insurance. We actually would have received better care at a lower cost if he was on Medicare instead. N=1, of course.
I'm pretty sure that Medicare has been shown to be a more effective negotiator than the private insurers and generally operates more efficiently, but I may be misremembering.
Disclaimer that I don't support medicare for all myself, I'd much prefer a model closer to the NHS, with caveats (federal funding, county administration, state oversight).
Medicare for all would create the largest insurance pool the US has seen. It makes absolutely no sense why that would raise the costs.
Or it would be if they hadn’t successfully tied it to political identity so much.
Medicare is specifically only for elderly people, not all.
Medicare for All is a proposed law (S.1129 and H.R.1384) that expands Medicare to be a comprehensive single-payer system for all Americans. It has fairly high bipartisan support in polls, but relatively few (and only Democrat) supporters in Congress.
> Voters in the US also don’t want to pay for any of this.
There is more than enough money to go around, it's that there is a lot of it being wasted. The government and states failed to provide a good taxation and spending model. It's not the issue of the voters not willing to pay for it.
There is more than enough money to go around, it's that there is a lot of it being wasted. The government and states failed to provide a good taxation and spending model. It's not the issue of the voters not willing to pay for it.
Honestly even a risk of hyperinflation paying for everything with dollar creation would still leave a healthier more productive population in its wake.
Hasn't helped that people still view getting a job "with benefits" as some kind of badge of honor. This leads to a not small amount of people feeling that if you don't have a job "with benefits" you don't deserve any.
It's not much of an honor when insurance companies will still screw over those with the benefits. Employer subsidized care distorts the market and hurts everybody.
I love paying $1,300 a month for my health benefits I use a few times a year. What a great badge of honor. Oh, but wait, there's more! I can also pay hundreds of dollars out of my pocket at each visit to a clinic or dentist!
You pay extra when you're younger to pay for older people's healthcare. The ACA restricted health insurance premiums for older, costlier people as a multiple of the ideal 21 to 24 year old healthy person. NJ has a good pdf showing how premiums are calculated.
https://www.state.nj.us/dobi/division_insurance/ihcseh/ihcra...
If you see at the bottom, a 60 year old's age rating factor is 2.714 times a 21 year old's. Which means their premium can't exceed 2.714 times a 21 year old. Obviously a 60 year old uses far more healthcare than 2.7 times the healthcare a 21 year old uses, so effectively it's a tax on the 21 year old to pay for the 60 year old's healthcare.
https://www.state.nj.us/dobi/division_insurance/ihcseh/ihcra...
If you see at the bottom, a 60 year old's age rating factor is 2.714 times a 21 year old's. Which means their premium can't exceed 2.714 times a 21 year old. Obviously a 60 year old uses far more healthcare than 2.7 times the healthcare a 21 year old uses, so effectively it's a tax on the 21 year old to pay for the 60 year old's healthcare.
In the US we pay hundreds of dollars in monthly medical premiums, thousands in deductibles per year, and still need to live in fear of surprise bankruptcy-level bills arriving if god forbid you collapse and need an emergency procedure at the closest out-of-network facility.
Absolute insanity. Yet changing this at a fundamental level is somehow considered radical, nothing we can do etc., except what every other western country has already done. We keep telling ourselves we have the best medical care in the world, which anyone who has lived outside the US for some time can attest is complete bullshit.
Absolute insanity. Yet changing this at a fundamental level is somehow considered radical, nothing we can do etc., except what every other western country has already done. We keep telling ourselves we have the best medical care in the world, which anyone who has lived outside the US for some time can attest is complete bullshit.
Don't forget how much higher your car insurance is because if you get in an accident it needs to cover someone else's $200,000 medical bills
[deleted]
The entire pharma system is extremely complicated and there are a ton of weird incentives in its structure. Those incentive structures are really powerful, and since it is about human health, much harder to change.
Good paper on the topic - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/biosoc.2010.40
Good paper on the topic - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/biosoc.2010.40
> ... and still need to live in fear of surprise bankruptcy-level bills arriving if god forbid you collapse and need an emergency procedure at the closest out-of-network facility.
I don't know why this isn't illegal. You can go from living comfortably to living in poverty even though you held up your end of the contract except for that last time when you were not even conscious.
I don't know why this isn't illegal. You can go from living comfortably to living in poverty even though you held up your end of the contract except for that last time when you were not even conscious.
Imagine this at mcdonalds:
It'd like a burger OK, here it is. What is the charge? I'm not sure. I'll send you a bill in 2-32 weeks.
It'd like a burger OK, here it is. What is the charge? I'm not sure. I'll send you a bill in 2-32 weeks.
I know someone dealing with this shenanigans right now, they sent two bills, which he paid, and then figured it was all sorted.
Many months later, he finds out that they later sent two more bills to the address where he lived in middle school, never called him about it, and then referred them to debt collection because of course he hadn't paid them. He found out about this when the debts showed up on his credit monitoring.
Now they're denying that he gave them his current address, despite the fact that he has multiple other bills with earlier dates where the hospital has printed the correct address on them.
tldr: America's medical billing is an absurd shitshow
Many months later, he finds out that they later sent two more bills to the address where he lived in middle school, never called him about it, and then referred them to debt collection because of course he hadn't paid them. He found out about this when the debts showed up on his credit monitoring.
Now they're denying that he gave them his current address, despite the fact that he has multiple other bills with earlier dates where the hospital has printed the correct address on them.
tldr: America's medical billing is an absurd shitshow
> Yet changing this at a fundamental level is somehow considered radical, nothing we can do etc., except what every other western country has already done.
Except in the US wants to do what "every other western country has already done," which is to use payroll taxes on the middle class to subsidize mandatory health insurance or pay for a state-run system. Nobody in the US is actually serious about universal healthcare, except the folks who want to fix the ACA. Even Sanders promises not to raise taxes on people making below $250,000. If that's the promise, then all the other stuff is just talk, because the revenue can't be there to pay for any of it.
Warren actually got close to a plan for accomplishing universal healthcare without raising middle class taxes, and it only proves what a complete farce that is. It features:
- A wealth tax that goes up to 6%, four times higher than the 1.5% wealth taxes that Sweden and France abandoned (and most OECD countries never had)
- Corporate taxes around 35-39%, higher than Sweden, France, Germany, Denmark, etc.
- Capital gains taxed at the income rate, with a 70% top rate
Each of those policies individually would be outside the mainstream of the OECD. But under Warren's plan, you'd need all of these in combination just to raise half the money needed for Medicare for All.
So Sweden has corporate taxes around 22%, capital gains taxed at a flat 30%, and a top income tax rate of about 52% depending on municipality. It abandoned its wealth tax recently. Under Warren, the United States would have corporate taxes at 35% + the state rate (total 44% in California), a wealth tax going up to 6%, and a top marginal tax rate on capital gains of 70%.
Obviously we'd never do that, which shows you how it was never a serious proposal.
Except in the US wants to do what "every other western country has already done," which is to use payroll taxes on the middle class to subsidize mandatory health insurance or pay for a state-run system. Nobody in the US is actually serious about universal healthcare, except the folks who want to fix the ACA. Even Sanders promises not to raise taxes on people making below $250,000. If that's the promise, then all the other stuff is just talk, because the revenue can't be there to pay for any of it.
Warren actually got close to a plan for accomplishing universal healthcare without raising middle class taxes, and it only proves what a complete farce that is. It features:
- A wealth tax that goes up to 6%, four times higher than the 1.5% wealth taxes that Sweden and France abandoned (and most OECD countries never had)
- Corporate taxes around 35-39%, higher than Sweden, France, Germany, Denmark, etc.
- Capital gains taxed at the income rate, with a 70% top rate
Each of those policies individually would be outside the mainstream of the OECD. But under Warren's plan, you'd need all of these in combination just to raise half the money needed for Medicare for All.
So Sweden has corporate taxes around 22%, capital gains taxed at a flat 30%, and a top income tax rate of about 52% depending on municipality. It abandoned its wealth tax recently. Under Warren, the United States would have corporate taxes at 35% + the state rate (total 44% in California), a wealth tax going up to 6%, and a top marginal tax rate on capital gains of 70%.
Obviously we'd never do that, which shows you how it was never a serious proposal.
Yes, voters in the US want to give people education, healthcare, and unemployment (or basic income-ish) benefited
Voters in the US are already paying for healthcare for all, plus they are paying extra to support an entire healthcare insurance industry.
The USA doesn't (generally) let people die if they can't afford healthcare (people may be driven into bankruptcy, but they won't be left to die), so those costs are all getting paid by the public. And it'd be cheaper to pay for preventative care than to wait and pay for care for those that are so sick that they have no choice but to see an expensive doctor.
Voters in the US are already paying for healthcare for all, plus they are paying extra to support an entire healthcare insurance industry.
The USA doesn't (generally) let people die if they can't afford healthcare (people may be driven into bankruptcy, but they won't be left to die), so those costs are all getting paid by the public. And it'd be cheaper to pay for preventative care than to wait and pay for care for those that are so sick that they have no choice but to see an expensive doctor.
> Voters in the US are already paying for healthcare for all
I've been living in the US for almost 7 years, and this is news to me. As far as I understand, Medicare only applies to people who are 65+ years old, and Medicaid only applies to families with certain income (relative to family size). What did I miss?
> The USA doesn't (generally) let people die if they can't afford healthcare (people may be driven into bankruptcy, but they won't be left to die), so those costs are all getting paid by the public.
As COVID-19 has demonstrated quite effectively, death is not the only outcome to focus on. Also, driving a person into bankruptcy or otherwise ruining their future is not what I would call "healthcare paid for by everyone".
I am sincerely hoping that I have missed something in your arguments.
I've been living in the US for almost 7 years, and this is news to me. As far as I understand, Medicare only applies to people who are 65+ years old, and Medicaid only applies to families with certain income (relative to family size). What did I miss?
> The USA doesn't (generally) let people die if they can't afford healthcare (people may be driven into bankruptcy, but they won't be left to die), so those costs are all getting paid by the public.
As COVID-19 has demonstrated quite effectively, death is not the only outcome to focus on. Also, driving a person into bankruptcy or otherwise ruining their future is not what I would call "healthcare paid for by everyone".
I am sincerely hoping that I have missed something in your arguments.
I think the previous poster may be referring to use of emergency services by people without health insurance. Which is an indirect tax to voters anyways
Anyone in the USA can walk into an emergency room to get treatment - the public is paying for that through high hospital fees and direct subsidies.
Instead of waiting for someone with the flu to develop pneumonia and go to the ER because he can't breath, it'd be much cheaper to subsidize his visit to a primary care physician that he can go to before he needs a hospital.
To relate a personal experience, I have a relative that's had drug addiction problems all her life -- a few years back she had a cold or flu, couldn't afford to see a doctor so tried to ride it out at home, fortunately, she called her mom and told her how sick she was. When she didn't respond to the phone the next day, her parents drove across the state to check on her, found her near comatose and called 911. She had some bacterial pneumonia and almost died, she spent 10 days in the hospital, 5 of those days were in the ICU, intubated and in an induced coma. Because she was working and had some moderate income, she had lost her eligibility for state subsidized medical insurance. After taking 6 weeks off work to recover, she of course, lost her job, then she qualified for health care coverage and state disability payments.
The total hospital bill was over $300,000. Since she had no income or assets, the hospital wrote off the entire bill and absorbed the charges.
All of this because the public didn't want to pay $100 for her to see a doctor and get some antibiotics.
Instead of waiting for someone with the flu to develop pneumonia and go to the ER because he can't breath, it'd be much cheaper to subsidize his visit to a primary care physician that he can go to before he needs a hospital.
To relate a personal experience, I have a relative that's had drug addiction problems all her life -- a few years back she had a cold or flu, couldn't afford to see a doctor so tried to ride it out at home, fortunately, she called her mom and told her how sick she was. When she didn't respond to the phone the next day, her parents drove across the state to check on her, found her near comatose and called 911. She had some bacterial pneumonia and almost died, she spent 10 days in the hospital, 5 of those days were in the ICU, intubated and in an induced coma. Because she was working and had some moderate income, she had lost her eligibility for state subsidized medical insurance. After taking 6 weeks off work to recover, she of course, lost her job, then she qualified for health care coverage and state disability payments.
The total hospital bill was over $300,000. Since she had no income or assets, the hospital wrote off the entire bill and absorbed the charges.
All of this because the public didn't want to pay $100 for her to see a doctor and get some antibiotics.
Okay, so it looks like I didn't actually miss anything in your arguments.
I think it's fair of you to point out that there are certain scenarios in which healthcare is not paid for by the person getting it and everyone else ends up paying for it indirectly. I also think it's fair of you to point out that it's handled in such a way that it creates a byzantine system that ends up costing us all a lot more than it should.
But that's a long long way from claiming that "voters in the US are already paying for healthcare for all", in the context of the current discussion. "Voters in the US are paying for a byzantine system that handles extreme cases that happen because of the failure to have a proper healthcare for all" is as far as I could go with your arguments ;)
I think it's fair of you to point out that there are certain scenarios in which healthcare is not paid for by the person getting it and everyone else ends up paying for it indirectly. I also think it's fair of you to point out that it's handled in such a way that it creates a byzantine system that ends up costing us all a lot more than it should.
But that's a long long way from claiming that "voters in the US are already paying for healthcare for all", in the context of the current discussion. "Voters in the US are paying for a byzantine system that handles extreme cases that happen because of the failure to have a proper healthcare for all" is as far as I could go with your arguments ;)
It would have been more accurate if I had said "voters in the US are paying more than what it would cost to provide healthcare for all".
But the point remains -- voters don't want to pay for it, but they are already paying for it, many just don't realize it because when they pay $500/month for healthcare insurance, they don't see the $900 that their employer is paying or the public subsidies to hospitals.
But the point remains -- voters don't want to pay for it, but they are already paying for it, many just don't realize it because when they pay $500/month for healthcare insurance, they don't see the $900 that their employer is paying or the public subsidies to hospitals.
> Yes, voters in the US want to give people education, healthcare, and unemployment (or basic income-ish) benefits.
> Voters in the US also don’t want to pay for any of this.
A wealth tax is pretty popular. And we spend a whole lot in health insurance premiums.
Oh, and we could cut our defense (offense) spending in half and still be spending a good bit more than China.
> Voters in the US also don’t want to pay for any of this.
A wealth tax is pretty popular. And we spend a whole lot in health insurance premiums.
Oh, and we could cut our defense (offense) spending in half and still be spending a good bit more than China.
Is it really a matter of whether voters want to pay taxes, though? Consider that in California (US), if you make 100k, you pay an avg tax rate of ~29% (marginal 41%), vs in Ontario (Canada), you pay an avg tax rate of ~28% (marginal 43%). At a glance, these look like fairly comparable tax rates.
But Ontario has free public healthcare based on residence status, while Cali doesn't. So a better question might be what is it that US taxes are paying for that are so important (but that the neighbor in the north can do without just fine) that it can't afford healthcare instead?
But Ontario has free public healthcare based on residence status, while Cali doesn't. So a better question might be what is it that US taxes are paying for that are so important (but that the neighbor in the north can do without just fine) that it can't afford healthcare instead?
People all up and down healthcare earn far higher pay in the US than anywhere else.
Discussions about other causes for US taxes to be so high can get very political very quick because the myriad tax deductions available to the asset owning class, as well as the unaccounted for defined benefit / retiree healthcare debt that US governments have at all levels, and then you can get into military spending and so on and so forth.
Discussions about other causes for US taxes to be so high can get very political very quick because the myriad tax deductions available to the asset owning class, as well as the unaccounted for defined benefit / retiree healthcare debt that US governments have at all levels, and then you can get into military spending and so on and so forth.
But earning more means paying more taxes. If the tax rates are comparable, then your argument entails that the US government gets even more tax revenue than other countries per capita, so it makes even less sense that it then presumably spends those tax dollars on things that are not related to healthcare, whereas countries like Canada and UK do consider healthcare one of their priorities in their budgets, while still maintaining things like military operations and space programs.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24225110.
Pathetic... why not take the ~20% of drivers who put in 35h+ a week and make them employees to keep their service running and help their customers? ... Oh right because they can instead inflict pain 75 days before the carveout ballot measure they wrote.
They aren't the innocent victims of gov't overreach for us to venerate. They stonewalled participation in writing a better AB5, because they want no rules but their own.
IMHO This would be a great time for TESLA to spin up a 100% employee based human driving service in California and gobble up the demand.
They aren't the innocent victims of gov't overreach for us to venerate. They stonewalled participation in writing a better AB5, because they want no rules but their own.
IMHO This would be a great time for TESLA to spin up a 100% employee based human driving service in California and gobble up the demand.
I don't see how the TESLA model could work with human employee drivers. Uber is already not making a profit with their current lower cost structure. TESLA with more expensive cars and more expensive employee costs, will almost certainly also lose money unless they substantially increase prices. And at the higher price level, demand is likely to be lower as well.
What's stopping someone from running a Lyft-like service "dry" (without payment processing) and just matching riders with drivers, with the expectation of paying cash or Zelle
I mean other than the fact that it would make no money.
What could California do to the developers of such an app?
I mean other than the fact that it would make no money.
What could California do to the developers of such an app?
Maybe an alternative model would be too charge the drivers a subscription fee. Could be a typical SAAS model where first 10 rides/month are free and the ability to work unlimited hours costs ~$1k. I don't think you could do this for free as the support costs are likely really high and support is super important when people are putting their lives in the drivers' hands.
I've met a few drivers in Seattle who offered their own rates via text pickup. I used this to get to the airport once. I wonder how many drivers in California were doing the same thing knowing this was on the way- get your local clients and build trust and start their own mini ride service- assuming you know how to use Venmo and the like.
I've encountered something similar here, where a driver with a minivan equipped with carseats picks up direct work (courtesy of “word-of-mouth” promotion through the highly powerful local working moms group on Facebook).
[note: I'm not being sarcastic about calling the Facebook moms group “highly powerful”—they have significant civic clout in local politics/business/activism.]
[note: I'm not being sarcastic about calling the Facebook moms group “highly powerful”—they have significant civic clout in local politics/business/activism.]
This is exactly what is needed.
At the end of the day, the added value of Uber and Lyft is not that amazing, and should be easy to replicate in a p2p system.
At the end of the day, the added value of Uber and Lyft is not that amazing, and should be easy to replicate in a p2p system.
When a good thing comes around, you can always trust a leftist governments to ruin everyone's day at some point.
They had months to prepare for this, but choose not to.
Lot of my friends who work in non tech jobs use driving for Uber or Lyft as a way to either get a little extra cash, or bridge themselves across gaps in employment.
This would devastate them. Absolutely heartless move on behalf of the California government. Don’t kick the little guys while they’re down to make some political point. It’s not the time.
This would devastate them. Absolutely heartless move on behalf of the California government. Don’t kick the little guys while they’re down to make some political point. It’s not the time.
The interesting thing is that this may not have been a heartless move, it seems to have been, from what I can tell, a well-meaning move that is going to hurt the very people politicians were trying to help. I feel like this is a theme of the last 100 years repeating itself over and over.
The road to hell...
The road to hell...
fizzled(1)
> The interesting thing is that this may not have been a heartless move, it seems to have been, from what I can tell, a well-meaning move that is going to hurt the very people politicians were trying to help. I feel like this is a theme of the last 100 years repeating itself over and over.
There is a tendency to classify failed left-leaning policies as 'well-intentioned but failures' and right-leaning policies as 'heartless and also failures'. This is a ridiculous dichotomy.
The fact is that everyone knew this was going to happen. It was indeed a heartless policy. The leftist lawmakers that run california could have asked anyone and could have at least feigned interest in helping Uber and Lyft succeed in their state. Instead, they chose to essentially ban their business model with no input from the companies. It is especially egregious because the state has spent the last 50 years building an incredibly car-dependent society, and has failed in its duty to bring any kind of workable public transportation system. Uber and Lyft started to become their finally workable transit system, and the state can't even have that.
I'm done pretending that leftist policies are well-intentioned. We need to start calling them what they are -- evil.
There is a tendency to classify failed left-leaning policies as 'well-intentioned but failures' and right-leaning policies as 'heartless and also failures'. This is a ridiculous dichotomy.
The fact is that everyone knew this was going to happen. It was indeed a heartless policy. The leftist lawmakers that run california could have asked anyone and could have at least feigned interest in helping Uber and Lyft succeed in their state. Instead, they chose to essentially ban their business model with no input from the companies. It is especially egregious because the state has spent the last 50 years building an incredibly car-dependent society, and has failed in its duty to bring any kind of workable public transportation system. Uber and Lyft started to become their finally workable transit system, and the state can't even have that.
I'm done pretending that leftist policies are well-intentioned. We need to start calling them what they are -- evil.
Not for nothing (and feeling somewhat old for remembering this) but lyrics from a song from the late 80s come to mind[1].
"That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves"
It was on a playlist I was listening to last week walking my dog. Seems quite apropos here.
[1] https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rush/witchhunt.html
"That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves"
It was on a playlist I was listening to last week walking my dog. Seems quite apropos here.
[1] https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rush/witchhunt.html
Uber and Lyft are voluntarily suspending operations to make a political point; they are the ones kicking the little guy while they're down. The fact that these companies can spend 100 million to dismantle the outcome of the political process shows how little power the California government actually has.
I was under the impression they're planning on suspending operations because it would be illegal for drivers to operate as contractors come tomorrow. Their political stance is manifested in prop 22, but the shutdown is for compliance w/ the law.
From my understanding, the shutdown is to avoid classifying drivers as employees. Nothing has to change except Uber/Lyft having to pay payroll taxes and provide benefits for drivers working full time hours. It has nothing to do with flexibility. It's about a shifting tax burden. This shift may make the business model unprofitable without significantly raising prices.
[deleted]
Well, it's not "nothing". It requires having an HR org that is able to process some 50k extra headcount, among other things.
The companies already stated that hypothetically, they would hire drivers and raise prices if it came down to having to use an employee model in California, but the case they're making is that while that scenario won't be a fatal blow to them, it'll severely suck for riders and drivers.
The companies already stated that hypothetically, they would hire drivers and raise prices if it came down to having to use an employee model in California, but the case they're making is that while that scenario won't be a fatal blow to them, it'll severely suck for riders and drivers.
If the business model can't be made to work when they have to pay payroll taxes and provide benefits, then shutting down is the only reasonable thing to do. I expect it's both: they cannot or do not want to change their business model to account for the new reality, and are also hoping that a full shutdown will make voters angry enough to get AB5 repealed.
(I'm not convinced that's actually the case, though, but I don't know the math around this, so it could be.)
(I'm not convinced that's actually the case, though, but I don't know the math around this, so it could be.)
I read that some 41% of people support prop 22 as of today, vs some 26% against (and 34% undecided)[1]
I feel like a shutdown would certainly bring it to the top of mind for people and help convert the undecided, but it already looks like it'll pass, shutdown or not.
[1] https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/california-propositi...
I feel like a shutdown would certainly bring it to the top of mind for people and help convert the undecided, but it already looks like it'll pass, shutdown or not.
[1] https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/california-propositi...
Completely false. If classified as employees, Uber and Lyft are suddenly completely liable for anything their employees do while working. They would have to do things like start taking inventory of their vehicles, start collecting employment verification documents, start setting up payroll, figure out how to not use their surge pricing model and switch to something else, etc. Even if you wanted to classify everyone as employees tomorrow, there is a huge administrative hurdle to overcome.
Tough to call anything done as voluntary with a gun held up to the head. Their entire business model (which has not been super profitable to say the least) was just made illegal in California.
Life goes on though, probably the Taxi industry is very pleased, many of the full-time drivers will go on to work as Taxi drivers, licensed with hours and all. And I'll just lower my expectations for getting a taxi dispatched within 30 mins outside of the main city.
Life goes on though, probably the Taxi industry is very pleased, many of the full-time drivers will go on to work as Taxi drivers, licensed with hours and all. And I'll just lower my expectations for getting a taxi dispatched within 30 mins outside of the main city.
What you call a gun to their head has been there for a year now! The only thing that actually ended was their hopeless legal effort.
So no, it was made illegal a year ago. It was Uber and Lyfts decision to do nothing to prepare.
So no, it was made illegal a year ago. It was Uber and Lyfts decision to do nothing to prepare.
I mean, if your business model is predicated on violations of the law, maybe you aren't a viable business as currently structured, and should restructure to be in compliance with the law?
>Their entire business model was just made illegal in California.
Their business model has been illegal since at least the 2018 Dynamex decision. The only sudden moves here are from Lyft.
Their business model has been illegal since at least the 2018 Dynamex decision. The only sudden moves here are from Lyft.
fizzled(1)
Behold California! master of the Pyrrhic victory. Now we have more unemployment claims for CA to process. I'm sure they'll get right on that.
Would Lyft/Uber stop operations in CA in the long term? Or is this just a ploy to get people to vote for their proposition? It seems silly to leave money on the table.
If operations are unprofitable then what money are they leaving?
However it's likely that without changes, they will just operate in a few core urban regions rather than the widespread coverage they have today.
However it's likely that without changes, they will just operate in a few core urban regions rather than the widespread coverage they have today.
If it's not profitable to treat those already working 40+ hours a week as an employee, then that's not a great business in the first place. We shouldn't rely on exploiting the lower class in order to provide basic services like transportation.
Personally I think the idea of being a contractor to loosely pick up some extra cash is a great thing, assuming this is effectively an extra job and way less than 40h/week. I don't know how common that actually is -- almost every Lyft/Uber driver I've asked are working 8+ hours, and driving into SF/NYC/DC/LA from a far away location.
Personally I think the idea of being a contractor to loosely pick up some extra cash is a great thing, assuming this is effectively an extra job and way less than 40h/week. I don't know how common that actually is -- almost every Lyft/Uber driver I've asked are working 8+ hours, and driving into SF/NYC/DC/LA from a far away location.
That's your subjective opinion. Millions of riders and drivers think it's a great business, and full-time driving jobs already exist for those who want them.
Why should drivers not have a choice? What if flexibility is important to them? Why do hours matter they're a contractor? Should they not set their own time? Do you also oppose freelance writers or artists that work 40+ hours?
Why should drivers not have a choice? What if flexibility is important to them? Why do hours matter they're a contractor? Should they not set their own time? Do you also oppose freelance writers or artists that work 40+ hours?
Should kids have a choice if they want to engage in child labor? Should people be able to sell their organs or children for money? Opt into slavery?
The reason why we have legislation that creates regulation is because there's a body of people trying to look out for the larger common good, particularly when existing labor laws are being skirted around. If there wasn't a problem of exploitation of this entire business model (not just Lyft, but also Postmates, Instacart, task rabbit, etc), then CA wouldn't be intervening.
If NYTimes and all other news publishers had people working full time for only them, but only classified them as contractors (so much flexibility! except when you need to make a full time living), then yes I would have a problem with it. In fact, I believe that would be breaking the law.
The reason why we have legislation that creates regulation is because there's a body of people trying to look out for the larger common good, particularly when existing labor laws are being skirted around. If there wasn't a problem of exploitation of this entire business model (not just Lyft, but also Postmates, Instacart, task rabbit, etc), then CA wouldn't be intervening.
If NYTimes and all other news publishers had people working full time for only them, but only classified them as contractors (so much flexibility! except when you need to make a full time living), then yes I would have a problem with it. In fact, I believe that would be breaking the law.
These aren't kids, they're adults. Some countries do allow voluntary organ donation for kidneys, pieces of liver, etc and it works fine (so yes that should be a choice). Slavery is clearly not free exchange of value.
Who's looking out for drivers? Do they have any experience of driving? Why do most drivers want flexibility and say they're against these changes then? Why don't the existing unfilled driving jobs suffice for those who want jobs? If drivers are clearly choosing to be rideshare contractors instead of other open jobs, why should they no longer have that choice?
If you're going to remove people's freedom then you better have an absolutely perfect explanation of what they're supposedly suffering from. If the best you can think of is that some people don't make as much as you want then that's just not good enough.
If CA wanted real change, a new 3rd classification should've been created, or offer public health and benefits pools that all contractors can pay into. Instead this is the same state that fines tax-paying citizens for not having health insurance but offers it for free to illegal immigrants. So no, I don't see how CA govt represents the people or has any idea about the common good.
Who's looking out for drivers? Do they have any experience of driving? Why do most drivers want flexibility and say they're against these changes then? Why don't the existing unfilled driving jobs suffice for those who want jobs? If drivers are clearly choosing to be rideshare contractors instead of other open jobs, why should they no longer have that choice?
If you're going to remove people's freedom then you better have an absolutely perfect explanation of what they're supposedly suffering from. If the best you can think of is that some people don't make as much as you want then that's just not good enough.
If CA wanted real change, a new 3rd classification should've been created, or offer public health and benefits pools that all contractors can pay into. Instead this is the same state that fines tax-paying citizens for not having health insurance but offers it for free to illegal immigrants. So no, I don't see how CA govt represents the people or has any idea about the common good.
I wonder if this will mean a bunch of new car buyers in CA...which would ironically be good for the economy/recovery effort.
What people are not talking about is how much congestion these services bring to city streets. For San Francisco traffic congestion increased by 60% between 2010-2016[1] and Lyft/Uber contributed to half of that. That is very bad as more traffic leads to more traffic accidents, more fatalities and pedestrians getting hit. In addition lets not forget the heavy toll on the environment with air pollution and its myriad effects on the area. All of this for workers making barely minimum wage[2]. Given the air quality in the bay area right now due to the fires this couldn't have come at a better time.
[1] - https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/8/18535627/uber-lyft-sf-traf...
[2] - https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-uber-driver-w...
[1] - https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/8/18535627/uber-lyft-sf-traf...
[2] - https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-uber-driver-w...
I don't think modern car exhaust emissions are a significant factor when you have a bunch of forest fire smoke floating around. The traffic concerns are much more credible, but can the government step up on public transportation to fill the inevitable gaps?
You might want to consider doing some research before just mindlessly dismissing what other people say.
“Mobile sources of air pollution from cars, trucks, ships, emissions from construction equipment, and tire and brake wear on roadways are the biggest root cause of poor air quality in the city, and addressing these should result in positive air quality trends.”
https://sfgov.org/scorecards/environment/days-epa-air-qualit...
“Mobile sources of air pollution from cars, trucks, ships, emissions from construction equipment, and tire and brake wear on roadways are the biggest root cause of poor air quality in the city, and addressing these should result in positive air quality trends.”
https://sfgov.org/scorecards/environment/days-epa-air-qualit...
That is grossly misleading because one of those things is very much not like the others.
Ships measure fuel in tons per hour. It only takes a few hundred transport ships to put out as much pollution as every car on the planet and there are hundreds of thousands of them with their collective output dwarfing cars and trucks combined by several orders of magnitude.
If we really wanted to cut transportation pollution fast, we'd internationally mandate turbosails on all transport ships as current models cut fuel consumption by 25% or more.
Stepping aside from ships, big rigs are the overwhelmingly biggest NOx contributors (even beating out industrial and power plants).
Stepping back though, transportation in ALL its forms still only contributes around 1/4 of the US greenhouse emissions.
Ships measure fuel in tons per hour. It only takes a few hundred transport ships to put out as much pollution as every car on the planet and there are hundreds of thousands of them with their collective output dwarfing cars and trucks combined by several orders of magnitude.
If we really wanted to cut transportation pollution fast, we'd internationally mandate turbosails on all transport ships as current models cut fuel consumption by 25% or more.
Stepping aside from ships, big rigs are the overwhelmingly biggest NOx contributors (even beating out industrial and power plants).
Stepping back though, transportation in ALL its forms still only contributes around 1/4 of the US greenhouse emissions.
What’s misleading about it? We are talking about the health effects on people living in cities in California, not about cargo ships burning dirty fuel in the middle of the ocean or general global greenhouse gas emissions. It is a true statement that vehicle traffic is a major source of harmful pollution in US cities.
When there is a forest fire going on? If your AQI is at 800 because a forest fire is raging nearby, driving less isn't going to change that number at all. You simply have bigger problems than auto exhaust at that point.
Do you imagine that there is some hard limit beyond which adding more pollution won’t make any difference to someone’s health? Or is the relationship more linear, where every additional particle inhaled will cause more damage?
If you don’t get rid of the forest fire, you are screwed either way. Driving less maybe takes you from 60 to 30, it won’t have any impact at 800. Driving less is a good thing, it’s just not something that is going to help with forest fire pollution.
Think about the difference between peeing or not into a clear body of water and a muddy swamp. Either way, you don’t want to drink from the muddy swamp.
Think about the difference between peeing or not into a clear body of water and a muddy swamp. Either way, you don’t want to drink from the muddy swamp.
> but can the government step up on public transportation to fill the inevitable gaps?
I think it's more of a matter of "will" vs "can"
I think it's more of a matter of "will" vs "can"
I'm always perplexed when people bring this issue up but never discuss the contribution to congestion by people driving their own cars.
Yes, you can say that increased congestion from single occupancy vehicles leads to a tragedy of the commons for those on buses. This can be addressed by making bus only lanes (and they should be bus only lanes, not bus and taxi lanes)
For the rest of the congestion, there's not much difference between rideshare vehicles and private vehicles. Rideshare vehicles might be empty while looking for passengers (net positive contribution to congestion), but also provide pooling (net negative contribution). Private vehicles also circle blocks looking for parking spaces (net positive contribution).
> For San Francisco traffic congestion increased by 60% between 2010-2016[1]
It's hard to pin this solely on ridesharing though. There have been no lack of road construction projects in the last decade. More recently, the Van Ness work has been an absolute clusterfuck for San Francisco traffic.
Yes, you can say that increased congestion from single occupancy vehicles leads to a tragedy of the commons for those on buses. This can be addressed by making bus only lanes (and they should be bus only lanes, not bus and taxi lanes)
For the rest of the congestion, there's not much difference between rideshare vehicles and private vehicles. Rideshare vehicles might be empty while looking for passengers (net positive contribution to congestion), but also provide pooling (net negative contribution). Private vehicles also circle blocks looking for parking spaces (net positive contribution).
> For San Francisco traffic congestion increased by 60% between 2010-2016[1]
It's hard to pin this solely on ridesharing though. There have been no lack of road construction projects in the last decade. More recently, the Van Ness work has been an absolute clusterfuck for San Francisco traffic.
I don't think its perplexing at all, the larger the increase of ride sharing services the lower the usage of public transportation[1]. Alot of the SF traffic is not people commuting in from other cites and taking Uber/Lyft to do so. These people by and large take caltrain/muni/corporate shuttles. People that drive in using their own cars would not use lyft/uber due to cost of these services. The problem with lower public transit numbers is its starving services that are essential to lower income folks and are a greener alternative to thousands of ride hailing drivers from out of the area driving into urban areas clogging the streets.
[1] - https://sf.curbed.com/2019/1/23/18194612/lyft-uber-tnc-sfmta...
[1] - https://sf.curbed.com/2019/1/23/18194612/lyft-uber-tnc-sfmta...
> the larger the increase of ride sharing services the lower the usage of public transportation
so does private car ownership, private bike ownership and bikesharing.
Private car ownership externalities overlap greatly with ridesharing. The solution here is congestion pricing for all vehicles except public transportation. You tax what you want less of and what causes the most wear on the systems that need to be maintained.
Humans are free to choose the systems that work best for their needs. If we want to people to use public transportation, the solution to that is to make public transportation better than the alternatives, such as providing for bus only lanes and more routes.
so does private car ownership, private bike ownership and bikesharing.
Private car ownership externalities overlap greatly with ridesharing. The solution here is congestion pricing for all vehicles except public transportation. You tax what you want less of and what causes the most wear on the systems that need to be maintained.
Humans are free to choose the systems that work best for their needs. If we want to people to use public transportation, the solution to that is to make public transportation better than the alternatives, such as providing for bus only lanes and more routes.
> If we want to people to use public transportation, the solution to that is to make public transportation better than the alternatives
There's no better way to burn up al of your free time than by taking public transportation. I've never had the balls to pull out my laptop to try to get some work done...
There's no better way to burn up al of your free time than by taking public transportation. I've never had the balls to pull out my laptop to try to get some work done...
Maybe if public transit was better funded and managed, more people could get to their jobs without having to pay for a car or a rideshare, saving costs. And more people could have jobs working for the transit agency. And in aggregate you have more employed people with lower daily costs, leading, ultimately, to fewer people out there who need to steal laptops in order to get by.
I agree it could be improved, but it can only approach the minimum, which is somewhere near one small car per person. It's an absolutely massive chicken and egg problem. I doubt many people would be interested even if you told them their commute time would only double.
Even if you had private transportation to nearby public transportation hubs with rides that went greater distances with no/few stops, as a short term solution (similar to private FANG shuttles), you still have a distribution problem on the other side.
Even if you had private transportation to nearby public transportation hubs with rides that went greater distances with no/few stops, as a short term solution (similar to private FANG shuttles), you still have a distribution problem on the other side.
Within the city, it's not like people who already own cars instead use rideshare apps; it's that for anyone in the city who might have used public transportation, a portion have opted for the rideshare apps. And that leads to the effects parent et al are talking about: increased congestion and all its side effects.
Bike use and bike sharing, while decreasing public transit use, have similar positive benefits to public transit use such as reduced congestion, reduced pollution, etc.
Bike use and bike sharing, while decreasing public transit use, have similar positive benefits to public transit use such as reduced congestion, reduced pollution, etc.
I've never seen a rideshare "pool" multiple riders. I'm sure it does happen, but it seems pretty rare from where I am.
It happened without fail in San Francisco.
If Muni was any good, people wouldn't have used ridesharing. Ridesharing costs a bit more. This just shows that public transit in SF is so bad that people would rather pay more money for a taxi.
fizzled(3)
I agree about muni being bad, having took it for a while ago its really horrible. But in general people complain about SF and all of its public services, but do nothing about the clowns running the city/transit systems. Public transportation can work and work well, look to Europe for a blueprint. If you don't like the way the city and its services are run, vote!
What is needed is a decentralized, p2p, version of the Uber / Lyft app based on crypto.
If anyone builds this, there will be no way central planners (I use these two word to remain polite) can stick their nose in the free exchange of money and services between drivers and driven.
If anyone builds this, there will be no way central planners (I use these two word to remain polite) can stick their nose in the free exchange of money and services between drivers and driven.
Maybe we should have actually listened to the the uber and Lyft drivers (most of whom did not support this change, and I don’t think it’s because they are stupid and duped) and see why they wanted to stay part-time, work-as-you-want contractors, rather than just decide for them. Yes Uber and Lyft share some of the blame for cutting services completely rather than giving it a try with higher prices. But it’s also yet another example of CA attempting to “help” people in a totally self defeating way (and more cynically, a huge handout to taxi companies, and a kick in the ribs of Uber and Lyft while they’re struggling). Nobody wanted this except a vocal group of self righteous individuals and taxi companies
I was really surprised by the 3rd requirement of the law to qualify as a contractor. Recall, the new law says that you can be counted as a contractor (instead of an employee) only if all 3 conditions are met [1]:
-- Are free from control of the company in how the job is executed
-- Perform work outside the company's normal line of business
-- Are customarily engaged in this work anyway as an independent worker
This last condition is really unreasonable I think. Basically someone can only be counted as a contractor if they already do that kind of work as their primary employment. This basically forecloses anyone from casually offering their time as a driver, even if that's a perfectly efficient and reasonable thing for people to do.
If I were cynical, I would say that this is a concession to taxi / labor lobbies to protect their wages. Which I do not support.
Strange how Sacramento representatives, in trying to fix certain failings of current laws, always try to insert something extra like this while they do it.
[1] https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_independentcontractor.htm
-- Are free from control of the company in how the job is executed
-- Perform work outside the company's normal line of business
-- Are customarily engaged in this work anyway as an independent worker
This last condition is really unreasonable I think. Basically someone can only be counted as a contractor if they already do that kind of work as their primary employment. This basically forecloses anyone from casually offering their time as a driver, even if that's a perfectly efficient and reasonable thing for people to do.
If I were cynical, I would say that this is a concession to taxi / labor lobbies to protect their wages. Which I do not support.
Strange how Sacramento representatives, in trying to fix certain failings of current laws, always try to insert something extra like this while they do it.
[1] https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_independentcontractor.htm
I don't think the third pillar is a problem. You can claim you customarily engaging in driving as a work. The primary problem Uber and Lyft are running into is #2. The courts think that drivers perform work within the company's normal line of business, while Uber and Lyft believe they are a technology marketplace and not a transportation company.
Well, on #2 I agreed with the court's analysis -- at least in how Lyft/Uber are operating now. These companies would not exist if not for being in the transportation business. It is a real stretch to divorce them from the aspect of cars driving -- that is their very business.
On #3, so companies would just ask the people driving whether "this is your customary line of work" and if you don't answer right, you're not allowed to drive? Or would there be some independent way this would be verified? Or is it up to the company to test how much risk they're willing to look the other way on?
On #3, so companies would just ask the people driving whether "this is your customary line of work" and if you don't answer right, you're not allowed to drive? Or would there be some independent way this would be verified? Or is it up to the company to test how much risk they're willing to look the other way on?
I not 100% sure, but I am wondering if #3 the burden of proof is with the contractor
I dislike Uber and Lyft's practices as much as the next guy. But I also believe AB5 is a terrible bill and will be voting in November to exempt Uber and Lyft from AB5. AB5 was written to impose a 20th century employment model to a 21st century situation. As such, the bill is distorted that it carve out hundreds of exemptions to musicians, freelancers, journalists, doctors, hair stylists and so on and so forth. A bill that has to rely primarily on exemptions is no bill at all.
A much better bill could have written that could have created a healthcare and unemployment fund of gig economy workers by taxing Gig companies, without trying box everyone into the employment model
A much better bill could have written that could have created a healthcare and unemployment fund of gig economy workers by taxing Gig companies, without trying box everyone into the employment model
'Ridesharing' (Which is a hilarious term for the simple fact that the ride is not being shared, the driver is not intending to go to your favorite bar. ) isn't a 21st century situation or solution.
It's not a profitable or a good force in an economy, it does not pay a reasonable wage for anyone to live on, it is not environmentally friendly unless done in large quantities of people,(which is called a bus).
Ridesharing exists to profit Uber/Lyft investors and management and is successful due to lower pricing than is sustainable. It is built on the back of loopholes in the law to use and abuse working class people and to lie about the true costs and profits.
The bill's exceptions exist to split apart reality from this subsidized artificial market (There are exemptions in most laws, purely due tot he idea that things are complex, by nature)
I see this as an attempt to make the Gig Economy pay all workers fairly in addition to healthcare costs and to put the onus on the company rather than their taxes. This would force Uber and Lyft to limit the number of drivers in an area by cost and profits, to deny those they cannot pay fairly. Uber currently may give you 100 rides a day or 1, you don't know which and you cant depend on it nor if you cant drive can get unemployment.
The hard problem is contracting work is not a known reality for most, they don't understand the costs. Dressing it up in pretty fonts and Ads makes it much like the alcohol or tobacco industries, you don't know the danger until you are very invested and nobody is there to save you.
It's not a profitable or a good force in an economy, it does not pay a reasonable wage for anyone to live on, it is not environmentally friendly unless done in large quantities of people,(which is called a bus).
Ridesharing exists to profit Uber/Lyft investors and management and is successful due to lower pricing than is sustainable. It is built on the back of loopholes in the law to use and abuse working class people and to lie about the true costs and profits.
The bill's exceptions exist to split apart reality from this subsidized artificial market (There are exemptions in most laws, purely due tot he idea that things are complex, by nature)
I see this as an attempt to make the Gig Economy pay all workers fairly in addition to healthcare costs and to put the onus on the company rather than their taxes. This would force Uber and Lyft to limit the number of drivers in an area by cost and profits, to deny those they cannot pay fairly. Uber currently may give you 100 rides a day or 1, you don't know which and you cant depend on it nor if you cant drive can get unemployment.
The hard problem is contracting work is not a known reality for most, they don't understand the costs. Dressing it up in pretty fonts and Ads makes it much like the alcohol or tobacco industries, you don't know the danger until you are very invested and nobody is there to save you.
[deleted]
> 'Ridesharing' (Which is a hilarious term for the simple fact that the ride is not being shared, the driver is not intending to go to your favorite bar. ) isn't a 21st century situation or solution.
Great summary for this scary situation.
> I see this as an attempt to make the Gig Economy pay all workers fairly in addition to healthcare costs and to put the onus on the company rather than their taxes.
There is a new word for this class of gig workers doing precarious labor that I've started using: the Precariat.
"In sociology and economics, the precariat (/prɪˈkɛəriət/) is a neologism for a social class formed by people suffering from precarity, which is a condition of existence without predictability or security, affecting material or psychological welfare. The term is a portmanteau obtained by merging precarious with proletariat.[1] Unlike the proletariat class of industrial workers in the 20th century who lacked their own means of production and hence sold their labour to live, members of the precariat are only partially involved in labour and must undertake extensive "unremunerated activities that are essential if they are to retain access to jobs and to decent earnings".
Classic examples of such unpaid activities include continually having to search for work (including preparing for and attending job interviews), as well as being expected to be perpetually responsive to calls for "gig" work (yet without being paid an actual wage for being "on call"). The hallmark of the precariat class is the condition of lack of job security, including intermittent employment or underemployment and the resultant precarious existence.[2] The emergence of this class has been ascribed to the entrenchment of neoliberal capitalism.[3][4]"
[..]
"The British economist Guy Standing has analysed the precariat as a new emerging social class in work done for the think tank Policy Network and the World Economic Forum.[6] In his 2014 book entitled A Precariat Charter he argued that all citizens have a right to socially inherited wealth.[8][9] The latest in the series is titled The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class[2][10] where he proposed basic income as a solution for addressing the problem.
The analysis of the results of the Great British Class Survey of 2013, a collaboration between the BBC and researchers from several UK universities, contended there is a new model of class structure consisting of seven classes, ranging from the Elite at the top to the Precariat at the bottom.[11] The Precariat class was envisaged as "the most deprived British class of all with low levels of economic, cultural and social capital." This was contrasted with "the Technical Middle Class" in Great Britain in that instead of having disposable income but no interests, people of the new Precariat Class have all sorts of potential activities they like to engage in but cannot do any of them because they have no money, insecure lives, and are usually trapped in old industrial parts of the country.
The precariat class has been emerging in societies such as Japan, where it includes over 2 million so-called "freeters".[12]"
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat
Great summary for this scary situation.
> I see this as an attempt to make the Gig Economy pay all workers fairly in addition to healthcare costs and to put the onus on the company rather than their taxes.
There is a new word for this class of gig workers doing precarious labor that I've started using: the Precariat.
"In sociology and economics, the precariat (/prɪˈkɛəriət/) is a neologism for a social class formed by people suffering from precarity, which is a condition of existence without predictability or security, affecting material or psychological welfare. The term is a portmanteau obtained by merging precarious with proletariat.[1] Unlike the proletariat class of industrial workers in the 20th century who lacked their own means of production and hence sold their labour to live, members of the precariat are only partially involved in labour and must undertake extensive "unremunerated activities that are essential if they are to retain access to jobs and to decent earnings".
Classic examples of such unpaid activities include continually having to search for work (including preparing for and attending job interviews), as well as being expected to be perpetually responsive to calls for "gig" work (yet without being paid an actual wage for being "on call"). The hallmark of the precariat class is the condition of lack of job security, including intermittent employment or underemployment and the resultant precarious existence.[2] The emergence of this class has been ascribed to the entrenchment of neoliberal capitalism.[3][4]"
[..]
"The British economist Guy Standing has analysed the precariat as a new emerging social class in work done for the think tank Policy Network and the World Economic Forum.[6] In his 2014 book entitled A Precariat Charter he argued that all citizens have a right to socially inherited wealth.[8][9] The latest in the series is titled The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class[2][10] where he proposed basic income as a solution for addressing the problem.
The analysis of the results of the Great British Class Survey of 2013, a collaboration between the BBC and researchers from several UK universities, contended there is a new model of class structure consisting of seven classes, ranging from the Elite at the top to the Precariat at the bottom.[11] The Precariat class was envisaged as "the most deprived British class of all with low levels of economic, cultural and social capital." This was contrasted with "the Technical Middle Class" in Great Britain in that instead of having disposable income but no interests, people of the new Precariat Class have all sorts of potential activities they like to engage in but cannot do any of them because they have no money, insecure lives, and are usually trapped in old industrial parts of the country.
The precariat class has been emerging in societies such as Japan, where it includes over 2 million so-called "freeters".[12]"
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat
Why do you get to decide what a fair wage is, or what a positive force in the economy is?
Taxis are an obsolete service, Lyft and Uber are overwhelmingly favored by customers and businesses.
Taxis are an obsolete service, Lyft and Uber are overwhelmingly favored by customers and businesses.
Lyft and Uber are favored due to convenience and price. Nothing stops a regulated Uber that pays fair wages from convenience...but the price paid will have to become higher to support people.
This is like McDonald's paying workers $3 an hour, charging $2 for a value menu meal, and then people saying 'wow, McDonald's has made Burger King obsolete!'. Of course customers will prefer the cheaper service that screws workers and does not pay fairly, but (some) workers will work it because it's their only choice.
This is like McDonald's paying workers $3 an hour, charging $2 for a value menu meal, and then people saying 'wow, McDonald's has made Burger King obsolete!'. Of course customers will prefer the cheaper service that screws workers and does not pay fairly, but (some) workers will work it because it's their only choice.
Before Uber/Lyft existed, the taxi experience sucked. Uber/Lyft provided:
- A way to pre-pay
- A way to communicate current location and destination clearly to driver
- All from an intuitive app on your phone
I'm guessing you never went to NYC, tried in vain to find a taxi when you needed one, then got a taxi driver who barely spoke English, tried to communicate where to go, ended up paying way more than you intended?
- A way to pre-pay
- A way to communicate current location and destination clearly to driver
- All from an intuitive app on your phone
I'm guessing you never went to NYC, tried in vain to find a taxi when you needed one, then got a taxi driver who barely spoke English, tried to communicate where to go, ended up paying way more than you intended?
I agree, but imagine that this Uber/Lyft experience was not subsidized by VC money. Would you be willing to pay 2x of a typical taxi to get this enhanced experience? Probably most people would stick with the street taxi in that case...
> subsidized by VC money
Wait, so I get a comfortable ride, I get it fast, I get it cheap, somebody else pays for the majority of it, that somebody else has tons of their own money, not coming from my taxes, which they spend willingly on giving me a good cheap ride - and somehow this is a bad thing?
Wait, so I get a comfortable ride, I get it fast, I get it cheap, somebody else pays for the majority of it, that somebody else has tons of their own money, not coming from my taxes, which they spend willingly on giving me a good cheap ride - and somehow this is a bad thing?
How long do you think that this will stay like this?
After competition dies out prices will skyrocket.
After competition dies out prices will skyrocket.
> How long do you think that this will stay like this?
If I knew how to answer questions like that, you'd see me on TV giving interviews about my trillion-dollar hedge fund.
> After competition dies out prices will skyrocket.
I have yet to see a single scenario where this actually happened without being a product of government-granted monopoly (e.g. patents in pharma). But if Uber is going to charge me 3x for the same ride (just as taxis do now) I'll stop using them (just as I stopped using taxis). In the meantime, I've been saving money for a decade. I think it's a good deal.
If I knew how to answer questions like that, you'd see me on TV giving interviews about my trillion-dollar hedge fund.
> After competition dies out prices will skyrocket.
I have yet to see a single scenario where this actually happened without being a product of government-granted monopoly (e.g. patents in pharma). But if Uber is going to charge me 3x for the same ride (just as taxis do now) I'll stop using them (just as I stopped using taxis). In the meantime, I've been saving money for a decade. I think it's a good deal.
Well, yes, typically subsidizing goods/services below the cost of production (or below the market-determined "fair value") is considered anticompetitive because it drives the fair competitors out of the market (as without the subsidies they can't compete) and then once achieve monopoly control of the market, the subsidies stop and the quality of service plummets and/or the price skyrockets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
Except the prices didn't skyrocket and the quality of service didn't plummet for the last 10 years. I think if VCs are willing to give me 10 years of cheap quality rides, I'm in.
It would never be more expensive. And price is not the main factor (it already gets expensive quickly), the service and user experience is why people pick Uber.
Then it should be no problem for Uber to up their fares so they can hire drivers as employees
As stated, the service and user experience would change. That means less riders. That means even less drivers. It doesn’t work the same.
Anyone remember calling a taxi dispatch over and over? I used to have to call both taxi dispatches in my area (there were only two!) just to guarantee I'd have a cab get me to the airport in time. And you had to pay cash.
I think we can all agree that taxis sucked before Uber/Lyft forced them to update. But that doesn't mean we can't have a better taxi experience using the tech stack Uber/Lyft created.
I think we can all agree that taxis sucked before Uber/Lyft forced them to update. But that doesn't mean we can't have a better taxi experience using the tech stack Uber/Lyft created.
This is true, but a better comparison would be to the current taxi market. As much I dislike the realities of the medallions, it's important to acknowledge that taxis have generally upped their game too.
All of this exists in the Curb app, which btw is competing just fine in NYC.
>Taxis are an obsolete service
How do you think about taxis v.s. Lyft / Uber (which I would call "taxi services")?
How do you think about taxis v.s. Lyft / Uber (which I would call "taxi services")?
Ok - so we can't afford to pay people for their work any more. We can't afford benefits. We can't afford unemployment. We can't afford to create an economy where people reliably earn enough to buy housing and pay for essentials.
And this in one of the most prosperous economies in the world.
Do you not understand that this is what you're arguing for?
Do you also not understand that if you don't already have a huge pile of fuck-you money as a buffer, your privileged steady middle class job will be next to be "disrupted" - likely by the end of the decade?
Because why would your employer's customers pay more than they feel like paying when they can the same service from an automation-aided gig economy developer who has been beaten down to the point where they're two weeks of savings away from being homeless?
And this in one of the most prosperous economies in the world.
Do you not understand that this is what you're arguing for?
Do you also not understand that if you don't already have a huge pile of fuck-you money as a buffer, your privileged steady middle class job will be next to be "disrupted" - likely by the end of the decade?
Because why would your employer's customers pay more than they feel like paying when they can the same service from an automation-aided gig economy developer who has been beaten down to the point where they're two weeks of savings away from being homeless?
> Ok - so we can't afford to pay people for their work any more
We can afford to pay people, but the problem here is that it's not just me paying you a bit of money to cover your gas, insurance, mechanics, and time; it's also me paying for tens of thousands of employees and cloud datacenters and all the rest to connect me to you. That's a lot of overhead, and it's duplicated by virtue of multiple companies being in the mix doing the same thing.
Also, it was never really supposed to be a career - it was supposed to be something you could do on your way to work to help subsidize your own commute. Making a career out of a side job is certainly one's own choice, and I don't want to get in the way of that, but... are people getting benefits and guaranteed hours for busking, or being a living statue? Are people guaranteed a certain minimum pay for their lemonade stand?
We can afford to pay people, but the problem here is that it's not just me paying you a bit of money to cover your gas, insurance, mechanics, and time; it's also me paying for tens of thousands of employees and cloud datacenters and all the rest to connect me to you. That's a lot of overhead, and it's duplicated by virtue of multiple companies being in the mix doing the same thing.
Also, it was never really supposed to be a career - it was supposed to be something you could do on your way to work to help subsidize your own commute. Making a career out of a side job is certainly one's own choice, and I don't want to get in the way of that, but... are people getting benefits and guaranteed hours for busking, or being a living statue? Are people guaranteed a certain minimum pay for their lemonade stand?
>We can afford to pay people, but the problem here is that it's not just me paying you a bit of money to cover your gas, insurance, mechanics, and time; it's also me paying for tens of thousands of employees and cloud datacenters and all the rest to connect me to you. That's a lot of overhead, and it's duplicated by virtue of multiple companies being in the mix doing the same thing.
Having a high overhead and not charging customers enough to recoup it sounds like a flawed business model to me.
>Also, it was never really supposed to be a career - it was supposed to be something you could do on your way to work to help subsidize your own commute. Making a career out of a side job is certainly one's own choice, and I don't want to get in the way of that, but... are people getting benefits and guaranteed hours for busking, or being a living statue? Are people guaranteed a certain minimum pay for their lemonade stand?
No, but they're also not told that they can make a living, get benefits, etc. for busking, being a living statue or running a lemonade stand. They understand from the outset that none of that will be happening. The difference here is that Uber/Lyft imply - if not state explicitly - to their drivers that it can be their sole source of income.
If it's supposed to be a method of subsidizing your own commute, shouldn't Uber/Lyft be restricting who drivers can pick up to only those customers who are heading in the same direction/on the same route that the driver has told the app they're going?
If it's supposed to be a method of subsidizing your own commute, why do Uber/Lyft assist car-less folk with obtaining rentals?
Having a high overhead and not charging customers enough to recoup it sounds like a flawed business model to me.
>Also, it was never really supposed to be a career - it was supposed to be something you could do on your way to work to help subsidize your own commute. Making a career out of a side job is certainly one's own choice, and I don't want to get in the way of that, but... are people getting benefits and guaranteed hours for busking, or being a living statue? Are people guaranteed a certain minimum pay for their lemonade stand?
No, but they're also not told that they can make a living, get benefits, etc. for busking, being a living statue or running a lemonade stand. They understand from the outset that none of that will be happening. The difference here is that Uber/Lyft imply - if not state explicitly - to their drivers that it can be their sole source of income.
If it's supposed to be a method of subsidizing your own commute, shouldn't Uber/Lyft be restricting who drivers can pick up to only those customers who are heading in the same direction/on the same route that the driver has told the app they're going?
If it's supposed to be a method of subsidizing your own commute, why do Uber/Lyft assist car-less folk with obtaining rentals?
Democratic elected leaders get to decide a fair wage because they are democratically elected leaders.
In terms of motivation a democratically elected leader motivated by the interests of their constituents is a better Stewart of the minimum wage than an un-elected boardroom whose primary motivation is investor value not the quality of life of the citizenry.
In terms of motivation a democratically elected leader motivated by the interests of their constituents is a better Stewart of the minimum wage than an un-elected boardroom whose primary motivation is investor value not the quality of life of the citizenry.
When most of the people they're legislating don't agree with the law, then it's not so democratic. AB5 is not for the people.
Um, try the Curb app. Here in NYC, it competes just fine with Lyft and Uber, but uses licensed taxis. There's hailing, pickup, walk-away payment ("pair to pay"), etc etc
Are the rates similar?
>Taxis are an obsolete service, Lyft and Uber are overwhelmingly favored by customers and businesses.
As a customer, I might favor the Uber/Lyft experience over a taxi, but I sure as hell don't favor the way that Uber/Lyft treat and pay their drivers. There's a difference.
As a customer, I might favor the Uber/Lyft experience over a taxi, but I sure as hell don't favor the way that Uber/Lyft treat and pay their drivers. There's a difference.
Via the democratic process, of course. People voted for representatives who implemented a law. If you dislike that, there is an election coming up in a couple months (and one where you will be able to directly vote on this issue, at that!).
Ridesharing created a more or less competitive market for this slice of the transportation sector. Competitive markets are the best way to allocate resources. If you don't agree with that, it will be hard to have a productive discussion.
But if you do agree with that, shouldn't we resolve inequalities by directly supporting the least fortunate (with cash) rather than force parties into arbitrary economic relationships?
But if you do agree with that, shouldn't we resolve inequalities by directly supporting the least fortunate (with cash) rather than force parties into arbitrary economic relationships?
I agree, but there are base rules in most markets, which is why AB5 exists.
For example, an upstart McDonalds-like chain that uses App-ordering could charge much less for a burger if they paid $3 an hour. Consumers would obviously choose this chain if tyhe product is still good as it is much much cheaper. (Capitalism obviously doesn't have a conscience.) For this reason, we have minimum wage laws and (somewhat as a hack, I don't agree with the rules) health care mandates for employers, to create fair and legal playing fields to ensure that businesses' are taking action to better the economy and the American people.
I suppose a universal point I am trying to state here is: Corporations exist to better the people. Wouldn't it be overall more efficient if the the company paid fairly and the people who work for that company don't have to then request funds from the government? This ensures competition is possible by setting a floor on the race to the bottom costs.
For example, an upstart McDonalds-like chain that uses App-ordering could charge much less for a burger if they paid $3 an hour. Consumers would obviously choose this chain if tyhe product is still good as it is much much cheaper. (Capitalism obviously doesn't have a conscience.) For this reason, we have minimum wage laws and (somewhat as a hack, I don't agree with the rules) health care mandates for employers, to create fair and legal playing fields to ensure that businesses' are taking action to better the economy and the American people.
I suppose a universal point I am trying to state here is: Corporations exist to better the people. Wouldn't it be overall more efficient if the the company paid fairly and the people who work for that company don't have to then request funds from the government? This ensures competition is possible by setting a floor on the race to the bottom costs.
Competitive markets are the best way for capital to extract value from workers, because without collective bargaining they pit individuals against huge corporate operations with wildly disproportionate access to legal and financial power.
They are not the best way to allocate resources - not least because they have huge social and political opportunity costs which are rarely understood by their fervent devotees.
Cash is not a solution to this, although it can be a productive first step in some limited circumstances.
The "arbitrary economic relationships" here are the ones being peddled by Uber and Lyft.
The point is neither Uber nor Lyft are viable businesses. Even with its advantages Uber is somehow managing to lose $3bn a year on its ride sharing service.
It only exists at all because investors hope it will somehow be able to throw its beta-drivers under the proverbial bus when self-driving cars finally become a thing, and too many of its drivers aren't aware of this and are expecting it to act like a long-term employer.
They are not the best way to allocate resources - not least because they have huge social and political opportunity costs which are rarely understood by their fervent devotees.
Cash is not a solution to this, although it can be a productive first step in some limited circumstances.
The "arbitrary economic relationships" here are the ones being peddled by Uber and Lyft.
The point is neither Uber nor Lyft are viable businesses. Even with its advantages Uber is somehow managing to lose $3bn a year on its ride sharing service.
It only exists at all because investors hope it will somehow be able to throw its beta-drivers under the proverbial bus when self-driving cars finally become a thing, and too many of its drivers aren't aware of this and are expecting it to act like a long-term employer.
> the best way to allocate resources
i think the word that jumps out at me here is "best". what does this mean? is there an absolute agreed-upon best, or is best relative?
in this situation (re: ride-share companies), i think it's entirely possible that there are overall market wins -- more money ends up circulating -- but that there are local losers, specifically the employees of these companies, and local winners -- the management, investors, and employees of these companies -- and that the group of losers actually outnumbers the winners.
some folks put the rideshare-using public into the group of winners, which i think is debatable.
either way, i think it should be permissible to defend the group that's least able to defend itself -- rideshare drivers who are doing gig work to make ends meet -- even if that results in "suboptimal" global outcomes.
i think this debate broadly parallels the overall debate in neoliberal economics. for instance, yes, trade makes everyone better off on average, but in practice it makes some folks (the 1%) much, much better off, and impoverishes broad groups of other people.
i think i heard from this podcast: https://www.vox.com/2020/7/17/21327166/american-compass-the-...
the term "economic piety" -- the naive idea that by growing the pie, everyone becomes better off. this hasn't proved to be true in practice, and some economists are beginning to regard the idea with a bit of embarrassment.
i think the word that jumps out at me here is "best". what does this mean? is there an absolute agreed-upon best, or is best relative?
in this situation (re: ride-share companies), i think it's entirely possible that there are overall market wins -- more money ends up circulating -- but that there are local losers, specifically the employees of these companies, and local winners -- the management, investors, and employees of these companies -- and that the group of losers actually outnumbers the winners.
some folks put the rideshare-using public into the group of winners, which i think is debatable.
either way, i think it should be permissible to defend the group that's least able to defend itself -- rideshare drivers who are doing gig work to make ends meet -- even if that results in "suboptimal" global outcomes.
i think this debate broadly parallels the overall debate in neoliberal economics. for instance, yes, trade makes everyone better off on average, but in practice it makes some folks (the 1%) much, much better off, and impoverishes broad groups of other people.
i think i heard from this podcast: https://www.vox.com/2020/7/17/21327166/american-compass-the-...
the term "economic piety" -- the naive idea that by growing the pie, everyone becomes better off. this hasn't proved to be true in practice, and some economists are beginning to regard the idea with a bit of embarrassment.
I meant "best" in the sense of achieving some sort of maximum total utility, mean utility, median utility, etc.
My point is that instead of inspecting every economic relationship for "winners" and "losers", we should tax the winners and support the losers at a global level.
My point is that instead of inspecting every economic relationship for "winners" and "losers", we should tax the winners and support the losers at a global level.
Competitive markets combined with regulation are the way we allocate resources in virtually every country. Unchecked competition can lead to exploitative races to the bottom, concentration of capital in the hands of people who cannot use it efficiently, and wanton externalising of costs (pollution, insurance, congestion). Ridesharing did create a competitive market and now its negative aspects should be curtailed.
I'm not in favour of a return to the 40 hour workweek which seems arbitrary and archaic and smacks of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I would prefer an equivalent to the 40 hour workweek for contractors, we have price controls for farm workers, but for some reason act as though it's normal for Uber drivers to work for effectively well under minimum wage. We need to ensure the drivers are getting a bigger share of the proceeds at the time the profits are being generated, not afterwards after labour has lost all of its negotiating leverage and granted a massive warchest of money to capital. States like California should be competitive and fight for a share of profits, not passively roll over.
I'm not in favour of a return to the 40 hour workweek which seems arbitrary and archaic and smacks of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I would prefer an equivalent to the 40 hour workweek for contractors, we have price controls for farm workers, but for some reason act as though it's normal for Uber drivers to work for effectively well under minimum wage. We need to ensure the drivers are getting a bigger share of the proceeds at the time the profits are being generated, not afterwards after labour has lost all of its negotiating leverage and granted a massive warchest of money to capital. States like California should be competitive and fight for a share of profits, not passively roll over.
It's not really a "competitive market" if the new entrants are massively subsidized by investors and therefore never had to compete on equal economic footing.
> it does not pay a reasonable wage for anyone to live on,
Why is the purpose of a wage to live on? Many uber drivers drive part time for fun or extra pocket change. The existence of thousands of uber drivers -- who in my experience, have all been quite reasonable, nice people -- seem to directly contradict your claim that it does not pay a 'reasonable wage'. Clearly, it does for those invested parties.
Why is the purpose of a wage to live on? Many uber drivers drive part time for fun or extra pocket change. The existence of thousands of uber drivers -- who in my experience, have all been quite reasonable, nice people -- seem to directly contradict your claim that it does not pay a 'reasonable wage'. Clearly, it does for those invested parties.
What about this example? 'Driving For Uber, Sleeping In Her Car' (VICE News): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9abrZwnPThE
> The existence of thousands of uber drivers -- who in my experience, have all been quite reasonable, nice people -- seem to directly contradict your claim that it does not pay a 'reasonable wage'. Clearly, it does for those invested parties.
Maybe we can leave it up to the academic researchers and labor rights organizations? Why do you make a claim and link to no sources, please could you provide your sources?
Here are some sources I found:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/precariat-global-clas...
https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/gig-economy/2016/08/25/for...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/29/gig-economy...
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/aug/31/the-new-resist...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/20/high-score-...
> Why is the purpose of a wage to live on?
This isn't a serious question is it?
> The existence of thousands of uber drivers -- who in my experience, have all been quite reasonable, nice people -- seem to directly contradict your claim that it does not pay a 'reasonable wage'. Clearly, it does for those invested parties.
Maybe we can leave it up to the academic researchers and labor rights organizations? Why do you make a claim and link to no sources, please could you provide your sources?
Here are some sources I found:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/precariat-global-clas...
https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/gig-economy/2016/08/25/for...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/29/gig-economy...
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/aug/31/the-new-resist...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/20/high-score-...
> Why is the purpose of a wage to live on?
This isn't a serious question is it?
Many Uber drivers are great people! I know a bunch, I know how they have been screwed. The costs are never upfront. The Driving rarely lasts as people eventually get taken out by upkeep expenses, waiting for fares, and lost values in vehicles.
Also, Uber requires cars to be relatively new, which means drivers have to make substantial payments on the car itself.
The argument X "does not pay a reasonable wage for anyone to live on true" may be true for many definitions of "live on", how is no job better? Does Uber pay more than an alternate world with no job? Surely that is the question.
Exactly. Uber and Lyft are a 19th century labor situation which masks itself by using 21st century technology
Exactly. As Professor Guy Standing says:
"The Precariat is the first class in history to be losing acquired rights – cultural, civil, social, economic and political. This is documented in A Precariat Charter. It leads to the most crucial feature. Those in it are reduced to being supplicants. The Latin root of precariousness is “to obtain by prayer”. The precariat must ask for favours, for charity, to show obsequiousness, to plead with figures of authority. It is degrading and stigmatizing." [1]
[1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/precariat-global-clas...
"The Precariat is the first class in history to be losing acquired rights – cultural, civil, social, economic and political. This is documented in A Precariat Charter. It leads to the most crucial feature. Those in it are reduced to being supplicants. The Latin root of precariousness is “to obtain by prayer”. The precariat must ask for favours, for charity, to show obsequiousness, to plead with figures of authority. It is degrading and stigmatizing." [1]
[1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/precariat-global-clas...
I agree with you on one point, "ridesharing" is a silly word. I would call it something like an "Open Car Service".
The main reason I can't get on board with the rest of this line of argument is that it ultimately just comes down to paternalistic protection of the poor disenfranchised gig workers that you clearly view as being less than capable, rational adult humans. The number of gig economy workers has been growing exponentially for years? Somebody must be tricking them into taking this shit work, and confusing them about the real costs.
Gig economy workers have overwhelmingly spoken that they like this work, by continuing to sign up for it in massive numbers. Or at least that they like it more than their alternatives at the time. If it were some massive trap, don't you think the word would have gotten out by now? The ability to entirely set their own schedule and work as much or little as they choose is appealing enough to draw people in in droves, despite all of the downsides of this type of work.
Getting rid of Uber and Lyft completely throws out the baby with the bathwater here. It won't magically create alternative full time jobs that these workers will prefer to their current situation, it'll just make it much harder for many of them to have any work. Surely there are better incremental policies that could limit the downsides for many of these workers without taking away most of the positives for them too.
As with many far-leftist beliefs these days, I can't help but conclude that the driving factor for a law like AB5 is punitive anger towards successful, wealthy organizations. Just like with the NIMBYs using socialist rhetoric to justify blocking needed middle class housing, it's much more important that the organizations they see as the bad guys suffer than it is to maximize the overall, utilitarian good for the parties they claim to care about. I sincerely hope this way of thinking dies out, almost as much as I hope the current far-right way of thinking dies out.
The main reason I can't get on board with the rest of this line of argument is that it ultimately just comes down to paternalistic protection of the poor disenfranchised gig workers that you clearly view as being less than capable, rational adult humans. The number of gig economy workers has been growing exponentially for years? Somebody must be tricking them into taking this shit work, and confusing them about the real costs.
Gig economy workers have overwhelmingly spoken that they like this work, by continuing to sign up for it in massive numbers. Or at least that they like it more than their alternatives at the time. If it were some massive trap, don't you think the word would have gotten out by now? The ability to entirely set their own schedule and work as much or little as they choose is appealing enough to draw people in in droves, despite all of the downsides of this type of work.
Getting rid of Uber and Lyft completely throws out the baby with the bathwater here. It won't magically create alternative full time jobs that these workers will prefer to their current situation, it'll just make it much harder for many of them to have any work. Surely there are better incremental policies that could limit the downsides for many of these workers without taking away most of the positives for them too.
As with many far-leftist beliefs these days, I can't help but conclude that the driving factor for a law like AB5 is punitive anger towards successful, wealthy organizations. Just like with the NIMBYs using socialist rhetoric to justify blocking needed middle class housing, it's much more important that the organizations they see as the bad guys suffer than it is to maximize the overall, utilitarian good for the parties they claim to care about. I sincerely hope this way of thinking dies out, almost as much as I hope the current far-right way of thinking dies out.
> it ultimately just comes down to paternalistic protection
Isn't this same 'paternalistic protection' the same force Silicon Valley uses to guarantee monopoly rents from 'intellectual property'?
"A globalised intellectual property rights system was immensely strengthened by TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) passed through the World Trade Organisation in 1994, shaped by a few US multinationals, backed by the US and UK governments. This has facilitated the commercialisation, privatisation and colonisation of ideas. Since 1994, the annual filing of patents has more than tripled, with the global stock of patents close to 12 million, each giving monopolistic control of some idea for 20 years or more.
Many patents result from publicly-funded research, diminishing the risk. But TRIPS allows corporations to receive monopolistic income for two decades, or use the patent to block others from producing something. Those claiming to believe in free markets should have opposed the trend, but reveal their class-based ideology by keeping quiet. There is evidence that the patent system hinders economic growth and innovation. It merely increases inequality and rentier capitalism. George Osborne, as Chancellor, made it even more blatant with his Patent Box tax break that in practice benefits multinationals coming to Britain if they have patented products, particularly Big Tech and Big Pharma. That tax break merely accentuated the plunder of the intellectual commons." [1]
[1] https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/plunder-commons-...
Isn't this same 'paternalistic protection' the same force Silicon Valley uses to guarantee monopoly rents from 'intellectual property'?
"A globalised intellectual property rights system was immensely strengthened by TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) passed through the World Trade Organisation in 1994, shaped by a few US multinationals, backed by the US and UK governments. This has facilitated the commercialisation, privatisation and colonisation of ideas. Since 1994, the annual filing of patents has more than tripled, with the global stock of patents close to 12 million, each giving monopolistic control of some idea for 20 years or more.
Many patents result from publicly-funded research, diminishing the risk. But TRIPS allows corporations to receive monopolistic income for two decades, or use the patent to block others from producing something. Those claiming to believe in free markets should have opposed the trend, but reveal their class-based ideology by keeping quiet. There is evidence that the patent system hinders economic growth and innovation. It merely increases inequality and rentier capitalism. George Osborne, as Chancellor, made it even more blatant with his Patent Box tax break that in practice benefits multinationals coming to Britain if they have patented products, particularly Big Tech and Big Pharma. That tax break merely accentuated the plunder of the intellectual commons." [1]
[1] https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/plunder-commons-...
Sure? I'm not particularly familiar with this law, but I generally agree patents should have relatively modest limits.
Not sure how this applies to the current conversation though, of all the things that Uber and Lyft are commonly accused of I don't think protectionist patent enforcement is among them?
Not sure how this applies to the current conversation though, of all the things that Uber and Lyft are commonly accused of I don't think protectionist patent enforcement is among them?
> Not sure how this applies to the current conversation though
You mentioned you disagreed with all of the OP's substantial arguments, and then you made a few claims without any sources to back it up. I am using your idea of 'paternalistic protection' to challenge a commonly held idea which posits that the current neoliberal regulations are somehow neutral. Your statement that the big tech gig-worker platforms provide likeable or meaningful jobs is very misguided and naive imo.
To address one of your statements:
> Gig economy workers have overwhelmingly spoken that they like this work, by continuing to sign up for it in massive numbers.
“Uber is lauded as an exemplary ‘platform’. When it arrives in a target city, it launches a packaged recruiting programme for drivers, usually offering incentives. Then it undercuts official taxi fares by operating a flexible, demand-based fare scheme; this lowers fares at times of slack demand and raises them when demand is strong so as to attract more drivers. Once established, Uber uses drivers to offer other services. Just as Google uses search-related advertising to generate income with which it enters other businesses, so Uber’s plan is to offer ‘transportation as reliable as running water, everywhere for everyone’.9
Thus it has branched out into delivery services, providing lunch delivery, cycle courier services and deliveries of household supplies in various US cities. It reaches out to retailers as well, offering same-day deliveries. While others such as Postmates and Shyp are in the same space, Uber has greater scale and financial clout. It can raise cash quickly from new city operations and has been able to tap investors for huge sums – more than $9 billion by the end of 2015 – with which to intimidate competitors.
This has enabled Uber to finance operational losses as it expands into new markets by undercutting actual and potential rivals. According to leaked documents the company prepared for investors, operational losses reached a staggering $1 billion in the first half of 2015.10 Yet Uber more than doubled its cash holdings to over $4 billion, giving it a handy war chest for future expansion.
Private equity financing enables Uber to squash competition through predatory pricing, extracting greater rents as its near-monopoly strengthens. Other start-ups are also gaining near-monopoly positions with the help of venture capital. They are not competing in free markets.
The USA has led the way. Paradoxically, private investors and private companies, as opposed to publicly listed companies, were boosted by the US Jobs Act of 2012 (Jumpstart Our Businesses), which was supposed to encourage firms to go public and list on Wall Street. President Obama said at the time that public companies were desirable because they expanded more quickly, created more jobs and operated with ‘greater oversight and greater transparency’. But, whereas previously private firms were required to publish detailed financial information once they had over 500 shareholders, the Act increased that to 2,000. As a result, many more companies can opt to stay private so as to keep control in the hands of a restricted group and avoid public scrutiny of their dealings.
The capital for digital platforms, even the largest of which have chosen to remain private, comes from a narrow circle of investors from mutual funds, private equity firms, hedge funds and sovereign wealth funds. It is a market reserved for the elite and plutocracy, a sort of closet capitalism. Making it even more so, investors often demand assurances that the company will indemnify them if it goes public at a lower valuation. This ‘ratchet’ arrangement grants them extra shares to compensate for any shortfall. They thereby receive a free insurance against risk, a special form of rent.”
[...]
“In the first round of this predatory model, the taskers (in this case drivers) may be among the beneficiaries, receiving loyalty premiums. But this is likely to be short-lived once a platform has established monopoly control of the market (or possibly oligopoly control by several platforms that tacitly agree to divvy up the market). The earnings of Uber drivers have already been cut in cities where the company is successfully established.”
- Guy Standing, The Corruption of Capitalism: Why rentiers thrive and work does not pay
You mentioned you disagreed with all of the OP's substantial arguments, and then you made a few claims without any sources to back it up. I am using your idea of 'paternalistic protection' to challenge a commonly held idea which posits that the current neoliberal regulations are somehow neutral. Your statement that the big tech gig-worker platforms provide likeable or meaningful jobs is very misguided and naive imo.
To address one of your statements:
> Gig economy workers have overwhelmingly spoken that they like this work, by continuing to sign up for it in massive numbers.
“Uber is lauded as an exemplary ‘platform’. When it arrives in a target city, it launches a packaged recruiting programme for drivers, usually offering incentives. Then it undercuts official taxi fares by operating a flexible, demand-based fare scheme; this lowers fares at times of slack demand and raises them when demand is strong so as to attract more drivers. Once established, Uber uses drivers to offer other services. Just as Google uses search-related advertising to generate income with which it enters other businesses, so Uber’s plan is to offer ‘transportation as reliable as running water, everywhere for everyone’.9
Thus it has branched out into delivery services, providing lunch delivery, cycle courier services and deliveries of household supplies in various US cities. It reaches out to retailers as well, offering same-day deliveries. While others such as Postmates and Shyp are in the same space, Uber has greater scale and financial clout. It can raise cash quickly from new city operations and has been able to tap investors for huge sums – more than $9 billion by the end of 2015 – with which to intimidate competitors.
This has enabled Uber to finance operational losses as it expands into new markets by undercutting actual and potential rivals. According to leaked documents the company prepared for investors, operational losses reached a staggering $1 billion in the first half of 2015.10 Yet Uber more than doubled its cash holdings to over $4 billion, giving it a handy war chest for future expansion.
Private equity financing enables Uber to squash competition through predatory pricing, extracting greater rents as its near-monopoly strengthens. Other start-ups are also gaining near-monopoly positions with the help of venture capital. They are not competing in free markets.
The USA has led the way. Paradoxically, private investors and private companies, as opposed to publicly listed companies, were boosted by the US Jobs Act of 2012 (Jumpstart Our Businesses), which was supposed to encourage firms to go public and list on Wall Street. President Obama said at the time that public companies were desirable because they expanded more quickly, created more jobs and operated with ‘greater oversight and greater transparency’. But, whereas previously private firms were required to publish detailed financial information once they had over 500 shareholders, the Act increased that to 2,000. As a result, many more companies can opt to stay private so as to keep control in the hands of a restricted group and avoid public scrutiny of their dealings.
The capital for digital platforms, even the largest of which have chosen to remain private, comes from a narrow circle of investors from mutual funds, private equity firms, hedge funds and sovereign wealth funds. It is a market reserved for the elite and plutocracy, a sort of closet capitalism. Making it even more so, investors often demand assurances that the company will indemnify them if it goes public at a lower valuation. This ‘ratchet’ arrangement grants them extra shares to compensate for any shortfall. They thereby receive a free insurance against risk, a special form of rent.”
[...]
“In the first round of this predatory model, the taskers (in this case drivers) may be among the beneficiaries, receiving loyalty premiums. But this is likely to be short-lived once a platform has established monopoly control of the market (or possibly oligopoly control by several platforms that tacitly agree to divvy up the market). The earnings of Uber drivers have already been cut in cities where the company is successfully established.”
- Guy Standing, The Corruption of Capitalism: Why rentiers thrive and work does not pay
MLM companies continue to be popular, despite the fact that the majority of people lose money by participating.
I agree that portions of the left can be paternalistic sometimes, but that doesn't mean Uber and Lyft aren't exploitative.
I agree that portions of the left can be paternalistic sometimes, but that doesn't mean Uber and Lyft aren't exploitative.
I think MLM is different. A small number of people might make a lot of money, funded by the losses of most of the rest. In that respect its more like gambling, and people can be more easily fooled to think that they'll be one of the lucky few.
Working as a driver for uber/lyft isn't really like that at all. You know approximately how much you can stand to make per hour. There isn't a small pool of drivers somehow making tons of money at the expense of the rest. Being a driver isn't predicated on mistakenly calculating your odds of winning big.
Working as a driver for uber/lyft isn't really like that at all. You know approximately how much you can stand to make per hour. There isn't a small pool of drivers somehow making tons of money at the expense of the rest. Being a driver isn't predicated on mistakenly calculating your odds of winning big.
> A small number of people might make a lot of money, funded by the losses of most of the rest
Sounds like Uber to me.
Sounds like Uber to me.
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying later round investors in Uber are funding profits for early round investors? I could see some tech investment structures as possibly resembling MLM due to winner-take-all effects and outsized profits going to the earliest investors. Though this isn't a property specific to Uber
> Being a driver isn't predicated on mistakenly calculating your odds of winning big
Not exactly, but there are parallels. Most drivers don't take into account the costs of wear and tear on their cars, which can be significant, and Uber isn't transparent about how drivers should anticipate those costs. So part of your wages as a driver are essentially borrowing against the future value of your car. And it can take years before the wear and tear becomes apparent, so many current drivers may not have run up against that reality yet.
Not exactly, but there are parallels. Most drivers don't take into account the costs of wear and tear on their cars, which can be significant, and Uber isn't transparent about how drivers should anticipate those costs. So part of your wages as a driver are essentially borrowing against the future value of your car. And it can take years before the wear and tear becomes apparent, so many current drivers may not have run up against that reality yet.
> I agree with you on one point, "ridesharing" is a silly word. I would call it something like an "Open Car Service".
Let's not beat around the bush, the appropriate term already exists, it's called a "taxi service". The fact that the taxi operators provide their own vehicles is not novel.
Let's not beat around the bush, the appropriate term already exists, it's called a "taxi service". The fact that the taxi operators provide their own vehicles is not novel.
Taxis and real-time ride sharing operate quite differently, for one, I cannot just turn up and hand signal to stop a moving vehicle from the latter.
False, you cannot street-hail all kinds of taxis - for example in New York it's only yellow cabs+green cabs, black car taxis you need to use an app or call.
Uber is a pretty standard black-car taxi service, with an app.
Uber is a pretty standard black-car taxi service, with an app.
Still different, black cabs usually calculate the fares the same way as yellow cabs, but more expensive due to pre-reservation and luxury vehicles; which are not necessarily the case with RTRS.
Does uber not charge per pickup and per mile? And they certainly do allow you to choose luxury vehicles. Maybe I'm missing the distinction you're trying to draw.
But either way that's irrelevant to the general point of whether Uber's general business model is that of a black-car taxi service.
The feature set doesn't have to match exactly to demonstrate that taxi service will not vanish instantly from California if Uber decides to leave - taxis existed before Uber and they will exist after.
Uber could increase fares and continue operating if they choose. If they decide it's not worth their time, c'est la vie, there will be others who fill this niche instead.
This is just a transparent ploy to use the employees as leverage to reduce their operating costs, they will actually continue operating here even if it passes.
But either way that's irrelevant to the general point of whether Uber's general business model is that of a black-car taxi service.
The feature set doesn't have to match exactly to demonstrate that taxi service will not vanish instantly from California if Uber decides to leave - taxis existed before Uber and they will exist after.
Uber could increase fares and continue operating if they choose. If they decide it's not worth their time, c'est la vie, there will be others who fill this niche instead.
This is just a transparent ploy to use the employees as leverage to reduce their operating costs, they will actually continue operating here even if it passes.
The black cars are called "car service" or limo service or something like that. They are prevented from picking up rides waiving them down precisely because they are not taxis.
In Vancouver, at least, there are three players involved in providing most taxi rides:
* The taxi company, who offers fares to the driver * The driver, who operates the vehicle * The owner, who owns the vehicle
This means that at the end of the night, the taxi driver has to pay out to the taxi company and to the vehicle owner. This makes it very easy for a bad night to be a financial loss for the driver, since they still have to pay out regardless of whether they got good fares and tips or awful fares and tips.
* The taxi company, who offers fares to the driver * The driver, who operates the vehicle * The owner, who owns the vehicle
This means that at the end of the night, the taxi driver has to pay out to the taxi company and to the vehicle owner. This makes it very easy for a bad night to be a financial loss for the driver, since they still have to pay out regardless of whether they got good fares and tips or awful fares and tips.
Taxis are a 19th/20th century invention, we can do way better. Uber/Lyft are far superior, we just need to make sure the drivers aren't taken advantage of; probably by making them raise rates a bit and giving that money to drivers as a base pay.
Yeah, there are many reasons that people like driving for Uber and/or Lyft, and it's very closed-minded to say that the market can't exist if it doesn't fully and completely replace a "real job" for all of its drivers, up to and including full-time employment with attached benefit packages.
I've had friends who've done it just because they enjoy meeting people who are coming into town and hearing their stories, telling them about the area, etc. Many of the rides I've taken, upon talking to the driver, they'll say they do it because it gets them out of the house and they can work whenever they want. Very few of the people were trying to use it to replace a conventional employment situation.
We should all be grateful that the state is rescuing all of these people from the exploitative habits of these unprofitable companies, I guess.
I've had friends who've done it just because they enjoy meeting people who are coming into town and hearing their stories, telling them about the area, etc. Many of the rides I've taken, upon talking to the driver, they'll say they do it because it gets them out of the house and they can work whenever they want. Very few of the people were trying to use it to replace a conventional employment situation.
We should all be grateful that the state is rescuing all of these people from the exploitative habits of these unprofitable companies, I guess.
Rational adult humans sell themselves into modern day slavery in order to feed their families, see the Qatar World Cup Stadium for example. That doesn't mean we as a society should support or enable that. That's a ridiculously naive line of reasoning. What is rational for an individual in extreme circumstances does not and should not automatically make that valid legally.
Similarly, if a market is saturated with under-paid over-worked labor forces, then you can't end up with humane, fair alternatives. You'll get those when you eliminate the exploitative markets first. Uber & Lyft didn't make new markets. They didn't create new job opportunities. They replaced existing ones - namely, taxis, and they achieved disruption via unsustainable economics & exploitative practices. There's no reason to believe that when that hole is plugged that all "order a ride" services will vanish. We'll just have taxis again. Remove some of the barriers that gave taxi services pseudo-monopolies, and there you go.
Similarly, if a market is saturated with under-paid over-worked labor forces, then you can't end up with humane, fair alternatives. You'll get those when you eliminate the exploitative markets first. Uber & Lyft didn't make new markets. They didn't create new job opportunities. They replaced existing ones - namely, taxis, and they achieved disruption via unsustainable economics & exploitative practices. There's no reason to believe that when that hole is plugged that all "order a ride" services will vanish. We'll just have taxis again. Remove some of the barriers that gave taxi services pseudo-monopolies, and there you go.
> They replaced existing ones - namely, taxis, and they achieved disruption via unsustainable economics & exploitative practices.
Corrupt, exploitative industry gets replaced with less corrupt, equally exploitative industry while also delivering far better value to consumers. Seems like a win to me.
Why are we so up in arms about Uber, when Dominos delivery drivers get about the same paltry compensation, no benefits, and far less freedom? The same could be said for pretty much all minimum wage jobs.
Like the parent insinuated, all these socialist / egalitarian arguments don't explain why we are in such a rush to fix for Uber drivers what has been broken for every low-paying job ever.
(That being said, with a rise in independent contractors, we should fix unemployment insurance to include them)
Corrupt, exploitative industry gets replaced with less corrupt, equally exploitative industry while also delivering far better value to consumers. Seems like a win to me.
Why are we so up in arms about Uber, when Dominos delivery drivers get about the same paltry compensation, no benefits, and far less freedom? The same could be said for pretty much all minimum wage jobs.
Like the parent insinuated, all these socialist / egalitarian arguments don't explain why we are in such a rush to fix for Uber drivers what has been broken for every low-paying job ever.
(That being said, with a rise in independent contractors, we should fix unemployment insurance to include them)
Uber & Lyft are just about as perfect an example as I can think of, of the fact that wealth isn't zero sum. You seem to be implying that it is.
How in the world could you argue that they didn't create markets or job opportunities? There are probably 10x more uber/lyft drivers in almost every city in the US than there ever were taxi drivers. People simply take more trips, or have someone else drive them when they would have previously driven themselves, now that Uber & Lyft are so prevalent. People order delivery food from restaurants more often instead of cooking for themselves. This is new money added into the economy, yes a big slice goes to the corporations, but only ~30%, the rest goes directly to drivers for whom this is a newly available source of income. Apparently 80% of drivers do it part time as an additional source of income, which they wouldn't have a way to generate otherwise.
You seem to fit very cleanly into the category I just mentioned above, you're so angry about some perceived injustice of Uber & Lyft merely existing, that you want them to be punished more than you care about any other part of this outcome. And this is not a slavery ring, nobody is being exploited, so you should take a deep breath about that too. In polls drivers overwhelmingly express a preference to remain independent contractors rather than become full-time.
How in the world could you argue that they didn't create markets or job opportunities? There are probably 10x more uber/lyft drivers in almost every city in the US than there ever were taxi drivers. People simply take more trips, or have someone else drive them when they would have previously driven themselves, now that Uber & Lyft are so prevalent. People order delivery food from restaurants more often instead of cooking for themselves. This is new money added into the economy, yes a big slice goes to the corporations, but only ~30%, the rest goes directly to drivers for whom this is a newly available source of income. Apparently 80% of drivers do it part time as an additional source of income, which they wouldn't have a way to generate otherwise.
You seem to fit very cleanly into the category I just mentioned above, you're so angry about some perceived injustice of Uber & Lyft merely existing, that you want them to be punished more than you care about any other part of this outcome. And this is not a slavery ring, nobody is being exploited, so you should take a deep breath about that too. In polls drivers overwhelmingly express a preference to remain independent contractors rather than become full-time.
You're pushing the goal posts there. We're talking about California, not Qatar, no one is taking anyone's passports here. Please move the goalpost back to where it needs to be to have a discussion, per the article of this post.
[deleted]
> Gig economy workers have overwhelmingly spoken that they like this work, by continuing to sign up for it in massive numbers.
This reflects the fact that they like to eat.
This reflects the fact that they like to eat.
So how comes that Uber can operate in Switzerland a country where the state will always feed you and provide a home?
This is not exactly true. It may sort of hold (see below) if you're a Swiss citizen but nearly everyone else who make up 25% of residents is liable to be deported, not be eligible for naturalization down the line, and/or face other consequences if they cannot provide for themselves.
Also, the social services for anyone from what I've heard (as I live here but haven't used them myself) are sufficient but not always comfortable. It's noticeably far from a welfare state model like Sweden is made out to be.
Also, the social services for anyone from what I've heard (as I live here but haven't used them myself) are sufficient but not always comfortable. It's noticeably far from a welfare state model like Sweden is made out to be.
No that's simply not true all long term resident (in CH for more than 15 years) have the same right to apply to it and their permit cannot be revoked. They represent like 18% of the 25% you mentioned. Of course it will create an issue if they want to become a swiss citizen, but most don't give a heck like my wife born in CH and here for 42 years, or like many friends that didn't want to go the army. The social service will depend on the canton, but they will rent a flat for you, provide 1000.- and take care of your health insurance, something that is just inexistant in the US.
I assume you mean people on C permits? Saying my statement is "simply not true" is a little strong when I specifically included an "and/or." I'm aware that permanent residents won't be kicked out for this (and probably should have clarified that it affects residents with residency dependent on financial stability), but my point is that they'll still face some consequences even if it's the effect on future naturalization and the regular chiding to apply for jobs, which I actually agree with.
I'm not trying to argue that Switzerland is a bad place for those who are unemployed, but that there are reasons that many people here wouldn't want to depend on it if a low-commitment job like driving for Uber is available.
I'm not trying to argue that Switzerland is a bad place for those who are unemployed, but that there are reasons that many people here wouldn't want to depend on it if a low-commitment job like driving for Uber is available.
I think that we mostly agree, my rebuttal was for the original comment implying that the choice was either Uber or starving. The situation is much more complex.
Another driving factor is intra-elite competition:
http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/intra-elite-competition...
http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/intra-elite-competition...
> ultimately just comes down to paternalistic protection of the poor disenfranchised gig workers that you clearly view as being less than capable, rational adult humans
That is one way to editorialize what is going on. An alternative explanation is that human organization is inherently a high friction, high cost endevor, and in the case of a company vs workers/contractors, we have a massive assymetry in the degree of organization in incentives; a company is a well defined entity, gathered around the normativity of profit maximization, every stop and turn of its machinery is well oiled and properly encoded, acting as a single agent in every negotiation. Whereas workers/contractors, even though have their individual interests heavily aligned (don’t be stiffed, get a fair wage), this alignment is not by default organized, as the employer-employee relationship is a one-to-many relationship. This asymmetry, not paternalizing non-adult humans, is what drives the unfairness in negotiations in favor of companies.
Unions, legislation etc merely represents an effort in organization of the will of the “many” and to cure this asymmetry. Not saying they are perfect, not even that they work, but there is an asymmetry that gets exploited.
> Gig economy workers have overwhelmingly spoken that they like this work, by continuing to sign up for it in massive numbers
The problem in this model of negotiation is that the gig workers choices of expression are limited to “work or gtfo”. For one, given the fact that people need money to live, their participation doesn’t necessarily mean “they like this work”. Going back to the organization principle, if they were to carry out the combinatorially explosive task of communicating among themselves that they would want $5/hr more payment, or they would not work at all (quite symmetrical to the maneuver lyft&uber pulled today) it is very likely that they would get it. But “work or gtfo” binary doesn’t allow any room for expressing that. In other words, current price point is an artifact of lessened negotiation power of the collective gig workers because it is not as easy for them to negotiate collectively as uber/lyft can set the pricing.
> Getting rid of Uber and Lyft completely throws out the baby with the bathwater here.
No one is suggesting this. Not saying that the legistlation that was proposed is perfect, but the argument is “let’s level the playing field” and if Uber and Lyft can exist under fair conditions, then they do deserve to exist.
There is nothing far-left or vindictive about this. It is catching up with the innovation of exponentially scaling, tech based, loss-leader market captures. It is as far-left as reducing work days to 5 or outlawing child labor was.
That is one way to editorialize what is going on. An alternative explanation is that human organization is inherently a high friction, high cost endevor, and in the case of a company vs workers/contractors, we have a massive assymetry in the degree of organization in incentives; a company is a well defined entity, gathered around the normativity of profit maximization, every stop and turn of its machinery is well oiled and properly encoded, acting as a single agent in every negotiation. Whereas workers/contractors, even though have their individual interests heavily aligned (don’t be stiffed, get a fair wage), this alignment is not by default organized, as the employer-employee relationship is a one-to-many relationship. This asymmetry, not paternalizing non-adult humans, is what drives the unfairness in negotiations in favor of companies.
Unions, legislation etc merely represents an effort in organization of the will of the “many” and to cure this asymmetry. Not saying they are perfect, not even that they work, but there is an asymmetry that gets exploited.
> Gig economy workers have overwhelmingly spoken that they like this work, by continuing to sign up for it in massive numbers
The problem in this model of negotiation is that the gig workers choices of expression are limited to “work or gtfo”. For one, given the fact that people need money to live, their participation doesn’t necessarily mean “they like this work”. Going back to the organization principle, if they were to carry out the combinatorially explosive task of communicating among themselves that they would want $5/hr more payment, or they would not work at all (quite symmetrical to the maneuver lyft&uber pulled today) it is very likely that they would get it. But “work or gtfo” binary doesn’t allow any room for expressing that. In other words, current price point is an artifact of lessened negotiation power of the collective gig workers because it is not as easy for them to negotiate collectively as uber/lyft can set the pricing.
> Getting rid of Uber and Lyft completely throws out the baby with the bathwater here.
No one is suggesting this. Not saying that the legistlation that was proposed is perfect, but the argument is “let’s level the playing field” and if Uber and Lyft can exist under fair conditions, then they do deserve to exist.
There is nothing far-left or vindictive about this. It is catching up with the innovation of exponentially scaling, tech based, loss-leader market captures. It is as far-left as reducing work days to 5 or outlawing child labor was.
In many many uber/lyft rides i have met a very few drivers who actually were doing real ride sharing. A person would get off work and turn on the app to get a fare in the direction of home.
I've yet to hear of an Uber/Lyft rep putting a gun to one of their driver's heads and forcing them to work for them. There are other sources of income out there. However, I wouldn't have a problem with the government stepping in and requiring them to set rates to guarantee a certain amount of pay per hour. Seems ridiculously low right now. It seems like we need another "type" of employee outside of the 20th century definitions of contractor and "employee". Also it seems like healthcare should be in there for those who put in significant amounts of hours.
Shameless plug of my own post
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24226783
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24226783
What has your posts got to do with anything ? Are you saying that the massive success of LA, SF, and CA economies are due to Democratic politicians ?
Mostly despite Democratic politicians, not thanks to. And degrading fast, as we can see in cases like this, or the more than evident net outflow.
> A bill that has to rely primarily on exemptions is no bill at all.
Exemptions are a leading indicator of ineptness or corruption.
Exemptions are a leading indicator of ineptness or corruption.
It's also forcing me into an $800 a year LLC I don't want for software contracts. :-/
The LLC won't protect the company you're working with from AB5. You would need to form an S-Corp and put yourself on payroll with benefits, or work through a staffing agency on W2, or become the company's employee, or move out of CA. In other words, your only options are to become an employee of a company or leave CA.
Of course, its probably not in your best interest to mention this to the company you want to work with since they'll probably just choose to work with someone outside of CA instead. Just be glad their legal counsel (if they have any) doesn't know enough about this law to cause you more headaches.
Of course, its probably not in your best interest to mention this to the company you want to work with since they'll probably just choose to work with someone outside of CA instead. Just be glad their legal counsel (if they have any) doesn't know enough about this law to cause you more headaches.
I don't know enough either to be honest. They are a US govt contracting company on the east coast. A… staffing company as you put it. They are small and not prepared for CA employees, I'm the only one.
AB5 was an absolute cop-out by the CA Legislature. They should have defined a third class of workers with protections somewhere in between Contractors and Employees.
But when it comes to the vote in November, a vote to exempt Uber/Lyft from AB5 is a vote to strip drivers of all protections. Uber and Lyft will be free to go back to exploiting drivers for <$10/hr [1]. I don't think I can tell someone else they don't deserve to earn minimum wage.
Maybe you are hoping the legislature will eventually come up with that third way once forced to, but there's a lot of momentum behind a popular vote. No US legislature has proven themselves particularly effective in the last few years. Let's not leave people out to dry while hoping some politicians will do their jobs.
[1] https://www.vox.com/2018/10/2/17924628/uber-drivers-make-hou...
But when it comes to the vote in November, a vote to exempt Uber/Lyft from AB5 is a vote to strip drivers of all protections. Uber and Lyft will be free to go back to exploiting drivers for <$10/hr [1]. I don't think I can tell someone else they don't deserve to earn minimum wage.
Maybe you are hoping the legislature will eventually come up with that third way once forced to, but there's a lot of momentum behind a popular vote. No US legislature has proven themselves particularly effective in the last few years. Let's not leave people out to dry while hoping some politicians will do their jobs.
[1] https://www.vox.com/2018/10/2/17924628/uber-drivers-make-hou...
> I don't think I can tell someone else they don't deserve to earn minimum wage.
On the wage issue are you talking about the specifics of how prop 22 defines the earnings floor for drivers [0]? It definitely sets a standard even. It pays some for expenses ($0.30/mile) and the 120% minimum wage while on a ride covers a bit of time spent driving between rides. I could see though how if you have high expenses and don't get many rides you will not earn the minimum wage.
0 - https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...
On the wage issue are you talking about the specifics of how prop 22 defines the earnings floor for drivers [0]? It definitely sets a standard even. It pays some for expenses ($0.30/mile) and the 120% minimum wage while on a ride covers a bit of time spent driving between rides. I could see though how if you have high expenses and don't get many rides you will not earn the minimum wage.
0 - https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...
I didn't realize that Prop 22 added some additional protections for drivers, thank you for bringing those up! I thought it was just send drivers straight back to the basic independent contractor rules.
I don't love that Uber/Lyft basically drafted Prop 22. There are features like only paying Engaged Time and not pinning the extra per-mile rate to the IRS standard (which is $0.57 per mile in 2020) which you can tell benefit them. That being said, my argument about removing wage protections is certainly dampened by the new earnings floors.
I don't love that Uber/Lyft basically drafted Prop 22. There are features like only paying Engaged Time and not pinning the extra per-mile rate to the IRS standard (which is $0.57 per mile in 2020) which you can tell benefit them. That being said, my argument about removing wage protections is certainly dampened by the new earnings floors.
Is there anything on the ballot to create a third way ? I believe Prop 22 is to simply exempt some companies from AB5, right ?
> Uber and Lyft will be free to go back to exploiting drivers for <$10/hr
Exploiting? Can you please cite another industry that has the capacity to employ millions of unskilled labor people at $10/hr and ALSO allow them the freedom to set their own schedule?
It's clear you've never worked a minimum wage job before. Flexibility on hours is next-to-impossible at these jobs. If people are willing to make a few bucks an hour less for that flexibility, who are you to call it exploitation?
It's not like these companies are minting profits. The alternative is these people go back to work at McDonald's and also get no benefits while being scheduled at such bizarre hours they can't even go to school and educate themselves.
Shrinking the pool of employment choices for these people does nothing to help them actually get healthcare. My mind is still blown at how the American solution to workers not having healthcare is to attack individual businesses instead of looking across the Atlantic at how the rest of the world solved this problem.
Exploiting? Can you please cite another industry that has the capacity to employ millions of unskilled labor people at $10/hr and ALSO allow them the freedom to set their own schedule?
It's clear you've never worked a minimum wage job before. Flexibility on hours is next-to-impossible at these jobs. If people are willing to make a few bucks an hour less for that flexibility, who are you to call it exploitation?
It's not like these companies are minting profits. The alternative is these people go back to work at McDonald's and also get no benefits while being scheduled at such bizarre hours they can't even go to school and educate themselves.
Shrinking the pool of employment choices for these people does nothing to help them actually get healthcare. My mind is still blown at how the American solution to workers not having healthcare is to attack individual businesses instead of looking across the Atlantic at how the rest of the world solved this problem.
> It's not like these companies are minting profits.
Possibly because they're dramatically undercharging, loss leading, to get "market share"?
Undercharging, and drivers being paid "not very much" seems like two issues that are ... very much related.
Possibly because they're dramatically undercharging, loss leading, to get "market share"?
Undercharging, and drivers being paid "not very much" seems like two issues that are ... very much related.
So you're suggesting...the solution is to raise prices, and then transfer the added cost to drivers to give them benefits?
I actually know of a system by which you could do that on a grand scale...for every single worker in America. Not just rideshare drivers!
It's a concept commonly found in a far away continent most Americans have only dreamed of one day traveling to, called "Europe." How it works is simple. You raise prices throughout the entire economy via taxation, and then redistribute that money back to the less fortunate via a government provided healthcare program.
...And here's the best part, studies show it ends up lowering the price of healthcare for everybody. I wonder if something like that might be a better use of our time than trying to put Lyft out of business?
I actually know of a system by which you could do that on a grand scale...for every single worker in America. Not just rideshare drivers!
It's a concept commonly found in a far away continent most Americans have only dreamed of one day traveling to, called "Europe." How it works is simple. You raise prices throughout the entire economy via taxation, and then redistribute that money back to the less fortunate via a government provided healthcare program.
...And here's the best part, studies show it ends up lowering the price of healthcare for everybody. I wonder if something like that might be a better use of our time than trying to put Lyft out of business?
This may be poe's law at work, but it's pretty disingenuous to have the conversation in this fashion. Of _course_ it would be better to raise taxes and have a universal basic income and free healthcare. That's because the ultimate problem here isn't taxes or taxis or lyft or uber, it's capitalism.
However, given the system under analysis, because corporations have a history of making it very difficult for labor to be paid a fair and living wage, it falls to the government to use the tools at its disposal to ensure (as much as possible) that employees are paid fairly and have an opportunity to spend that pay on health insurance, because corporations won't be volunteering to do that, especially if they're already burning in excess of a billion dollars a year.
However, given the system under analysis, because corporations have a history of making it very difficult for labor to be paid a fair and living wage, it falls to the government to use the tools at its disposal to ensure (as much as possible) that employees are paid fairly and have an opportunity to spend that pay on health insurance, because corporations won't be volunteering to do that, especially if they're already burning in excess of a billion dollars a year.
Healthcare I agree with, universal basic income I don't agree with. Healthcare should be a human right but giving everyone $X a month doesn't make much sense as it doesn't promote self reliance. I have no problem helping those who can't help themselves but healthy adults really should take on some responsibility.
And why do you believe that it's important to force self-reliance onto a society that is already ultraproductive by any comparison through history? Why does it have to be punitive instead of inspirational to be self-reliant?
Because it sounds very unnatural for a social animal such as us humans to try to be completely self-reliant... We depend on others, we always have been and we probably always will, so leverage that instead of striving for some weird artificial sense of independence.
Because it sounds very unnatural for a social animal such as us humans to try to be completely self-reliant... We depend on others, we always have been and we probably always will, so leverage that instead of striving for some weird artificial sense of independence.
The American system is equal opportunity not equal outcomes. The latter is the euro model. Both parts of the world often underperform the stated value/goal and we American's have some work to do here. Without throwing capitalism out it would not kill to restore the pendulum back to the middle. US corporations under the rubric of maximizing shareholder value + DC support for tax accounting + liberal accommodation for globalism has given the powerful too much of a structural bias. And def not talking solutions ala Trump here. In this way universal or basic income is a no go here.
As someone who was born in the UK and lived until the age of nearly 30 in Australia, I'd be entirely inclined to agree with you.
I agree with this position. Let workers decide for themselves how best to use their time.
Here's what I don't understand about uber/Lyft and finance people who invest in them:
- they are loss makers bleeding serious money.
- Fedex tried the independent contractor routed and was required to make them employees too.
Where is the business sense here?
Here's what I don't understand about uber/Lyft and finance people who invest in them:
- they are loss makers bleeding serious money.
- Fedex tried the independent contractor routed and was required to make them employees too.
Where is the business sense here?
I think that this would have been the right idea. We need similar for union protection (white collar/digital salaried) and for digital monopolies for big corps that don't quite fit the old Standard Oil mold
> AB5 was written to impose a 20th century employment model to a 21st century situation.
Why should employees give up rights just because it's the 21st century? Make no mistake, that's Uber/Lyft's entire advantage over traditional taxis: skirting hard-won employment regulation to lower costs at the expense of workers.
Why should employees give up rights just because it's the 21st century? Make no mistake, that's Uber/Lyft's entire advantage over traditional taxis: skirting hard-won employment regulation to lower costs at the expense of workers.
They're not employees. What rights are missing? Do you have an issue with contractors in other industries? Why or why not?
> They're not employees.
Why does this keep getting repeated? They're not contractors. They have little-to-no control over who their "clients" are. They don't develop relationships for repeat service with those clients; don't set their rates (I'd gladly pay some drivers more than others); are forced to jump through hoops to maintain 4.X ratings or they're booted. The only thing they do have control over is when to start and stop working. That's just a much more flexible part-time job as far as I can tell.
Why does this keep getting repeated? They're not contractors. They have little-to-no control over who their "clients" are. They don't develop relationships for repeat service with those clients; don't set their rates (I'd gladly pay some drivers more than others); are forced to jump through hoops to maintain 4.X ratings or they're booted. The only thing they do have control over is when to start and stop working. That's just a much more flexible part-time job as far as I can tell.
Their client is Uber. They have complete control to work for them or not. No different than tech support hired on contract. They don't develop relationships with customers, they work for the company that contracted them.
Nobody is guaranteed a contract either. If you don't perform satisfactorily then the contract is terminated. No different than tech support that are rated poorly in communications.
Drivers control their rates [1], when they work, where they work, how long they work, and which rides they accept (with user, time and direction shown first). Only thing missing is destination upfront, however that can change anyway. No different than tech support dealing customer requests regardless of effort.
1. https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/
Nobody is guaranteed a contract either. If you don't perform satisfactorily then the contract is terminated. No different than tech support that are rated poorly in communications.
Drivers control their rates [1], when they work, where they work, how long they work, and which rides they accept (with user, time and direction shown first). Only thing missing is destination upfront, however that can change anyway. No different than tech support dealing customer requests regardless of effort.
1. https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/
Everyone keeps saying the substitute for Uber/Lyft is taxis. Maybe this is HN bay-area bias but it is just wrong. The substitute for Uber/Lyft in 95% of the US is driving your own car! Driving your own car has significant externalities, eg. More need for parking, more emissions, more drunk driving.
I don't live in CA but used to do a fair amount of work travel out there. If they don't have Uber/Lyft in the future, I'll just make work get me a rental car.
I don't live in CA but used to do a fair amount of work travel out there. If they don't have Uber/Lyft in the future, I'll just make work get me a rental car.
I think OP's argument is the reason why it's "driving your own car" in those markets outside of denser cities is because operating a taxi fleet is not profitable at those densities, in part because of employee protections and other regulatory hurdles, and that removing those protections (and shifting additional costs to the state) is what allows uber/lyft to create an alternative to "driving your own car" in a place where taxis have not been able to profitably operate.
I think I follow that. My main point is that outside of NYC and SF, Uber/lyft worked by creating new utility not by taking it from taxis. Now the state is steeping in and killing that utility without providing an alternative.
It could also be good public transportation. Much more efficient.
I'll believe in public transportation in CA whenever Marin county gets a BART station. Trust me if that happens we'll be able to ride our flying pigs everywhere.
What a dishonest, cherry-picked example to justify your pessimism.
The Bay area is finally electrifying Caltrain, which has the potential to connect the South bay in more ways then the current commuter connection. BART is also being expanded both in the East bay and the South Bay. And the only reason you are not getting a high speed rail to South California is because politics got in the way. But this high speed train will go between Bakersfield and Merced, making it the first true high speed train in the USA. All this while the Metro in LA is expanding and adding much needed connections in South California.
This all said, Marin County is an incredibly affluent part of the Bay area, it could really easily fix their connectivity issues to the rest of the Bay area with better and more frequent buses (I wonder why they don’t).
The Bay area is finally electrifying Caltrain, which has the potential to connect the South bay in more ways then the current commuter connection. BART is also being expanded both in the East bay and the South Bay. And the only reason you are not getting a high speed rail to South California is because politics got in the way. But this high speed train will go between Bakersfield and Merced, making it the first true high speed train in the USA. All this while the Metro in LA is expanding and adding much needed connections in South California.
This all said, Marin County is an incredibly affluent part of the Bay area, it could really easily fix their connectivity issues to the rest of the Bay area with better and more frequent buses (I wonder why they don’t).
Is it really cherry-picked? Or if it is, is it really that difficult to pick out the "cherries"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherton_station
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherton_station
What do you mean? Redwood City is not that far away which has a proper Caltrain stop. And—just like Marin—Atherton in an incredibly affluent community.
Sure, I will admit, California has some problems when it comes to their public transit projects. But pointing to the richest communities and how they are not getting trains is not a good example of those problems.
EDIT: Previously wrongly stated that there was a BART station close by.
Sure, I will admit, California has some problems when it comes to their public transit projects. But pointing to the richest communities and how they are not getting trains is not a good example of those problems.
EDIT: Previously wrongly stated that there was a BART station close by.
Caltrain runs once an hour for half of the day. You're screwed if you don't know exactly when you'll get to the station and find a parking spot.
Thats why I mentioned the electrification of Caltrain as a good public transit project in California. With electrification, it becomes far cheaper and easier to run the trains more frequently. Currently it is just commuter service making the South bay kind of disconnected from San Francisco for anybody but commuters. With electrification, this train has the potential to become much more then that.
I know it's quicker off the mark at peak times, but is the cost difference enough to run dramatically more trains?
Yes, electrified trains require far less crew and other workers, which means the current size staff size can operate on a wider timespan for practically the same cost.
Also the acceleration and deceleration will clear the tracks far easier and quicker for the next train to arrive, leaving less congestion during peak hours and less load on the system overall.
Also the acceleration and deceleration will clear the tracks far easier and quicker for the next train to arrive, leaving less congestion during peak hours and less load on the system overall.
Well then something is broken with PT in your neck of the woods. Too bad for you.
Most traditional taxis are independent contractors as well. It's the ridematching versus dispatch system that is the advantage, not the employment model.
It's easy to see all the folks here who don't remember having to wait an hour for a taxi to show after calling, if it ever did. Pushing a button on your phone and getting a ride five minutes later is magic in comparison.
It's easy to see all the folks here who don't remember having to wait an hour for a taxi to show after calling, if it ever did. Pushing a button on your phone and getting a ride five minutes later is magic in comparison.
And if the ride is subsidized by VC, all the better!
Why is a quickly arriving taxi more important than workers rights?
Yes it's more comfortable, for you. But this model is just not sustainable for most people.
Don't forget that this thing is subsidized. It never proved to be profitable. These companies invested huge amounts of money in lobbying all over the world, fermenting social unrest and subverting democracy for a failed business model.
They try and play a long game where we both lose workers rights, and have only bad monopolistic transportation available.
Don't forget that this thing is subsidized. It never proved to be profitable. These companies invested huge amounts of money in lobbying all over the world, fermenting social unrest and subverting democracy for a failed business model.
They try and play a long game where we both lose workers rights, and have only bad monopolistic transportation available.
Who says it is? I'm questioning whether the taxi drivers actually have any more rights. The parent comment here said that the disruption that caused ridesharing to rapidly grow this mobility segment was because the drivers were independent contractors instead of being employees. My point is that taxi drivers were never employees, either, and that the success of the ridesharing companies had more to do with user experience and reliability than their business model.
Or maybe it's because they give cheap subsidized service.
What's the long game? How can they keep it cheap and make profit? They can't. Because it's an extremely inefficient endeavour.
I understand your point but I'm not sure it's relevant. Taxis managed to survive for a long time without any artificial money injection, it's probably at a stable equalibrium. Allowing this artificial market to keep growing is just a endorsing a bubble. The bigger it gets the worst the collateral will be when it'll finally collapse.
I understand your point but I'm not sure it's relevant. Taxis managed to survive for a long time without any artificial money injection, it's probably at a stable equalibrium. Allowing this artificial market to keep growing is just a endorsing a bubble. The bigger it gets the worst the collateral will be when it'll finally collapse.
Ridesharing is profitable today. The reason these companies lose money is because of investments in other areas. Whether that's wise or not is up for debate, but both Lyft and Uber are public companies. Neither is seeking VC money at this point for further injections.
Both Lyft and Uber are public companies. If you know this is a bubble for sure, there are plenty of opportunities for you to cash in on that. In fact, if you have solid research that proves it's a bubble, plenty of people will pay you for that research.
fomenting not fermenting.
I think uber and lyft should pay more to their employees and raise their rates to reflect that. We don't need to go back to taxis, I agree with you on that, but the fare should reflect the real cost of the ride for a fair wage for the service.
Can we get a list of the AB5 legislative backers?
Terrible overreach. So sad.
When Uber tried that in Austin, competitors appeared quickly.
When Uber started up again, some of them closed and some stayed.
Is there a recommended on-demand chauffeur service in the Bay Area?
DUI arrests and deaths will go up.
Another group caught in the collateral damage is people in wheelchairs. Paratransit sucks in most places and where wheelchair accessible Uber/Lyft is available they provide a much better service. This is an especially vulnerable population because it's not like a wheelchair user can just find a friend with an accessible vehicle to take them to appointments, etc.
What did people in wheelchairs do before these rideshare apps were around?
I guess they hired a personal driver or spent hours a day in the public transit system.
Endured.
Worse, the financially better off using the paid services allowed the public services to become more responsive to the poorer members of this demographic. So now everybody will suffer.
Worse, the financially better off using the paid services allowed the public services to become more responsive to the poorer members of this demographic. So now everybody will suffer.
Wait hours for a van to maybe show up.
There are plenty of cabs that are wheelchair accessible. My wife works in surgery centers and they often call a cab for someone that needs a ride home and is in a wheelchair.
Edit: This was one of the main reasons against using Uber. Cabs were, I believe, legally required to provide this service, and Uber wasn't. That may have changed, but cabs were subject to that regulation, at least in Oregon, and Uber wasn't. Uber may have filled that gap, but I'm sure it was for financial benefit to them and not because it was the right thing to do.
Edit: This was one of the main reasons against using Uber. Cabs were, I believe, legally required to provide this service, and Uber wasn't. That may have changed, but cabs were subject to that regulation, at least in Oregon, and Uber wasn't. Uber may have filled that gap, but I'm sure it was for financial benefit to them and not because it was the right thing to do.
This was the complaint from the cab companies here in Toronto; they were required to have a certain percentage of their fleet as accessibility vehicles where as the ride “share” companies were not.
Unfortunately, the cab companies had accumulated years of bad will from tolerating bad and abusive drivers and then ran strikes in the city where drivers attacked people and deliberately blocked an ambulance.
I don’t like any of the sides in this battle.
Unfortunately, the cab companies had accumulated years of bad will from tolerating bad and abusive drivers and then ran strikes in the city where drivers attacked people and deliberately blocked an ambulance.
I don’t like any of the sides in this battle.
Not sure the right word, but a lot of towns and cities have a heavily subsidized busing system for very local routes. Things like DATA Bus or Meals on Wheels.
Also my grandparents in a city always used a cab service that only serves wheelchair and has trained drivers to load and unload.
Also my grandparents in a city always used a cab service that only serves wheelchair and has trained drivers to load and unload.
public transit agencies are obligated to provide this service, most municipalities contract it out. in recent years, it has been increasingly common for transit agencies to work directly with uber and lyft for paratransit services.
In most cases, they waited additional hours, per trip, for limited spots on paratransit or depended on friends and family.
The ones affluent enough to afford it used private drivers.
A few years ago I was in a freak accident and ended up in a wheel chair for about 3 months. It's really hard to put into words how much more effort and hassle it is to get around that way, even when most of the people around you are willing to help. And I was relatively lucky, still having full use of my arms and no other health issues. But a decent rule of thumb is to take however long you think some activity should require and multiply that by three, at minimum.
A disabled friend of mine has often spent quite literally all day dealing with disabled transit issues to get across town for a single appointment someplace. We help him out when we can, but like most people he hates feeling beholden to the charity of friends.
The ones affluent enough to afford it used private drivers.
A few years ago I was in a freak accident and ended up in a wheel chair for about 3 months. It's really hard to put into words how much more effort and hassle it is to get around that way, even when most of the people around you are willing to help. And I was relatively lucky, still having full use of my arms and no other health issues. But a decent rule of thumb is to take however long you think some activity should require and multiply that by three, at minimum.
A disabled friend of mine has often spent quite literally all day dealing with disabled transit issues to get across town for a single appointment someplace. We help him out when we can, but like most people he hates feeling beholden to the charity of friends.
This is a true and an important concern. Municipalities and counties in California really need to step up their game and provide a viable and cheap to use alternative.
Everybody deserves to be able to go where they want within their community when they want to. And we should provide these without relying on private companies with questionable labor practices.
Everybody deserves to be able to go where they want within their community when they want to. And we should provide these without relying on private companies with questionable labor practices.
Why step up and provide a viable and cheap alternative when you can just step down and not kill the existing cheap alternative?
Because these cheap alternatives rely on questionable labor practices.
People with limited mobility deserve the same freedom of movement as fully abled people, however that cannot come at the cost of the workers who provide it. We should be asking for both adequate transportation and fully compensated and decently paid workers.
People with limited mobility deserve the same freedom of movement as fully abled people, however that cannot come at the cost of the workers who provide it. We should be asking for both adequate transportation and fully compensated and decently paid workers.
Americans spent $1 TRILLION on personal transport (cars + car insurance, mainly) in 2017 [1]. Imagine if just half that went to building local subway networks / high-speed rail across the country / expanding bus options.
[1]: https://www.itdp.org/2019/05/23/high-cost-transportation-uni...
[1]: https://www.itdp.org/2019/05/23/high-cost-transportation-uni...
Yeah, that'd be great when they shut it all down for the next pandemic
This is a dishonest argument. Compared to the United States, countries like Japan, Germany, and others in Europe have been much more successful at containing the pandemic, even with their extensive public transport systems.
Our transportation system is entirely based on individual travel, and yet we cannot keep cases under control.
Besides, this situation is not permanent. We should not live in complete isolation out of fear for the next pandemic. Instead, we should learn from our mistakes this time around, and agree on an appropriate course of action to protect against future contagions.
Our transportation system is entirely based on individual travel, and yet we cannot keep cases under control.
Besides, this situation is not permanent. We should not live in complete isolation out of fear for the next pandemic. Instead, we should learn from our mistakes this time around, and agree on an appropriate course of action to protect against future contagions.
I live outside of the USA. I used to take our electric rail system all the time. Haven't touched it since January and won't go back till next year. Have fallen in love with driving and the personal convenience of it all over again.
Even when the pandemic is over, I might end up driving more often than before. It's so nice to know that I can just stay somewhere until I want to leave, to know that I can go wherever I want at whatever time, without having to worry about coordinating it with anyone else. Profoundly enabling, even as it is sickeningly individualist.
Even when the pandemic is over, I might end up driving more often than before. It's so nice to know that I can just stay somewhere until I want to leave, to know that I can go wherever I want at whatever time, without having to worry about coordinating it with anyone else. Profoundly enabling, even as it is sickeningly individualist.
You might reconsider when the pandemic is actually over and more people start carrying this mindset that will increase traffic.
But that is besides the point, what you personally feel doesn’t really matter. Your previous comment is still incredibly dishonest. Functioning frequent and convenient mass transit system is enabling for far more people then personal transports. Even during a pandemic there are ways to mitigate the risk of spreading the virus. And even if not, a pandemic is a temporary situation, and after it is over the infrastructure is still there to enable much more people to transport them self, in varying physical conditions, without sacrificing the working conditions and benefits of the transportation workers.
But that is besides the point, what you personally feel doesn’t really matter. Your previous comment is still incredibly dishonest. Functioning frequent and convenient mass transit system is enabling for far more people then personal transports. Even during a pandemic there are ways to mitigate the risk of spreading the virus. And even if not, a pandemic is a temporary situation, and after it is over the infrastructure is still there to enable much more people to transport them self, in varying physical conditions, without sacrificing the working conditions and benefits of the transportation workers.
> But that is besides the point, what you personally feel doesn’t really matter. Your previous comment is still incredibly dishonest.
If I say what I believe, it's not dishonest. It might be _wrong_, but it's not a lie.
If I say what I believe, it's not dishonest. It might be _wrong_, but it's not a lie.
It is a lie by obfuscation. Americans do need better public transpiration options. Mentioning the pandemic serves no purpose other then to obfuscate this fact. The fact that the current pandemic is causing some of the existing options to be more limited does in no way take a way from this need.
Yeah, this is a pattern I see a lot. Rather than discussing solutions to an problem, there is a tendency from some people to just throw their hands up in the air and say "it is what it is, can't do anything about it!". When it comes to...
> Public Transportation... if future pandemics pose a danger, what can we do to implement transport options that will be safe during future pandemics? How can we better design our cities to make individual transport by bike/foot more possible, rather than by car? etc etc. Let's listen to urban planners and public policy experts.
> Election Security... if voter fraud is an issue, what security measures can we take to ensure that every citizen can safely and securely exercise their right to vote? Let's listen to cryptographers.
> Wealth Inequality... how can we ensure that all children have a safe and nurturing home environment, along with the opportunities for school and work that they need to achieve upward social mobility? Let's listen to educators and economists.
> Healthcare... how can we reform hospitals and private/public insurance to provide both urgent and preventative medical care at a fair price? Let's listen to medical health professionals and economists.
There are many possible answers to these questions. I would love love love to debate actual solutions. But it's hard to even agree there is a problem! Often, the reason is that national+local news networks are all fed their talking points by wealthy individuals who personally profit from a broken system.
> Public Transportation... if future pandemics pose a danger, what can we do to implement transport options that will be safe during future pandemics? How can we better design our cities to make individual transport by bike/foot more possible, rather than by car? etc etc. Let's listen to urban planners and public policy experts.
> Election Security... if voter fraud is an issue, what security measures can we take to ensure that every citizen can safely and securely exercise their right to vote? Let's listen to cryptographers.
> Wealth Inequality... how can we ensure that all children have a safe and nurturing home environment, along with the opportunities for school and work that they need to achieve upward social mobility? Let's listen to educators and economists.
> Healthcare... how can we reform hospitals and private/public insurance to provide both urgent and preventative medical care at a fair price? Let's listen to medical health professionals and economists.
There are many possible answers to these questions. I would love love love to debate actual solutions. But it's hard to even agree there is a problem! Often, the reason is that national+local news networks are all fed their talking points by wealthy individuals who personally profit from a broken system.
> Americans do need better public transpiration options
No-one has mentioned transpiration until now. This is a lie by changing the subject completely.
No-one has mentioned transpiration until now. This is a lie by changing the subject completely.
> Compared to the United States, countries like Japan, Germany, and others in Europe have been much more successful at containing the pandemic, even with their extensive public transport systems
UK here. We contained it by mostly stopping using public transport. The efficiency case for public transport (in its current form) is inversely correlated with social distancing.
UK here. We contained it by mostly stopping using public transport. The efficiency case for public transport (in its current form) is inversely correlated with social distancing.
California proved that $100B won't even build you a high speed rail between SF and LA. The cost of convincing people to change their mind, is still cost.
At least we know now that a $100B will get you a high speed train from Bakersfield to Merced in 10 years behind schedule.
I think though that California has an extreme case of NIMBY-ism which makes much needed projects like these so much harder then then should be. I’m sure similar projects in Texas between Houston and Dallas would be far easier to complete on schedule. Similar with the Cascadian corridor between Portland OR, and Vancouver BC. Although I see the Pacific North Western politicians capitalizing on this project for a few decades to win a few more election before this projects gets a go-ahead.
I think though that California has an extreme case of NIMBY-ism which makes much needed projects like these so much harder then then should be. I’m sure similar projects in Texas between Houston and Dallas would be far easier to complete on schedule. Similar with the Cascadian corridor between Portland OR, and Vancouver BC. Although I see the Pacific North Western politicians capitalizing on this project for a few decades to win a few more election before this projects gets a go-ahead.
If only there could be an efficient method for connecting those who need to travel with those who can provide them with transportation.
Wait a sec - this efficient method doesn't involve abusing contractor status to not pay employees benefits, does it? If it does, I'd rather come up with another idea, thanks.
You're right, we'll make it completely voluntary for the transportation providers to participate.
This myth of voluntary participation in capitalism has been debunked many time. When you need to sell you labor in order to feed and house you and your family, it isn’t voluntary by a long shot. It is not a free market because the employer has a significant advantage. This is why we need labor regulations and protections. When a workplace fills out their labor needs with contractors, it is an obvious way to circumvent these necessary labor regulations and protections.
So you are wrong—as California is proofing—unregulated gig-capitalism is not a system that can provide fair working conditions and cheap accessible transportation at the same time.
So you are wrong—as California is proofing—unregulated gig-capitalism is not a system that can provide fair working conditions and cheap accessible transportation at the same time.
So your assertion is that unless a person has all of their basic needs met, they are providing labor compulsorily? If we're just starting from Marxist axioms, whereby all relations between classes are best understood as power struggles, then sure everything you said follows.
We're not, however, so you have quite the circular argument going on here. By any reasonable definition, I am not compelled to work -- despite laboring in order to myself and my family fed and housed. Power struggles are a poor lens for understanding this dynamic.
We're not, however, so you have quite the circular argument going on here. By any reasonable definition, I am not compelled to work -- despite laboring in order to myself and my family fed and housed. Power struggles are a poor lens for understanding this dynamic.
So your refutation of my argument is: “Because Marx said so, it must be false”? Note that I’ve never mentioned classes or power struggle in my arguments, so you are putting words in my mouth.
I don’t understand how my argument is circular. If you strip away any ways for a person to provide for them self except selling their own labor, you are basically saying to them: “work or perish!” Technically perishing is an option, but it is not an option most people will consider (including my self; and demonstrably Uber drivers).
I don’t understand how my argument is circular. If you strip away any ways for a person to provide for them self except selling their own labor, you are basically saying to them: “work or perish!” Technically perishing is an option, but it is not an option most people will consider (including my self; and demonstrably Uber drivers).
The argument is not "Marx therefore bad," it's that this is a useless observation. You've selected axioms that necessitate your conclusion. It's like me saying "the most moral thing anyone can do is preventing a human death, and therefore everyone here is immoral because they're writing comments on a message board instead of flying to an impoverished country to feed a starving child."
That's true, given the predicate. I don't know why it would be relevant, since -- just like with your comment -- nobody has conceded this definition of morality. The conver preceding is not obviously rooted in Marxist class struggle, so I'm not sure why you're framing it thus (whether you use the words or not.)
Your argument depends on everyone agreeing that, unless a person's basic need for house and food are totally met first, anything they do in pursuit of those needs is compelled and not voluntary. This is not an agreed upon predicate.
That's true, given the predicate. I don't know why it would be relevant, since -- just like with your comment -- nobody has conceded this definition of morality. The conver preceding is not obviously rooted in Marxist class struggle, so I'm not sure why you're framing it thus (whether you use the words or not.)
Your argument depends on everyone agreeing that, unless a person's basic need for house and food are totally met first, anything they do in pursuit of those needs is compelled and not voluntary. This is not an agreed upon predicate.
I think you'll find that few, if any, "economic predicates" are universally agreed upon. Certainly, in your original post, you're accepting some premises that allow for your own claims to be true, and which are not universally agreed upon. So why can't he?
I think you'll find that most, if not all, human conversations are embedded in a context, which carries assumptions, so that participants can understand each other without iterating all of their definitions. That's why, for example, I don't have to start every conversation in my life by clarifying that I will not be explaining everything in terms of Xenu and thetans.
And if I did want to explain things in those terms, I should first explain why that's a valuable frame to adopt.
And if I did want to explain things in those terms, I should first explain why that's a valuable frame to adopt.
Is there enough market size for this so that a commercial company can come in and swoop the customers?
You mean the same taxi-service market that Uber has been notably unprofitable and bleeding investor cash for years in? But smaller and more niche? With more legal hurdles regarding accessibility and mobility requirements? Operating with only non-gig, full-benefit workers?
Yeah, sounds like a market ripe for picking.
Yeah, sounds like a market ripe for picking.
Hahah, you nailed it. People think that they can have their cake and eat it too, but the result will either be rides that are too expensive to bother with, or workers that are paid too little. The actual financials of this don't make sense unless we were to find some way of removing all the overhead caused by having gigantic companies as middlemen.
Not just wheelchair users. People with epilepsy and other chronic conditions unfortunately have to rely on these services for gaps in public transit.
I wish Uber and Lyft had focused on sustainability vs monopoly and not foisted so much of their costs off onto their drivers, but here we are.
I wish Uber and Lyft had focused on sustainability vs monopoly and not foisted so much of their costs off onto their drivers, but here we are.
I'm not able to drive because of epilepsy and have to rely on ride share apps when family members can't drive me. It's expensive but public transportation doesn't exist here. Around 1/100 people are epileptic and the chance of a seizure during one's life is double digits, so it's not an insignificant amount of people. Mine is "well controlled" but the consequences of accidents can be extreme. Plenty of other conditions exist which also prevent people from driving.
Unfortunately it's difficult to participate in a lot of our society unless you can drive.
Unfortunately it's difficult to participate in a lot of our society unless you can drive.
Honest question: Has there been a mass action lawsuit against this lack of options for you and other people in your situation? It would seem to me that your county or municipality is in violation of some ADA regulations.
If not, and lawyers agree there is no case (yet), then there is an obvious gap in the ADA regulation, and it should be fixed. Everyone has equal rights to get around their community, and it is massively unfair if a significant number of people are left behind because of their disabilities.
If not, and lawyers agree there is no case (yet), then there is an obvious gap in the ADA regulation, and it should be fixed. Everyone has equal rights to get around their community, and it is massively unfair if a significant number of people are left behind because of their disabilities.
Not the OP, but the ADA only requires that existing businesses/services accommodate disabilities, not provide them where they don’t exist. There’s no mandate to provide transportation for the disabled in the US.
Unsurprisingly, Uber and Lyft have also been violating the ADA for pretty much their entire existence, arguing that they don’t have to comply and settling with states and cities when they lose cases:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90343921/lyft-claims-its-not-a-t...
Unsurprisingly, Uber and Lyft have also been violating the ADA for pretty much their entire existence, arguing that they don’t have to comply and settling with states and cities when they lose cases:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90343921/lyft-claims-its-not-a-t...
A while ago — and I have no citations for this — I read it was easier to just pay for private rides for every accessible person than to make NYC and SF's public transportation accessible. Yes, in perpetuity. Considerably cheaper, too.
Why then, go through the effort? Because they should be integrated into society like all others. I firmly believe public transportation has benefits beyond efficiency.
Something about a billionaire on the 6 train next to a restaurant worker and a wheelchair-bound piano tuner[1] strikes me as poetic and noble. Whatever the costs.
[1] Headed to my place.
Why then, go through the effort? Because they should be integrated into society like all others. I firmly believe public transportation has benefits beyond efficiency.
Something about a billionaire on the 6 train next to a restaurant worker and a wheelchair-bound piano tuner[1] strikes me as poetic and noble. Whatever the costs.
[1] Headed to my place.
yes let’s make all public policy based on your sense of poetic justice. and not numbers.
i know cost is just a number to you but that’s other people’s money you’re spending
i know cost is just a number to you but that’s other people’s money you’re spending
Believe me, I'm very fiscally skeptical with government spending.
Moreover, public transportation costs in the US are outrageous. Each elevator in the tens of millions for an NYC subway station. It's a racket and unacceptably corrupt.
But we can tackle both problems, and should.
Even with hyper efficient spending, there's an external benefit that is hard to measure and value beyond the cold, hard cash needed for the infrastructure vs government-paid private rides.
I've been laterally involved in frivolous ADA lawsuits for websites before, so I also understand how even noble goals can become corrupted.
Moreover, public transportation costs in the US are outrageous. Each elevator in the tens of millions for an NYC subway station. It's a racket and unacceptably corrupt.
But we can tackle both problems, and should.
Even with hyper efficient spending, there's an external benefit that is hard to measure and value beyond the cold, hard cash needed for the infrastructure vs government-paid private rides.
I've been laterally involved in frivolous ADA lawsuits for websites before, so I also understand how even noble goals can become corrupted.
Well, not based on one person, but sometimes making uneconomic decisions based on human decency? That’s the society I’d rather live in.
I mean, if numbers are all that matter, I’m fairly sure someone could come up with a model to deprioritise and disenfranchise almost anyone - the disabled, the elderly, the retired...
I mean, if numbers are all that matter, I’m fairly sure someone could come up with a model to deprioritise and disenfranchise almost anyone - the disabled, the elderly, the retired...
Is forcing wheelchair users to use subway human decency to you? We're talking about a situation where it's cheaper to let them use taxi service, and it's a better experience.
My uncle lives in a wheelchair by the way. The horror of imagining him having to use the subway...
My uncle lives in a wheelchair by the way. The horror of imagining him having to use the subway...
yeah the proposal from the original comment also seems more designed to “teach” the billionaire by making him sit next to a disabled person instead of helping the wheelchair bound person. all out of some sort of sense of justice
That’s not the situation. In the absence of Uber/Lyft (they being positive for disabled mobility) there appears to be no choice: it’s bad slow disabled-specific transport vs... nothing. And the argument was to not do things for disabled people that were uneconomic.
So yes, I’d like to give disabled users the option of using all public transport, if they choose. (Having lived in London, many underground stations are actually pretty good - and certainly not below ‘human decency’.)
But I’d also like that disabled people have other options, including reasonably-priced taxis.
So yes, I’d like to give disabled users the option of using all public transport, if they choose. (Having lived in London, many underground stations are actually pretty good - and certainly not below ‘human decency’.)
But I’d also like that disabled people have other options, including reasonably-priced taxis.
I 100% agree, for that reason and more. But I also don't know that I see accessible public transit as being a something to set against accessible point-to-point transportation. One needs both. For the same reasons that everyone needs both.
What about the wheelchair users? What do they prefer?
If it were both cheaper and best for the users (as I believe it would be) to pay for private rides, I would support that wholeheartedly. If one option were cheaper, and the other is preferred, it would seem that you'd have to engage in some type of cost-benefit analysis.
I don't see why able-bodied people should impose their view of 'social integration' on minorities at great cost, without additional justification.
If it were both cheaper and best for the users (as I believe it would be) to pay for private rides, I would support that wholeheartedly. If one option were cheaper, and the other is preferred, it would seem that you'd have to engage in some type of cost-benefit analysis.
I don't see why able-bodied people should impose their view of 'social integration' on minorities at great cost, without additional justification.
You have a good point.
But I think taken to the extreme: who wouldn't prefer a private air-conditioned taxi over 100 ˚F subway platforms?
In this hypothetical: we're assuming the facilities are good enough that the experience for the disabled is within reasonable parity.
On the other hand, if it means having to go 40 blocks uptown, just to find an elevator then head back downtown, the system is inadequate and my narrative doesn't hold.
But I think taken to the extreme: who wouldn't prefer a private air-conditioned taxi over 100 ˚F subway platforms?
In this hypothetical: we're assuming the facilities are good enough that the experience for the disabled is within reasonable parity.
On the other hand, if it means having to go 40 blocks uptown, just to find an elevator then head back downtown, the system is inadequate and my narrative doesn't hold.
If wheelchair users prefer to take private rides, and it's cheaper than adapting public transit to their needs, I really don't see why we need to worry about this kind of issue. Most people view mass transit as generally undesirable, so they're okay with 'missing out' on it, and I don't think the disabled population is large enough to significantly contribute to urban congestion. I suppose that mass transit ridership will appear less diverse, but I'd rather not force people to use public transit just to make it more diverse.
Don't get me wrong; I'd love for everyone to be able to do everything, but trying to make everything work for everyone all the time can get Procrustean.
Don't get me wrong; I'd love for everyone to be able to do everything, but trying to make everything work for everyone all the time can get Procrustean.
Just a question - why build public transport at all if it's undesirable? That just pushes everyone who can afford NOT to take it out, which leads to pollution, but worse, the effect that the populace using the public transportation are probably seen by others as 'more undesirable', leading to a snowball effect of people not using it until it's fully subsidized and terrible. That's what basically happened to busses in my old city. Even the less well off people would tell you not to ride one because it's full of crazies/homeless/beggars/etc. We're like, worse off than if they'd never have built it at all.
If we're serious about modernizing and reducing our carbon footprint, we should provide reliable, safe, comfortable transportation that people want to take. Not relegate it as a public service for the needy. (though the both can work together)
If we're serious about modernizing and reducing our carbon footprint, we should provide reliable, safe, comfortable transportation that people want to take. Not relegate it as a public service for the needy. (though the both can work together)
If you take a look at surveys on the subject, nobody likes buses, and everyone loves the idea of trains, though they have more mixed feelings on the implementations. Buses are generally viewed as transportation for the poor and the young; I don't see how we can change that.
I think the 'solution' is to replace buses with smaller and more efficient urban mobility solutions; buses are not that efficient (as they spend most of their time driving around almost empty), so this is the lowest-hanging fruit anyway. If I knew how to create these solutions, I would be working on them right now, but I think some combination(s) of car-sharing, high efficiency vehicles, self-driving technologies, and electric bicycles will eventually replace buses.
I think the 'solution' is to replace buses with smaller and more efficient urban mobility solutions; buses are not that efficient (as they spend most of their time driving around almost empty), so this is the lowest-hanging fruit anyway. If I knew how to create these solutions, I would be working on them right now, but I think some combination(s) of car-sharing, high efficiency vehicles, self-driving technologies, and electric bicycles will eventually replace buses.
You're right about buses, but I don't think that's inherent to buses, just how we've implemented them. In other countries, buses are comfortable and air conditioned and basically anyone and everyone rides them. If we could figure out how to make them safe, clean, and comfortable, then of course they wouldn't be empty most of the time, and would run at capacity(which would be a good problem to have).
Rail I think is obviously preferred long term, but setting up a fleet of electric buses could be done in a matter of months, vs a simple limited rail that takes many years.
Rail I think is obviously preferred long term, but setting up a fleet of electric buses could be done in a matter of months, vs a simple limited rail that takes many years.
Buses almost always run at less than 50% capacity, as people are going to or from school or work, but not both (i.e. morning rush is in the opposite direction of evening rush). The other unsolvable problems for buses is that they necessarily increase commute distance and time, as people must take a more indirect route to use buses (as opposed to individual transportation), and they are not flexible (i.e. they have limited peak capacity and fixed schedules).
I don't like buses, and I vastly prefer trains over them.
However, I've taken some really, really bad buses (SF), some middle-of-the-road buses (Seattle), and some rather good buses (Vancouver).
If you want to improve bus efficiency, the lowest-hanging fruit is switching the less-used lines to 24-person shuttle-buses. Vancouver uses that model heavily.
The next lowest-hanging fruit would be actually getting people to use the bus. If the reason they don't use the bus is 'it doesn't take me where I need to go', you can fix that. If the reason they don't use the bus is 'only crazies and poor people take the bus', you can fix that too. Transit systems that are used by everyone, as opposed to just 'undesirables' tend to run a lot better.
Also, keep in mind that most cars on the road are $20-50,000 vehicles that drive 75% empty, and spend 95% of their lives sitting in parking lots. That's a damn low bar for 'efficiency' that even a mostly-empty bus can match. Likewise, taxis are vehicles that spend ~30% of their time driving empty, and only transporting 1 person the vast majority of the remaining time. (While costing ~$30/hour to operate.)
However, I've taken some really, really bad buses (SF), some middle-of-the-road buses (Seattle), and some rather good buses (Vancouver).
If you want to improve bus efficiency, the lowest-hanging fruit is switching the less-used lines to 24-person shuttle-buses. Vancouver uses that model heavily.
The next lowest-hanging fruit would be actually getting people to use the bus. If the reason they don't use the bus is 'it doesn't take me where I need to go', you can fix that. If the reason they don't use the bus is 'only crazies and poor people take the bus', you can fix that too. Transit systems that are used by everyone, as opposed to just 'undesirables' tend to run a lot better.
Also, keep in mind that most cars on the road are $20-50,000 vehicles that drive 75% empty, and spend 95% of their lives sitting in parking lots. That's a damn low bar for 'efficiency' that even a mostly-empty bus can match. Likewise, taxis are vehicles that spend ~30% of their time driving empty, and only transporting 1 person the vast majority of the remaining time. (While costing ~$30/hour to operate.)
> who wouldn't prefer a private air-conditioned taxi over 100 ˚F subway platforms?
When it's prohibitively expensive to take private air-conditioned taxi.
If taxi is, as you said, both cheaper and provides a better experience, why not? Are we torturing people just for your poetic justice?
When it's prohibitively expensive to take private air-conditioned taxi.
If taxi is, as you said, both cheaper and provides a better experience, why not? Are we torturing people just for your poetic justice?
That's fair, if it's cheaper including externalities.
In Sweden if you're disabled, the government will pay for taxis for you. There's limits on how often et c and they don't come as fast as a normal taxi booking and you can only bring one other person with you, but it's a great option for when public transit doesn't cut it.
[deleted]
Well, I don't have a wheelchair-bound piano tuner handy to ask, so I'll have to model this person based on other wheelchair users I've been acquainted with over the years.
So let's ask this imaginary person: Would you rather get free rides everywhere you need to go, or have to wait in the rain/snow/heat for the bus, feeling the stress of inconveniencing others with the ramp, and having to wheel yourself the rest of the distance to your destination?
That's if the bus arrives on time, which it won't. But keep in mind! silviogutierrez will feel better about themself if you take the bus! "poetic and noble" were the exact words.
So let's ask this imaginary person: Would you rather get free rides everywhere you need to go, or have to wait in the rain/snow/heat for the bus, feeling the stress of inconveniencing others with the ramp, and having to wheel yourself the rest of the distance to your destination?
That's if the bus arrives on time, which it won't. But keep in mind! silviogutierrez will feel better about themself if you take the bus! "poetic and noble" were the exact words.
> Would you rather get free rides everywhere you need to go or have to wait in the rain/snow/heat for the bus
At least in Toronto, the para-transit fares are the same as the regular transit system fares.
Sometimes they send you a taxi, but other times they send around a mini-bus that operates like an UberPool and may not save you any time.
Even if a Lyft/Uber would be cheaper, if the gov is subsidizing it, they’ll pay for the lowest priority to save 3 cents.
At least in Toronto, the para-transit fares are the same as the regular transit system fares.
Sometimes they send you a taxi, but other times they send around a mini-bus that operates like an UberPool and may not save you any time.
Even if a Lyft/Uber would be cheaper, if the gov is subsidizing it, they’ll pay for the lowest priority to save 3 cents.
I think that's somewhat uncharitable of a take. But fundamentally, I agree with you.
See my other comment. In this ideal, the experience for the wheelchair-bound is comparable to others. Not the current embarrassment we have in New York, for example.
See my other comment. In this ideal, the experience for the wheelchair-bound is comparable to others. Not the current embarrassment we have in New York, for example.
I'll grant you my take was a bit over-the-top.
The thing is, there are a few reasons why the able-bodied tend to prefer the experience of a ride-hailing app over public transit.
- it comes to where you are, and drops you off exactly where you're going
- you get a ride when you're ready to go, and not whenever the transit is running
- higher chances of getting rides at weird hours
- no risk of interacting with aggressive panhandlers, people high on drugs, the mentally ill, or people with bad personal hygiene
Public transit has significant advantages, as well: biggest among them, it avoids the tragedy of the commons, particularly road congestion and carbon emissions. It has salubrious effects on urban planning. Places with good public transit are nice places to live.
What I want to point out is that, every one of the advantages for the able-bodied are significantly exaggerated for wheelchair users.
I don't think it's possible to offer a comparable experience, due to the very nature of the disability. So if it's more expensive to offer the less desirable option, well, we shouldn't do that.
More expensive public transit means picking from the following buckets: less transit, more expensive tickets, less pay for workers, starving other municipal programs, or kicking the problem down the road with municipal debt. None of those are great; they can be worth it for a better experience (replacing old worn-down cars for example), but not for a worse one.
The thing is, there are a few reasons why the able-bodied tend to prefer the experience of a ride-hailing app over public transit.
- it comes to where you are, and drops you off exactly where you're going
- you get a ride when you're ready to go, and not whenever the transit is running
- higher chances of getting rides at weird hours
- no risk of interacting with aggressive panhandlers, people high on drugs, the mentally ill, or people with bad personal hygiene
Public transit has significant advantages, as well: biggest among them, it avoids the tragedy of the commons, particularly road congestion and carbon emissions. It has salubrious effects on urban planning. Places with good public transit are nice places to live.
What I want to point out is that, every one of the advantages for the able-bodied are significantly exaggerated for wheelchair users.
I don't think it's possible to offer a comparable experience, due to the very nature of the disability. So if it's more expensive to offer the less desirable option, well, we shouldn't do that.
More expensive public transit means picking from the following buckets: less transit, more expensive tickets, less pay for workers, starving other municipal programs, or kicking the problem down the road with municipal debt. None of those are great; they can be worth it for a better experience (replacing old worn-down cars for example), but not for a worse one.
That's such a false dichotomy, public transportation can be comfortable and efficient.
And It is in a lot of places around the world.
> A while ago — and I have no citations for this — I read it was easier to just pay for private rides for every accessible person than to make NYC and SF's public transportation accessible. Yes, in perpetuity. Considerably cheaper, too.
1. Accessibility doesn't just benefit wheel-chair bound people. Accessibility benefits just about anyone who has temporary difficulty walking, is carrying heavy or bulky things, is out with children, is not fully sober, etc, etc, etc.
2. NYC may indeed be a special case, because of the poor design of existing subway stations, and the difficulty of rebuilding them in the middle of Manhattan. I don't think this sort of thing would generalize to other locales.
1. Accessibility doesn't just benefit wheel-chair bound people. Accessibility benefits just about anyone who has temporary difficulty walking, is carrying heavy or bulky things, is out with children, is not fully sober, etc, etc, etc.
2. NYC may indeed be a special case, because of the poor design of existing subway stations, and the difficulty of rebuilding them in the middle of Manhattan. I don't think this sort of thing would generalize to other locales.
I firmly agree on #1. In fact, my piano tuner is not wheelchair-bound and that was a white lie. My apologies. He was born blind.
#2: Normally I would strongly disagree. It's a NYC trope to say our subway is in shambles because pick one of: the city is old, the city is dense, the subway runs 24/7, and so on. And yet Paris, London, and other ancient subways run better and make cheaper and faster improvements.
But looking around, it seems like accessibility is very poor for London and Paris too. So you're right. They all have this in common. In fact, NYC may even be ahead[1]
However, going on a real tangent here, with the crazy amounts of money we spend or even with quantitative easing[2], I feel like we could try novel concepts like shutting down entire city blocks for months at a time and compensate everyone involved. Yes, crazy prices, but who knows?
[1] https://www.citymetric.com/transport/what-paris-metro-map-lo...
[2] Instead of propping up bonds and equities, prop up infrastructure?
#2: Normally I would strongly disagree. It's a NYC trope to say our subway is in shambles because pick one of: the city is old, the city is dense, the subway runs 24/7, and so on. And yet Paris, London, and other ancient subways run better and make cheaper and faster improvements.
But looking around, it seems like accessibility is very poor for London and Paris too. So you're right. They all have this in common. In fact, NYC may even be ahead[1]
However, going on a real tangent here, with the crazy amounts of money we spend or even with quantitative easing[2], I feel like we could try novel concepts like shutting down entire city blocks for months at a time and compensate everyone involved. Yes, crazy prices, but who knows?
[1] https://www.citymetric.com/transport/what-paris-metro-map-lo...
[2] Instead of propping up bonds and equities, prop up infrastructure?
There are many different ways to be disabled. Some people get around in wheelchairs and will be fine wherever there are elevators. Other people (including all of us as we get older) need personal assistance door-to-door. There's a spectrum of inclusion, and I don't think "whatever the cost" acknowledges that.
Elsewhere in the thread someone with a wheelchair bound sister mentioned that she doesn't like taking public transit because she gets harassed and gawked at for her disability.
Also, accessible transit benefits everyone with a stroller, as well as the elderly and anyone else with a temporary injury.
Also, accessible transit benefits everyone with a stroller, as well as the elderly and anyone else with a temporary injury.
[deleted]
In BC, Canada, Handydart is part of the public transit system. Paratranspo is part of OCTranspo under the Ottawa Transit system.
Cost would be basically the same as normal bus ride.
The municipalities could, you know, fund transit?
In the Valley, I was talking to some interns. It was a 50 minute walk, 40 minute bus ride, and 15 minute bike ride. Basically the only reason why you'd take the bus is you can't afford a bike?!?
Cost would be basically the same as normal bus ride.
The municipalities could, you know, fund transit?
In the Valley, I was talking to some interns. It was a 50 minute walk, 40 minute bus ride, and 15 minute bike ride. Basically the only reason why you'd take the bus is you can't afford a bike?!?
I was in an Uber rideshare once with a blind person. Had no idea they were blind until the driver pulled over and got out (which initially confused me) to help them to their house.
Is uber still running?
Lyft is being petty here. I understand that they cannot make all drivers employees, but they could have some drivers on the road and not pulled the rug on users.
This goes to say that you cannot trust private companies like Lyft for critical services. The government actually has been transparent about this change and Lyft is acting like a spoilt child, not even willing to try the employee route.
Lyft pulling the rug overnight is in bad faith.
This goes to say that you cannot trust private companies like Lyft for critical services. The government actually has been transparent about this change and Lyft is acting like a spoilt child, not even willing to try the employee route.
Lyft pulling the rug overnight is in bad faith.
They did this in Austin as well.
Easy to do now, considering the rideshare volumes are probably lower than without SIP.
Easy to do now, considering the rideshare volumes are probably lower than without SIP.
[deleted]
Totally disagree; this is a courageous action to show that they really mean what they've been saying all along.
The California government is the party that's been acting like a brat here. The rideshare drivers of California overwhelmingly didn't want this approach to receiving benefits. Lawmakers got jealous that economic activity was happening in a new way that they couldn't tax and control the way they were used to, and instead of solving problems creatively, attempted to slam a non-nail with a hammer. They were warned in no uncertain terms that it'd hurt.
The California government is the party that's been acting like a brat here. The rideshare drivers of California overwhelmingly didn't want this approach to receiving benefits. Lawmakers got jealous that economic activity was happening in a new way that they couldn't tax and control the way they were used to, and instead of solving problems creatively, attempted to slam a non-nail with a hammer. They were warned in no uncertain terms that it'd hurt.
The judge’s order literally came last week.
It is not that lyft is striking, their product and process is not ready yet to do full time employees yet.
The folks I spoke to were all doing hectic work trying to build it out , my understanding is they originally planned to do this by November.
Even if the tech is ready , converting 1000’s to folks full time is ton of government paperwork that is going to take time .
They first have to figure out who wants to be full time and who they want to be retain full time .
It is not like they were given a reasonable 6-12 months to comply and they screwed up . Uber is also in the same boat.
It is not that lyft is striking, their product and process is not ready yet to do full time employees yet.
The folks I spoke to were all doing hectic work trying to build it out , my understanding is they originally planned to do this by November.
Even if the tech is ready , converting 1000’s to folks full time is ton of government paperwork that is going to take time .
They first have to figure out who wants to be full time and who they want to be retain full time .
It is not like they were given a reasonable 6-12 months to comply and they screwed up . Uber is also in the same boat.
Are they still going to run their global operations from California?
They spent ton of money to get me to install their app and consider it as an option. There is really no reason for me to use one over the other. Lyft, uber, some random taxi app.. Same drives are coming in the same cars.
Now they are motivating me to look for alternatives and actually give 'some random taxi app' a name.
this combined with "dont attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity" leads me to doubt their professionalism. I think this is a huge mistake. and if it's not a mistake but inability of the company to execute, then that's on executives.
Now they are motivating me to look for alternatives and actually give 'some random taxi app' a name.
this combined with "dont attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity" leads me to doubt their professionalism. I think this is a huge mistake. and if it's not a mistake but inability of the company to execute, then that's on executives.
I remember what it was like to get a taxi in California, even in San Francisco, before Uber and Lyft.
You called some taxi company, might get put on hold, told them where to pick you up, and they would show up anywhere between 30 and 60 minutes later. Sometimes they would never show up. Many smaller cities in California had no taxi service of any kind. And good luck getting a taxi home from a bar after midnight!
Uber and Lyft made it realistic for people to expect that they could actually get a taxi in California in a reasonable amount of time, pretty much any time of day or night. That's why people used them so much. This is not something the older taxi companies or "some random taxi app" will be able to pull off.
You called some taxi company, might get put on hold, told them where to pick you up, and they would show up anywhere between 30 and 60 minutes later. Sometimes they would never show up. Many smaller cities in California had no taxi service of any kind. And good luck getting a taxi home from a bar after midnight!
Uber and Lyft made it realistic for people to expect that they could actually get a taxi in California in a reasonable amount of time, pretty much any time of day or night. That's why people used them so much. This is not something the older taxi companies or "some random taxi app" will be able to pull off.
Back in 2010 I regularly used the TaxiMagic app and had more or less the same experience as calling an Uber or Lyft today, just a little pricier.
Where are you located? In Houston before Uber or Lyft I'd routinely get taxi's that wouldn't show up or would show up 6 hrs late. I've had a problem several times with taxi's being rude to my wife. And I've had several female friends who despite riding an Uber 100x more than Taxi's in their life have several times felt unsafe in a Taxi and never felt unsafe in an Uber.
Glad to see Lyft taking this stance, hopefully Uber follows up. California shouldn't be outlawing independent contractors.
if they can't afford to pay benefits and a decent wage to their drivers then they're just an unsustainable business! glad they "disrupted" transit and made it harder to build good public transit by giving tax-shy politicians an excuse.
And despite the low wages both Uber and Lyft continue to operate at a loss! The business model just doesn't work and no amount of softbank cash can change that.
And despite the low wages both Uber and Lyft continue to operate at a loss! The business model just doesn't work and no amount of softbank cash can change that.
If your business model is built upon skirting labor laws to employ workers, then perhaps you shouldn't be in business.
California needs to become a purple state again. Ever since 1 party supermajority has taken over, monumentally idiotic laws have come into play and there is 0 checks and balances. The media is completely biased as well so other systems of checks are failing.
"As employees they would have to work set schedules and shifts, would not be able to work for multiple app-based companies and would have reduced earning potential — and many jobs would actually be eliminated." (https://prop22facts.com/lyft/)
Is that something mandated by California? As far as I know, everywhere else I've been, work-schedules and anti-moonlighting are restrictions placed by the employer, not the state.
Is that something mandated by California? As far as I know, everywhere else I've been, work-schedules and anti-moonlighting are restrictions placed by the employer, not the state.
Under federal tax law if you're an employee it means you have a schedule. And if you're getting paid by the hour by Lyft you can't double dip and also get paid by the hour by Uber.
I believe you have that inverted: if your employer gives you a schedule (among other things), that makes you an employee.
Correct. But the point stands about being able to only work for one ride sharing app. How could they possibly cover minimum wage for folks without setting a schedule and requiring that they not be working for other apps at the same time?
Hilarious stuff here. "Yes, I was wrong in my original post, I had it absolutely backwards. However, did you consider something totally unrelated?"
This shouldn't have been downvoted. it's 100% accurate and the grandparent post's pivoting from one topic to another is a classic bad debate tactic.
I imagine the reason it's downvoted is not because the point isn't valid, but because of the tone.
From the HN guidelines:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
From the HN guidelines:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
We're not obliged to accommodate bullshit. The above only works when everyone is participating in good faith.
It's not a pivot. I literally mentioned double dipping in my parent comment. At any rate, unless you are a salaried worker, you have to have a schedule so that minimum wage can be computed.
Perhaps by having drivers commit to a single platform, an hour at a time. At the end of the hour-long "shift" the driver then picks which platform to work for in the next hour, or chooses to go home.
I don't think it's an anti-moonlight clause, I think it's saying that you can't do what many drivers do now, which is sign on to both apps and wait for a ride to come in, then sign out of the one you're not serving.
If you're an employee on the clock, you can't be on the clock for two different organizations at the same time.
If you're an employee on the clock, you can't be on the clock for two different organizations at the same time.
[deleted]
>you can't be on the clock for two different companies at the same time
I mean, I don't see why not. Would create some inefficiencies. But I don't think there is a law against that.
I mean, I don't see why not. Would create some inefficiencies. But I don't think there is a law against that.
Can you expand on how that would work? Would you get minimum wage from each one?
I’m not an expert in the matter, but I imagine that as employees, Lyft and Uber could more strictly penalize them for not accepting rides, which the driver would have to do pretty often if they were driving for multiple platforms simultaneously.
When I was a BOFH, we had a guy working the night shift who would always be a little slow at getting processing done in time for the rest of corporate to show up and need their data. It was odd but I don’t remember anyone looking into it.
Until one time there was a problem with one of the jobs (which meant other jobs could not be run) and no one had their data in the morning. He was asked why he didn’t contact one of us for help and didn’t really have an answer.
The boss checked the cameras to figure out what this guy was doing. Turns out the guy came in, started as many of the jobs as could be run in parallel, then left to work his shift at another place, came back on his lunch break and fired off another round of jobs, left and finished his shift at the other place, then came back and finished his shift at our place (our shifts were 10-17 hours long). He was confronted and admitted it. I don’t recall if he was fired or if he quit.
Until one time there was a problem with one of the jobs (which meant other jobs could not be run) and no one had their data in the morning. He was asked why he didn’t contact one of us for help and didn’t really have an answer.
The boss checked the cameras to figure out what this guy was doing. Turns out the guy came in, started as many of the jobs as could be run in parallel, then left to work his shift at another place, came back on his lunch break and fired off another round of jobs, left and finished his shift at the other place, then came back and finished his shift at our place (our shifts were 10-17 hours long). He was confronted and admitted it. I don’t recall if he was fired or if he quit.
Good for him for making the most of shitty situation.
I'm a bit more hesitant to cheer on fraud.
'Fraud' is an overstatement for someone described as doing their job sufficiently 99% of the time.
Was this employee hired to press some buttons then bugger off for a few hours? Or were they hired to ensure some jobs ran correctly? Also, were they paid to press some buttons and work for two hours a day, or were they collecting paychecks as if they'd worked for their full shift? I'm going to guess they didn't voluntarily decline 90% of their paycheck.
You can absolutely argue that the job was stupid and should be automated (it should've been) - you can absolutely argue about whether that person was feeling societal pressures to work two jobs and felt like this was the only way to make ends meet. Both of those points are tangential, though - a lot of folks face them.
He still either fraudulently reported hours (if paid hourly) or failed to meet the expectations of his employment contract. And, in the end, it actually caused other people to likely do overtime to cover up for his skimping.
You can absolutely argue that the job was stupid and should be automated (it should've been) - you can absolutely argue about whether that person was feeling societal pressures to work two jobs and felt like this was the only way to make ends meet. Both of those points are tangential, though - a lot of folks face them.
He still either fraudulently reported hours (if paid hourly) or failed to meet the expectations of his employment contract. And, in the end, it actually caused other people to likely do overtime to cover up for his skimping.
I can clear things up a bit. First off, you're right. It absolutely was fraudulent. The job was being a butt-in-chair in case things went wrong more than it was typing a few keys. There were also some low priority tasks (irregular data entry, restocking printers with paper, etc.), but no one seemed to care if those jobs were done. My memory is very hazy regarding this detail so take it with a huge grain of salt, but I believe he quit because they offered him that versus being fired and charged with a crime. (There were some other shenanigans with other employees, and I can't be sure I'm not conflating things or making them up.)
> You can absolutely argue that the job was stupid and should be automated (it should've been)...
Yes. See my reply to another reply.
> you can absolutely argue about whether that person was feeling societal pressures to work two jobs and felt like this was the only way to make ends meet.
In this time and place, I worked three jobs (separately, and with my employers' full knowledge) and had all my bills paid off the first week of each month. With only (and any) one of those three jobs paying my bills off would have taken about 2.5 weeks. Each job was technically unskilled (although skills helped) and required only a high school diploma.) It was a very prosperous time with low unemployment. I've never been one for societal pressures, but this guy didn't have kids (neither did I at the time); which I think would have been the strongest defense.
> And, in the end, it actually caused other people to likely do overtime to cover up for his skimping.
It definitely had some downstream consequences... possibly overtime but I can't be sure, and although most of the people involved were salaried, on a personal level, they ended up staying later than they otherwise would have.
> You can absolutely argue that the job was stupid and should be automated (it should've been)...
Yes. See my reply to another reply.
> you can absolutely argue about whether that person was feeling societal pressures to work two jobs and felt like this was the only way to make ends meet.
In this time and place, I worked three jobs (separately, and with my employers' full knowledge) and had all my bills paid off the first week of each month. With only (and any) one of those three jobs paying my bills off would have taken about 2.5 weeks. Each job was technically unskilled (although skills helped) and required only a high school diploma.) It was a very prosperous time with low unemployment. I've never been one for societal pressures, but this guy didn't have kids (neither did I at the time); which I think would have been the strongest defense.
> And, in the end, it actually caused other people to likely do overtime to cover up for his skimping.
It definitely had some downstream consequences... possibly overtime but I can't be sure, and although most of the people involved were salaried, on a personal level, they ended up staying later than they otherwise would have.
Looks like his job could have been replaced with a script?
Absolutely. I wrote such a script as a proof-of-concept and was yelled at because it was considered a 'security risk' for me to use company tools to write code (as a not-hired-for-programming employee) even though I already had access to literally all the company's data and their security practices were such that exfiltrating their data without being caught would have been trivial even if I never placed any code on their systems. The place was extremely dysfunctional and there were significant trust issues that were completely irrational and inconsistent. So a script that did this job was largely out of the question.
> If you're an employee on the clock, you can't be on the clock for two different organizations at the same time.
I don't see why that would not be possible.
I don't see why that would not be possible.
I think here, "on the clock" also implies "available to drive" or "driving". I can't be driving two different people for two different companies at the same time, so I'm not really available to drive for both companies.
Because if they are driving someone for Uber, they can't be on the clock for Lyft.
But it is (physically) possible to be idle for both employers at the same time.
What happens if ride requests for both come in at the same time? Do you take the uber one or the lyft one? If you work for uber, you're obligated to take the uber ride. Ditto for lyft.
But it is possible to work out, technically.
Of course these companies prefer not to, because their business model is now based on exploiting workers.
Of course these companies prefer not to, because their business model is now based on exploiting workers.
This would require the employers to collude as to where to have you idling. (Employees don't get to pick exactly where they work.)
How so? That may be part of a given employment contract, but nothing in the legal definition of employment says it.
It's not part of the legal definition, it's a practical matter.
Assume the employers did not collude for an employee on shift at both employers during a given time period (say 9am-1pm):
- Uber says to idle near LAX, because that fits what Uber needs at that time.
- Lyft says to idle near BUR, because that fits what Lyft needs at that time.
Those locations are approximately 37 minutes away as I write this, despite both being quite logically in the same metro area. It's eminently reasonable to expect an employee to serve an area that encompasses (even much more than) the area between those two points, so an employee would not reasonably get a routine say in where inside the region she is asked to idle.
QED the only way to routinely guarantee that Uber and Lyft ask an employee to idle in the same location is for Uber and Lyft to collude on staffing decisions. This opens up other legal concerns (and may be illegal).
Assume the employers did not collude for an employee on shift at both employers during a given time period (say 9am-1pm):
- Uber says to idle near LAX, because that fits what Uber needs at that time.
- Lyft says to idle near BUR, because that fits what Lyft needs at that time.
Those locations are approximately 37 minutes away as I write this, despite both being quite logically in the same metro area. It's eminently reasonable to expect an employee to serve an area that encompasses (even much more than) the area between those two points, so an employee would not reasonably get a routine say in where inside the region she is asked to idle.
QED the only way to routinely guarantee that Uber and Lyft ask an employee to idle in the same location is for Uber and Lyft to collude on staffing decisions. This opens up other legal concerns (and may be illegal).
Why can't they start the clock once they accept a ride?
Because labor law says that if you're ready and prepared to work for an employer, you have to be paid whether or not you're actively involved in something. Waiting around for a ride counts as "working", so you get paid for it.
It's the same reason that an employer can't make all their employees clock out when the factory production line stops to fix a problem.
It's the same reason that an employer can't make all their employees clock out when the factory production line stops to fix a problem.
This is not the only way to employ workers, though.
We often think of "on the clock" employment in terms of shift work, where the worker has a scheduled, fixed-length shift with a single employer, and whether they're actively working during that time or waiting around for the employer to tell them what to do next, they're paid for the hours on the clock.
But it is possible for ridesharing companies to employ workers in "micro-shifts" that last the duration of a single ride.
So, Driver X has two part-time jobs: as a part-time employee of Lyft and a part-time employee of Uber. Driver X is ready to work, so checks the apps, and sees there's a Lyft assignment available. Driver X accepts the ride, and for the duration of that ride, he is working exclusively for Lyft, and Lyft pays him for the time worked. Once that ride ends, his micro-shift with Lyft ends, and he's now available to work for either of his part-time jobs again.
The idea of micro-shifts may seem, at first blush, more like a contractor relationship than an employee relationship. And in the past, gigs that used this model were more likely to involve a contractor relationship -- but they also gave the contractor much more freedom in terms of HOW they accomplished the work.
In contrast, if you look at Uber and Lyft, ignoring the micro-shift aspect, there is very little difference between how those jobs work and how other service-oriented part-time jobs work, in terms of the power the employer has to dictate HOW the work gets done.
We often think of "on the clock" employment in terms of shift work, where the worker has a scheduled, fixed-length shift with a single employer, and whether they're actively working during that time or waiting around for the employer to tell them what to do next, they're paid for the hours on the clock.
But it is possible for ridesharing companies to employ workers in "micro-shifts" that last the duration of a single ride.
So, Driver X has two part-time jobs: as a part-time employee of Lyft and a part-time employee of Uber. Driver X is ready to work, so checks the apps, and sees there's a Lyft assignment available. Driver X accepts the ride, and for the duration of that ride, he is working exclusively for Lyft, and Lyft pays him for the time worked. Once that ride ends, his micro-shift with Lyft ends, and he's now available to work for either of his part-time jobs again.
The idea of micro-shifts may seem, at first blush, more like a contractor relationship than an employee relationship. And in the past, gigs that used this model were more likely to involve a contractor relationship -- but they also gave the contractor much more freedom in terms of HOW they accomplished the work.
In contrast, if you look at Uber and Lyft, ignoring the micro-shift aspect, there is very little difference between how those jobs work and how other service-oriented part-time jobs work, in terms of the power the employer has to dictate HOW the work gets done.
This idea of micro-shifts sounds made up. Can you reference any companies that have this setup as an employer-employee relationship?
I've done tutoring for people in small increments like 15-30 minutes for questions before tests. That seems similar to micro-shifts though that is freelance. Lawyers have billable hours and work for multiple clients. Some firms do have compensation tied to billable hours as well. While it's not exactly the same thing the result feels similar to me.
All that is true, but remember that we're operating within the realm of legal terminology here.
What the word "employee" means within the context of California labor laws is probably quite different from what we understand it to mean in everyday conversation. What one can imagine might work in an abstract sense may not be even remotely possible within California's legal framework. What is known to already happen and work well in other states isn't necessarily possible in California, either. (At least not without getting the legislature involved.)
What the word "employee" means within the context of California labor laws is probably quite different from what we understand it to mean in everyday conversation. What one can imagine might work in an abstract sense may not be even remotely possible within California's legal framework. What is known to already happen and work well in other states isn't necessarily possible in California, either. (At least not without getting the legislature involved.)
Both of those examples aren't similar at at all.
Your freelance tutoring is not employer/employee work. You're a freelancer. You set your own hours and rates.
Lawyers do not work for multiple law firms, choosing which firm to work for as they see fit. Whereas drivers very often work for both Lyft and Uber (and Postmates or Grubhub, etc) at the same time.
Your freelance tutoring is not employer/employee work. You're a freelancer. You set your own hours and rates.
Lawyers do not work for multiple law firms, choosing which firm to work for as they see fit. Whereas drivers very often work for both Lyft and Uber (and Postmates or Grubhub, etc) at the same time.
Yes neither of my examples were exactly the same. I'm talking about feel and results and specifically I wasn't talking about how current drivers operate, I was talking about how the resulting circumstance might exist in the future.
But to go back to the tutoring example: if I was working for a tutoring company, agreed to take clients between lets say 1-5 PM, and the rate was set by the company, would that be similar enough?
But to go back to the tutoring example: if I was working for a tutoring company, agreed to take clients between lets say 1-5 PM, and the rate was set by the company, would that be similar enough?
Lawyers that do billable hours aren't the employees of the client they bill. So you actually are proving the point opposite to what you wanted to prove.
I'm not trying to prove anything, just exploring. Anyways, I'm talking about the result. I also don't know enough about CA employe law to make any claims, which I don't think I did.
In California though an issue with your "micros-shifts" is that California State Laws would apply things like call in pay for this and would also have to pay minimum hours for an employee showing up for a short shift. If an employee gets called in to do 30 minutes of work, the company has to pay the employee at least a certain amount of hours I think it's 2 or 4. So that micro shift of a 10 minute ride, Uber/Lyft would have to pay them 2-4 hours wages at a minimum. So the micro-shifts wouldn't work with current state laws.
https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/wage-and-hour-laws/sta...
That seems like a reasonable thing to change in the law
Yeah, I would much rather see lawmakers recognize that ridesharing workers are employees, and change the law to accommodate micro-shifts, than to say that because micro-shifts go against existing law, ridesharing workers can't possibly be employees.
That said, there is certainly a good reason for minimum-length shifts and on-call payments in other industries, so I'm willing to acknowledge that striking the right balance that protects workers across the board might be difficult.
That said, there is certainly a good reason for minimum-length shifts and on-call payments in other industries, so I'm willing to acknowledge that striking the right balance that protects workers across the board might be difficult.
If this is really the case (and I have my doubts) then wouldn't the two companies just create a joint employment pool by subcontracting out their workers to a third party which handled all the benefits and such and passed the necessary costs on to Uber & Lyft?
Yeah I am fairly sure it's a straight up lie!
Just because someone is an employee doesn't mean the employer can't give them flexible hours
Just because someone is an employee doesn't mean the employer can't give them flexible hours
if you pick your own hours and your own pickups, you are not anyone's employee -you by definition are your own boss. to be an employee, you have to have your hours and your work defined by your employer. employers tell you what work to do and when to do it. flexible hours don't work when at 4pm on tuesday dispatch yells you to pick someone up.
california is forcing all rideshare contractors to be employees. that's not just a checkbox on a form.
california is forcing all rideshare contractors to be employees. that's not just a checkbox on a form.
And the employer is free to "assign" you the very "shift" you yourself picked. Every time.
The dissonance here is amazing. Uber and Lyft literally started operating in cities and countries where rideshare was explicitly outlawed, hoping they would come around. But now that they had a year to prepare for this, all they found it in themselves to do is pick up their toys and go home? Don't fall for it.
The dissonance here is amazing. Uber and Lyft literally started operating in cities and countries where rideshare was explicitly outlawed, hoping they would come around. But now that they had a year to prepare for this, all they found it in themselves to do is pick up their toys and go home? Don't fall for it.
This is incorrect.
Determining whether someone is an independent contractor has always involved multiple factors. Flexibility of working hours is just one of the factors.
You cannot say categorically that having the ability to choose your own hours makes you an independent contractor rather than an employee.
Other factors include:
* What level of control does the employer have in dictating HOW the work is done?
* Is the worker performing work that is outside the usual course of the employer's business?
* Is it customary for the work to be performed as an independent trade?
Determining whether someone is an independent contractor has always involved multiple factors. Flexibility of working hours is just one of the factors.
You cannot say categorically that having the ability to choose your own hours makes you an independent contractor rather than an employee.
Other factors include:
* What level of control does the employer have in dictating HOW the work is done?
* Is the worker performing work that is outside the usual course of the employer's business?
* Is it customary for the work to be performed as an independent trade?
HOW the work is done is chosen by the driver. They are free to take a different route
The employer's business is connecting cars to riders with software. The driver's usual job is HR, and he uses the lyft service to make extra cash on his way home.
The last point is not something that determines a contractor. What you choose to do for money does not have to be a trade. It can be anything.
There are no working hours. You don't get paid by lyft for hours you 'work.' You get paid for engagements you pick -the rides. Getting paid per project, not for time you put in makes you a contractor for that gig.
The employer's business is connecting cars to riders with software. The driver's usual job is HR, and he uses the lyft service to make extra cash on his way home.
The last point is not something that determines a contractor. What you choose to do for money does not have to be a trade. It can be anything.
There are no working hours. You don't get paid by lyft for hours you 'work.' You get paid for engagements you pick -the rides. Getting paid per project, not for time you put in makes you a contractor for that gig.
What if you can't choose the price, you don't know the details of the work before accepting and get punished for not doing enough work?
That doesn't sound very independent to me.
That doesn't sound very independent to me.
You know it's a ride with pickup in an area. You are free to take the gig or not. You get paid for the gig. That is you choosing your work. That makes it a contract. People who do more work can be compensated better -that has nothing to do with whether or not its a contract.
W2 means you get paid salary or by the hour. Have you ever seen a W2 stub? It doesn't have 'projects' on it. It has a pay rate. Becoming W2 for drivers means they have a salary, and a bonus. So now they're hourly employees. This is literally on the W3 form employers submit to the IRS every year. Not knowing the paid amount before hand is one of the things making it a contract, yet you're claiming not knowing how much you will get paid makes it W2. Amazing gymnastics.
W2 means you get paid salary or by the hour. Have you ever seen a W2 stub? It doesn't have 'projects' on it. It has a pay rate. Becoming W2 for drivers means they have a salary, and a bonus. So now they're hourly employees. This is literally on the W3 form employers submit to the IRS every year. Not knowing the paid amount before hand is one of the things making it a contract, yet you're claiming not knowing how much you will get paid makes it W2. Amazing gymnastics.
The idea of it being a "contract" isn't in dispute. It's about whether these employees can legally be classified as "INDEPENDENT contractors". They aren't independent in the normal sense of word (I'm paying particular attention to your gymnastics around how workers can't specify their rate) nor in the legal sense.
They don't have a rate. That's the whole point. A W2 employee has to have a rate, hourly/annual/weekly/etc. They have a salary or rate. A 1099 is the only way you can charge per project instead of per rate. When you determine how much you get paid for the project you yourself pick and start is irrelevant to whether you're independent and 1099. In fact if you include contractors working on your house repairs, you have an estimate and agree on the total well into the project.
paid per project you choose yourself =contractor. salary or rate =employee.
determining how much you get paid has nothing to do with employee or not. in fact, as I keep stating, not knowing how much you get paid literally makes you not an employee.
paid per project you choose yourself =contractor. salary or rate =employee.
determining how much you get paid has nothing to do with employee or not. in fact, as I keep stating, not knowing how much you get paid literally makes you not an employee.
Each individual ride has a price/rate, and the workers of Uber can't set their own rates. Yeah, I know workers don't have a single hourly wage. Pointing that out doesn't obscure the fact that Uber and Lyft dictate completely the most important aspect of working for them. This is totally different from the idea of working as an independent contractor both in spirit and legally.
If you are required to provide your employees benefits, then you need to hire them for a certain number of hours to amortize those benefits costs.
And if you are hiring Joe to work 40 hours as an Uber driver then you need to make sure he works 40 hours that make sense. Thus benefits require a minimum number of hours, and a minimum number of hours requires a schedule.
And if you are hiring Joe to work 40 hours as an Uber driver then you need to make sure he works 40 hours that make sense. Thus benefits require a minimum number of hours, and a minimum number of hours requires a schedule.
With employees, you can't rely on variable supply and demand pricing to ensure the most drivers are there at peak times -- instead, you have to do it through scheduling instead.
And it's not so much anti-moonlighting as not being able to work for multiple companies at the same time (hour). Right now, a driver often is waiting for both Lyft and Uber riders. If they're an hourly employee, they obviously can't do that anymore.
So no, none of this is mandated, but it's the only way a business could operate.
And it's not so much anti-moonlighting as not being able to work for multiple companies at the same time (hour). Right now, a driver often is waiting for both Lyft and Uber riders. If they're an hourly employee, they obviously can't do that anymore.
So no, none of this is mandated, but it's the only way a business could operate.
I guess you've never heard of being on-call? Tech and healthcare have very well established demand supply systems. Some mechanical service sectors as well - tow trucks, infrastructure repair.
I don't know anyone who is paid to be on call at two different employers simultaneously.
neither do i. all of the on-call folks I know must respond to pages; they don't have the option to pass on them.
that's just the existing on-call model. it's quite easy to imagine that a service overprovisions to account for people not being required to accept a "page". that overprovisioning specifically is so that people can hold multiple on-call type jobs simultaneously.
that's just the existing on-call model. it's quite easy to imagine that a service overprovisions to account for people not being required to accept a "page". that overprovisioning specifically is so that people can hold multiple on-call type jobs simultaneously.
But I think if Uber and Lyft are required to pay their employees an hourly rate they would then require them to respond to every page for their scheduled shift.
They don't now? I'd heard both would boot you from their network if you turn down too many rides.
Back when I had to work be on call there was a minimum number of hours, so if I got a call at 2am from a client and I fixed the problem in 15 minutes I would still bill both them and the company for 2 hours. Not sure if there's a law mandating this or it was just the company policy.
On call and showing up for a work request are both mandated by law in CA. That's where a lot of issues people are overlooking lay with Uber/Lyft having employees. In their current model they would have to pay drivers just for logging into the app. If the driver did one customer drive and it took 10 minutes, they would have to pay the driver minimum 2 hours.
Sure, you can use demand pricing. Offer the employee minimum wage or the commissions from rides, whichever is greater.
Ah, you say, but what about them being "on the clock" while not actually being willing to drive? The same thing that happens if they turn down a Lyft ride because they're driving an Uber customer: you fire them. And possibly charge them with fraud.
From what I've read here, it seems like all of the "only way a business could operate" responses are based on Uber or Lyft propaganda.
Ah, you say, but what about them being "on the clock" while not actually being willing to drive? The same thing that happens if they turn down a Lyft ride because they're driving an Uber customer: you fire them. And possibly charge them with fraud.
From what I've read here, it seems like all of the "only way a business could operate" responses are based on Uber or Lyft propaganda.
I hear this a lot, that Lyft/Uber could allow the same flexibility if they wanted to.
It's not that the law dictates this shift, it's that the economics do. Requiring full employment means you can hire less drivers.
If you have less drivers, you need more control over when they drive in order to make sure when customers are looking for a ride, they can find one, hence shifts.
It's not that the law dictates this shift, it's that the economics do. Requiring full employment means you can hire less drivers.
If you have less drivers, you need more control over when they drive in order to make sure when customers are looking for a ride, they can find one, hence shifts.
Basically this. As best I can tell, most of the flexibility Uber and Lyft want is the flexibility to pay people less and give them less benefits and prevent them from being able to unionize/organize effectively.
Assuming that what Lyft is saying about "4 out of 5 drivers don't support" is accurate, that would seem to imply that this is also about giving flexibility to all the people who are only driving 5 hours a week to pick up some spare pocket change. Which is the model for how this would mostly work that is invoked by the word "rideshare."
I do see a potential problem here of the interests of people who do this as their job being unnecessarily put into direct conflict with the interests of people who don't do this as their job.
I do see a potential problem here of the interests of people who do this as their job being unnecessarily put into direct conflict with the interests of people who don't do this as their job.
People being taken advantage of by unfair business practices are usually still making an active choice to participate in those unfair practices. People making below minimum wage would likely rather keep that below minimum wage job than be fired because the company refuses to pay them more. That is still not a valid argument against the minimum wage.
A business model that relies on unfair business practices is not a viable business model. We just need to make sure that the employees caught in this transition have a social safety net that protects them from the financial repercussions of implementing these higher standards for all employees.
A business model that relies on unfair business practices is not a viable business model. We just need to make sure that the employees caught in this transition have a social safety net that protects them from the financial repercussions of implementing these higher standards for all employees.
Surely "ridesharing" should be reserved for when a group of people share the same vehicle and all are going in the same direction, with another purpose than driving the group there. If I drive my friend to the airport and I then drive back we did not share a ride I gave him a ride.
No employer would accept fulltime employees working for their direct competitor at the same time?
You think Burger King gives a shit if their cashier also takes shifts at McDonalds?
They certainly do if that cashier is working the same shift at McDonalds as when he's supposed to be at Burger King. His manager will also care if his work at another employer affects his performance when he's working his shift at Burger King.
It's physically impossible to flip burgers at McDonalds and Burger King at the same time. Presumably, it would be pointless for a driver to work for Uber in the morning and Lyft in the evenings.
And a driver can’t driver a Uber passenger at the same time they drive a Lyft passenger.
... no but they can be ONLINE on both apps as a driver at the same time (according to this online time would count as time spent working)
That would be fraud, if they were getting benefits from both.
Isn’t that just the on the ground reality, whether you wish to call things legit or not?
I think you missed the point.
Why would someone work 2 part-time jobs at $12/hr instead of one full-time job at $12/hr?
Why would someone work 2 part-time jobs at $12/hr instead of one full-time job at $12/hr?
They certainly don't let you work for both at the exact same moment in time (which is quite common with drivers who have both Uber and Lyft open at same moment). Also Burger King generally sets your schedule and McDonalds usually sets your schedule. It's usually not feasible to work for both, because they both might end up scheduling you in the same time slot.
You are describing a literal impossibility as your example, being physically present at the Burger King and McDonald’s at the same time.
It’s the very same thing as say a driver can’t give a passenger a ride for Uber at the same time they are giving a ride for a Lyft passenger.
> It's usually not feasible to work for both, because they both might end up scheduling you in the same time slot.
You are essentially trying to argue no one Can work 2 jobs because of potential scheduling conflicts. Plenty of people work 2-3 jobs, often times for competitors in the same industry.
It’s the very same thing as say a driver can’t give a passenger a ride for Uber at the same time they are giving a ride for a Lyft passenger.
> It's usually not feasible to work for both, because they both might end up scheduling you in the same time slot.
You are essentially trying to argue no one Can work 2 jobs because of potential scheduling conflicts. Plenty of people work 2-3 jobs, often times for competitors in the same industry.
Agree but what prevent a driver to log in both Lyft and Uber at the same time, to wait for a ride. Working for both at the same time?
Not quite. If Uber and Lyft must shoulder the burden of full-time employee status, they should get the benefits, too: dictating when someone works for maximum profit, and a no-compete clause in the contract.
The best solution is for the state to end the distinction between independent contractors and full-time employees. I wonder if there's a way to manipulate state corporate taxes and credits to essentially nullify the federal employee status rules. Increase corporate state income tax, use the revenue to credit the employer's portion of social security tax and the independent contractor's excess social security tax. Put a state sales tax on group medical insurance plans and use the funds to provide a public option. Could get complicated, but there's probably a way.
The best solution is for the state to end the distinction between independent contractors and full-time employees. I wonder if there's a way to manipulate state corporate taxes and credits to essentially nullify the federal employee status rules. Increase corporate state income tax, use the revenue to credit the employer's portion of social security tax and the independent contractor's excess social security tax. Put a state sales tax on group medical insurance plans and use the funds to provide a public option. Could get complicated, but there's probably a way.
> It's not that the law dictates this shift, it's that the economics do.
You can check their S-1 filing for the “economics” of it...Uber before going public was losing money and acknowledged the legal risk they had been misclassifying drivers as contractors and should drivers be reclassified as employees it’s an existential threat to Uber.
That’s the economics of it...Uber knew they were in the wrong, they knew the day of reckoning was coming and investors took the damn thing public for maximum profits and to cash out and leave others holding the bag.
But the reality is the whole employee/independent contractor issue is just a scapegoat for investors to point their finger at regulations and say that’s why the business failed, but the truth is even without the illegal classification of drivers Uber would never have turned a profit.
You can check their S-1 filing for the “economics” of it...Uber before going public was losing money and acknowledged the legal risk they had been misclassifying drivers as contractors and should drivers be reclassified as employees it’s an existential threat to Uber.
That’s the economics of it...Uber knew they were in the wrong, they knew the day of reckoning was coming and investors took the damn thing public for maximum profits and to cash out and leave others holding the bag.
But the reality is the whole employee/independent contractor issue is just a scapegoat for investors to point their finger at regulations and say that’s why the business failed, but the truth is even without the illegal classification of drivers Uber would never have turned a profit.
This isn't how their S-1 reads at all... they never say they misclassified drivers. The drivers were truly independent contractors under the law at the time they filed and they note that if they were converted to employees this would cause a GREAT increase in costs...
You took a potentially objective point and added a ton of spin to it :/
You took a potentially objective point and added a ton of spin to it :/
> This isn't how their S-1 reads at all...
Of course they don’t admit they misclassifying the drivers, but Under the S-1 risk factors:
The independent contractor status of Drivers is currently being challenged in courts and by government agencies in the United States and abroad. We are involved in numerous legal proceedings globally, including putative class and collective class action lawsuits, demands for arbitration, charges and claims before administrative agencies, and investigations or audits by labor, social security, and tax authorities that claim that Drivers should be treated as our employees (or as workers or quasi-employees where those statuses exist), rather than as independent contractors... Nevertheless, we may not be successful in defending the independent contractor status of Drivers in some or all jurisdictions... any such reclassification would require us to fundamentally change our business model, and consequently have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition.
In fact the IPO includes citations to multiple lawsuits including one they settled for $20M for improper classification.
Of course they don’t admit they misclassifying the drivers, but Under the S-1 risk factors:
The independent contractor status of Drivers is currently being challenged in courts and by government agencies in the United States and abroad. We are involved in numerous legal proceedings globally, including putative class and collective class action lawsuits, demands for arbitration, charges and claims before administrative agencies, and investigations or audits by labor, social security, and tax authorities that claim that Drivers should be treated as our employees (or as workers or quasi-employees where those statuses exist), rather than as independent contractors... Nevertheless, we may not be successful in defending the independent contractor status of Drivers in some or all jurisdictions... any such reclassification would require us to fundamentally change our business model, and consequently have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition.
In fact the IPO includes citations to multiple lawsuits including one they settled for $20M for improper classification.
When they talk about "shift work" they're referring to the way the taxi industry works. The reason the taxi industry works that way is because most drivers drive company cars which are owned & maintained by the company. Drivers that own their own cars can drive whenever they want to. There are no shifts.
I drove a taxicab for more than a year back in the 90's. That's the way it worked then. Most drivers were shift because they "rented" the car from the company and shared it with other workers. A few drivers were owner-operators who got to set their own hours. This is closer to the model that Uber & Lyft operate under today.
So when Lyft claims that they would be forced to enforce shift work on their owner-operators, this is a lie. There is already a model for this type of driving that predates Uber & Lyft and they're just choosing to ignore it now because it serves their current interests.
I drove a taxicab for more than a year back in the 90's. That's the way it worked then. Most drivers were shift because they "rented" the car from the company and shared it with other workers. A few drivers were owner-operators who got to set their own hours. This is closer to the model that Uber & Lyft operate under today.
So when Lyft claims that they would be forced to enforce shift work on their owner-operators, this is a lie. There is already a model for this type of driving that predates Uber & Lyft and they're just choosing to ignore it now because it serves their current interests.
If Uber enforces "shift work", I am sure those shifts will be like city bus shifts, constantly filled by trips with minimal driver rests; than like yellow cab shifts, which are normally idle and dispatched sparsely.
I don't think the economics dictate such a shift. I have had jobs where I was paid hourly, could start and stop at will, and for which I received a W2. (This was for a temp agency in CA.)
Is there anything in CA law that prevent Lyft from basically doing exactly what they had been doing but also paying payroll taxes on driver income?
Is there anything in CA law that prevent Lyft from basically doing exactly what they had been doing but also paying payroll taxes on driver income?
I think the ultimate sticking point is benefits and payroll taxes, and what a lot of the friction is that it's piecework that doesn't have a "conversion" to hours (which are how a lot of our benefits are normally calculated).
What really needs to happen is that conversion rate needs to be established for this kind of work. So if an average driver can do 20 fares per day, times 20 working days per month, then a "full time" uber employee drives 400 fares per month. Or figure it out on a per-mile basis - like the average fare is 4 miles (let's say) so the average driver does 1600 miles/mo.
Figure out the per-ride or per-mile fee and roll that into the fares. Done and done.
(frankly this is being generous - delivery drivers and waitresses are paid "per fare" too, and we still expect their employers to pay for their benefits.)
Really what needs to happen though is we implement government-provided universal healthcare and maybe a basic income, and then you can have all the wacky gig-economy payment schemes you want.
What really needs to happen is that conversion rate needs to be established for this kind of work. So if an average driver can do 20 fares per day, times 20 working days per month, then a "full time" uber employee drives 400 fares per month. Or figure it out on a per-mile basis - like the average fare is 4 miles (let's say) so the average driver does 1600 miles/mo.
Figure out the per-ride or per-mile fee and roll that into the fares. Done and done.
(frankly this is being generous - delivery drivers and waitresses are paid "per fare" too, and we still expect their employers to pay for their benefits.)
Really what needs to happen though is we implement government-provided universal healthcare and maybe a basic income, and then you can have all the wacky gig-economy payment schemes you want.
This would be a positive force as it would reduce overcrowding of the local market and ensure work and pay for drivers. The Uber and Lyft driver pool is too large for reasonable pay for demand by nature. Something really important in an economy, is security of work and pay. For those who are on the schedule they can depend on their job to be able to live. For those who would not be on the schedule (due to demand) That would obviously be a massive unemployment issue but that was always the cost of regulating Uber.
Uber/Lyft does not exist to help the economy or the people of the US, they exist to help themselves. Otherwise they would charge and pay a working wage.
Uber/Lyft does not exist to help the economy or the people of the US, they exist to help themselves. Otherwise they would charge and pay a working wage.
Yeah I don't know maybe this is your experience. Maybe you're in a crowded city or something where everyone is tripping over themselves to drive for Uber/Lyft, but where I live there are often not enough drivers to meet demand.
Having been stranded far from home, both late night and in the early evening, I see Uber & Lyft as providing a valuable service.
Having been taken advantage of by taxi drivers on multiple occasions (I don't think I've ever actually had a good taxi experience) I don't want to go back to the way things were. Maybe other people like being defrauded by taxi drivers? Maybe people just forget how bad the taxi system is, and that at one point people were cheering the demise of the old taxi system for a reason.
Having been stranded far from home, both late night and in the early evening, I see Uber & Lyft as providing a valuable service.
Having been taken advantage of by taxi drivers on multiple occasions (I don't think I've ever actually had a good taxi experience) I don't want to go back to the way things were. Maybe other people like being defrauded by taxi drivers? Maybe people just forget how bad the taxi system is, and that at one point people were cheering the demise of the old taxi system for a reason.
My worst experience in any transportation was out of Newark, NJ by a taxi. Arrived late at night in the Penn station train terminal, went in the first taxi available to go to my hotel.
I was privileged to a high speed race through Newark running red lights, not responding to my pleas to stop, charge meter was off the whole ride, then a huge argument over the cab fare that almost got the cops called on us once I thankfully arrived at the hotel.
I’ve never been in a cab since.
Uber and Lyft has always been pleasant for me.
I was privileged to a high speed race through Newark running red lights, not responding to my pleas to stop, charge meter was off the whole ride, then a huge argument over the cab fare that almost got the cops called on us once I thankfully arrived at the hotel.
I’ve never been in a cab since.
Uber and Lyft has always been pleasant for me.
And yet, Uber and Lyft have reduced drunk driving rates, provided mobility to thousands of people who otherwise may not have it, and generally made life easier for millions, if not billions, of people around the world. It's almost like one can enrich themselves while helping others.
Nothing is stopping a regulated Uber/Lyft from doing this without underpaying workers. Minimum wage laws exist for a reason, after standard IRS tax deductions Uber and Lyft pay WAY under minimum wage.
This is not about minimum wage. It’s about gig work. There is quite a few people who like to do this part time. I think the real crux of the issue is health benefits. If you are not working full time you don’t get health insurance and that drives most laws like these which seem misdirected.
I think that's where a lot of people really overlook this. I'd be curious to see the percentages of 'full time' drivers vs gig drivers. Plenty of drivers I know just work this a couple hours a day to help cover cost of a new car or for beer money. It's not intended to support full time work. Like a small protein bar isn't meant to be a meal replacement. I wonder if Uber/Lyft should have fought the amount of time or rides that somebody can complete per day as a means to keep it really classified as a gig whereas they've set themselves up by allowing people to attempt to be full time drivers.
“Underpaying” workers. There are many long term Lyft / Uber / Instacart contractors out there. They have communities, share tips, etc. They seem fairly well educated on how much they are getting, and decide its worth it to tghem. How can you say they are underpaid?
Exploiting one part of the population is often beneficial for the other part of the population. Doesn't make it OK though.
You forgot: increased traffic[1] in already congested cities and tried to cover up rape and sexual assaults[2][3].
[1] https://www.npr.org/2019/05/08/721139488/uber-and-lyft-cause...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/business/lyft-sexual-assa...
[3] https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/uber-silences-women-sexu...
[1] https://www.npr.org/2019/05/08/721139488/uber-and-lyft-cause...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/business/lyft-sexual-assa...
[3] https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/uber-silences-women-sexu...
So why don't you start a competitor?
The idea that there is a gap in the market is something that people are looking for, on Hacker News most especially, and if this is a legitimate gap that Uber and Lyft are ignoring for silly reasons, then there should be a bunch of startups to take their place pretty quickly.
The idea that there is a gap in the market is something that people are looking for, on Hacker News most especially, and if this is a legitimate gap that Uber and Lyft are ignoring for silly reasons, then there should be a bunch of startups to take their place pretty quickly.
Yes, by common law, you cannot work for two people at the same time. This is the key. While moonlighting is an employer restriction, working two separate jobs at the same time is a legal one.
When an employee, you are legally the agent of the employer. Anything you agree to or do while employed is a liability of the employer, not you personally. That is why an employee at a VC firm can commit to provide capital, but doesn't have to pay it directly. Or why a manager of a company can take on debt, that is then the responsibility of the company, not himself.
You cannot be an agent of two companies at the same time. If you have both uber and lyft app running in your car, waiting for a passenger, and you get into a crash, if you are an employee working, then one of the companies is responsible for covering any damages you inflict. Of course, since you're not even on any particular 'job' at the time, who is responsible?
Moreover, you cannot have two companies paying you by the hour for the same hour.
Moreover, the law presumes that employees owe loyalty to their employer while working. So for example, if I am employed by a car dealership, but when a customer comes in during my shift, I decide to sell him my personal used car, instead of the companies, the company can actually sue me for failing to fulfill my duty of loyalty to them. You can't have someone working for both Uber and Lyft in this model. Since Uber and Lyft are competitors, by definition, you cannot be loyal to both. If you have both apps running and pick the best customer based on price, then you have shortchanged one of the companies, and open yourself up to liability. Contractors have no presumed assumption of loyalty to anyone but themselves. That is what allows them to pick the most profitable ride.
https://www.abacademies.org/articles/the-duty-of-loyalty-in-...
Uber has asked for California to come up with legal structures that provide benefits to employees while allowing their business model. This seems eminently reasonable: there are clear differences between Uber and Lyft drivers and traditional employees. It is the duty of government to innovate policy-wise so that the private sector can innovate business-wise. Unfortunately, California's legislature has failed to innovate anything and has instead decided to force innovators to use an outdated model of employment.
When an employee, you are legally the agent of the employer. Anything you agree to or do while employed is a liability of the employer, not you personally. That is why an employee at a VC firm can commit to provide capital, but doesn't have to pay it directly. Or why a manager of a company can take on debt, that is then the responsibility of the company, not himself.
You cannot be an agent of two companies at the same time. If you have both uber and lyft app running in your car, waiting for a passenger, and you get into a crash, if you are an employee working, then one of the companies is responsible for covering any damages you inflict. Of course, since you're not even on any particular 'job' at the time, who is responsible?
Moreover, you cannot have two companies paying you by the hour for the same hour.
Moreover, the law presumes that employees owe loyalty to their employer while working. So for example, if I am employed by a car dealership, but when a customer comes in during my shift, I decide to sell him my personal used car, instead of the companies, the company can actually sue me for failing to fulfill my duty of loyalty to them. You can't have someone working for both Uber and Lyft in this model. Since Uber and Lyft are competitors, by definition, you cannot be loyal to both. If you have both apps running and pick the best customer based on price, then you have shortchanged one of the companies, and open yourself up to liability. Contractors have no presumed assumption of loyalty to anyone but themselves. That is what allows them to pick the most profitable ride.
https://www.abacademies.org/articles/the-duty-of-loyalty-in-...
Uber has asked for California to come up with legal structures that provide benefits to employees while allowing their business model. This seems eminently reasonable: there are clear differences between Uber and Lyft drivers and traditional employees. It is the duty of government to innovate policy-wise so that the private sector can innovate business-wise. Unfortunately, California's legislature has failed to innovate anything and has instead decided to force innovators to use an outdated model of employment.
> Yes, by common law, you cannot work for two people at the same time.
Please cite something to back this up.
> Moreover, you cannot have two companies paying you by the hour for the same hour.
Why not? Again, please cite a source.
If we assume that uber et al. have a baseline staffing level, during which time you as driver might be paid to be working for them exclusively, then sure, during that period of "dedicated time" you would only be working for the one service. But then in addition to that, uber might have on-call hours to accommodate surge. During this time, you as employee driver are free to accept or pass on rides. Like voluntary overtime, by the task (piece work). In your OT/on-call hours you can also be on-call for ride service #2, since they could have the same go/no-go optional work acceptance. So why couldn't you do this? And why couldn't uber/lyft employ people this way?
Your example of being a car salesman is a bad analogy for ride service. I am not "working" for the ride service until I accept the ride, which constitutes clocking in for an on-call task. Whereas being a car salesman that sells my personal car while on-duty with my employer is a different situation.
Please cite something to back this up.
> Moreover, you cannot have two companies paying you by the hour for the same hour.
Why not? Again, please cite a source.
If we assume that uber et al. have a baseline staffing level, during which time you as driver might be paid to be working for them exclusively, then sure, during that period of "dedicated time" you would only be working for the one service. But then in addition to that, uber might have on-call hours to accommodate surge. During this time, you as employee driver are free to accept or pass on rides. Like voluntary overtime, by the task (piece work). In your OT/on-call hours you can also be on-call for ride service #2, since they could have the same go/no-go optional work acceptance. So why couldn't you do this? And why couldn't uber/lyft employ people this way?
Your example of being a car salesman is a bad analogy for ride service. I am not "working" for the ride service until I accept the ride, which constitutes clocking in for an on-call task. Whereas being a car salesman that sells my personal car while on-duty with my employer is a different situation.
This isn't quite right, or at least it's more nuanced than this.
One can in fact work two separate jobs at the same time without it being fraud (the only real "legal" restriction on working two jobs). You can also have two companies pay "you by the hour for the same hour" depending on the circumstances. There isn't a bright line rule that states this or anything, it comes down to whether one is committing fraud (and I agree it could be fraud in many cases, especially if done in secret).
The agent thing falls into the same category, and would depend on fraud and conflict of interest (loyalty, as you mentioned). And you can in fact be an agent of multiple companies or organizations at the same time, but things can get tricky (think of a hypothetical person being the CEO of Twitter and Square at the same time for example).
Your car example is also off the mark, or could be, because it's not a bright line rule. Loyalty to a company in Corporate Law is largely predicated on responsibility to the company via position or duties you've undertaken, and many cases have swung either way, and these can be hard or nuanced questions. Some small facts could change the whole car example, for example perhaps you only sell large vans, but the customer only wants a small convertible. In this case it might be proper for the employee to sell the person their personal Miata. It also doesn't consider higher level employees, executives for instance, and corporate opportunity. RE: "you cannot have two companies paying you by the hour for the same hour", sure you can, depending on the circumstances. Contrived example, but imagine a night security guard being paid to sit at a desk from midnight to eight am whose only responsibility is to have their butt in the seat. It might be okay for them to also be paid for a few hours of handling an online help desk for a third party employer for a couple hours, both being paid by the hour. That person is being paid by the hour by two employers simultaneously and it's not fraud or a breach of loyalty, especially for a hypothetical lower level employee who has permission.
Point is, these are not always easy questions, there is a lot of grey area, and you're really painting the agent and duty of loyalty thing as very black and white concepts when they're definitely not.
One can in fact work two separate jobs at the same time without it being fraud (the only real "legal" restriction on working two jobs). You can also have two companies pay "you by the hour for the same hour" depending on the circumstances. There isn't a bright line rule that states this or anything, it comes down to whether one is committing fraud (and I agree it could be fraud in many cases, especially if done in secret).
The agent thing falls into the same category, and would depend on fraud and conflict of interest (loyalty, as you mentioned). And you can in fact be an agent of multiple companies or organizations at the same time, but things can get tricky (think of a hypothetical person being the CEO of Twitter and Square at the same time for example).
Your car example is also off the mark, or could be, because it's not a bright line rule. Loyalty to a company in Corporate Law is largely predicated on responsibility to the company via position or duties you've undertaken, and many cases have swung either way, and these can be hard or nuanced questions. Some small facts could change the whole car example, for example perhaps you only sell large vans, but the customer only wants a small convertible. In this case it might be proper for the employee to sell the person their personal Miata. It also doesn't consider higher level employees, executives for instance, and corporate opportunity. RE: "you cannot have two companies paying you by the hour for the same hour", sure you can, depending on the circumstances. Contrived example, but imagine a night security guard being paid to sit at a desk from midnight to eight am whose only responsibility is to have their butt in the seat. It might be okay for them to also be paid for a few hours of handling an online help desk for a third party employer for a couple hours, both being paid by the hour. That person is being paid by the hour by two employers simultaneously and it's not fraud or a breach of loyalty, especially for a hypothetical lower level employee who has permission.
Point is, these are not always easy questions, there is a lot of grey area, and you're really painting the agent and duty of loyalty thing as very black and white concepts when they're definitely not.
Yeah, they're just saying that these are the conditions they'd choose to impose and hoping people will believe they're mandated by the state. I see this kind of bait and switch a lot.
It doesn't need to be mandated by the state. If the employer states that you cannot work for their competitor during your shift, then that is an enforceable term of employment (and FWIW, a very reasonable one that no one would bat an eyelid for in virtually any field of employment).
For example, if you were employed by Lyft as a driver, then presumably you would be neglecting your job duties if you refused to pick up a customer on the grounds that you happen to be driving a Uber customer at the time.
For example, if you were employed by Lyft as a driver, then presumably you would be neglecting your job duties if you refused to pick up a customer on the grounds that you happen to be driving a Uber customer at the time.
Yes, and?
The only way this industry can operate is if all of the drivers have to be searching for rides on all of the networks?
The only way this industry can operate is if all of the drivers have to be searching for rides on all of the networks?
Huh? I just said that would largely not be considered tolerable. Imagine working at a food court as a flex hours worker and jumping between the KFC counter and the McDonalds counter during the same shift. That might maybe sort of work if only one person does it, but that scheme is going to fall apart on the first lunch hour if all your employees are flex.
What employer would allow that?
Of course an employee can work at KFC and McD simultaneously if they can make arrangements to not have shift conflicts, and likewise one could hypothetically be a Uber employee in the morning and a Lyft employee at night, but why go through the trouble of working effectively full time but only getting redundant part timer benefit packages?
What employer would allow that?
Of course an employee can work at KFC and McD simultaneously if they can make arrangements to not have shift conflicts, and likewise one could hypothetically be a Uber employee in the morning and a Lyft employee at night, but why go through the trouble of working effectively full time but only getting redundant part timer benefit packages?
Big Corp lying to save their bottom line? No way....
The law makes their business model unprofitable so they are losing money if they keep operation
Of course the next step is to stop operating.
Of course the next step is to stop operating.
I'm fairly certain that it's illegal to pay someone for less than two hours of work [1 and 2] in California, so the practice of just doing a couple rides on your way home from dropping the kids off or hitting up peak rush hour for the bonus rate would be illegal.
1 https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_ReportingTimePay.htm
2 https://blog.accuchex.com/california-labor-laws-minimum-work...
1 https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_ReportingTimePay.htm
2 https://blog.accuchex.com/california-labor-laws-minimum-work...
Good riddance. Hopefully this leads to companies that are less vampiric in their exploitation of labour. Congratulations on California for being courageous in this aspect.
It's fascinating how the subsistence wage is simultaneously too low for workers and too high corporations.
Why is that? It's because neither the government nor corporations are required to provide a basic quality of life to Americans.
It's because people can't afford the true cost of a rideshare if a driver needs to make subsistence wage, and the company needs to be profitable.
In a difference landscape the Uber model might be sustainable, but the middle class is being completely gutted. California especially is headed toward a Hawaii-esque bifurcated economy, comprised of a wealthy minority and a massive underclass of service-industry people catering toward their every want and need.
In a difference landscape the Uber model might be sustainable, but the middle class is being completely gutted. California especially is headed toward a Hawaii-esque bifurcated economy, comprised of a wealthy minority and a massive underclass of service-industry people catering toward their every want and need.
Is that future different in any other of the top 5 states in the US? What can be done about it?
Robust social safety nets, combined with increased access to education so unskilled workers can retool to partake in the 21st century global service economy, financed by massive pigouvian taxes on our carbon consumption, and an appropriately progressive tax structure (the latest studies suggest the optimal tax rate according to the Laffer curve for billionaires is somewhere around 73%).
Imagine creating an app called "Clean Streets" - basically people can put bounties on streets, other people can collect the bounty by picking up the litter. Sounds like a great little idea right? The app takes a 1% fee for server upkeep. Win/win, bored teenagers make some extra money and your neighborhood gets cleaned up... right?
Wrong. Turns out, people aren't willing to pay that much for people to clean up their streets - only $1-5 on average per job. Yet it takes an hour to clean the street sometimes. That is an abysmal hourly wage, how can you expect desperate impoverished single mothers trying to work 3 jobs to live off of this?? Clean Streets ought to give a living wage and full health benefits to anyone who signs up. Oh, except... just one problem... the 1% transaction fee isn't enough to fund that, and jacking up pricing just means people stop using the app altogether.
So yes, in theory this app is great - if you can restrict its use to only non-desperate people. But desperate people would nevertheless try to make a living on it, and you would get lambasted by human rights activists for exploiting the poor. Sigh, I wish there were a way for things like this to exist.
Wrong. Turns out, people aren't willing to pay that much for people to clean up their streets - only $1-5 on average per job. Yet it takes an hour to clean the street sometimes. That is an abysmal hourly wage, how can you expect desperate impoverished single mothers trying to work 3 jobs to live off of this?? Clean Streets ought to give a living wage and full health benefits to anyone who signs up. Oh, except... just one problem... the 1% transaction fee isn't enough to fund that, and jacking up pricing just means people stop using the app altogether.
So yes, in theory this app is great - if you can restrict its use to only non-desperate people. But desperate people would nevertheless try to make a living on it, and you would get lambasted by human rights activists for exploiting the poor. Sigh, I wish there were a way for things like this to exist.
I've been kicking around the idea of a New Urbanist business model generator, which would spit out ideas from keyword lists like "gamification blockchain micropayments 311 litter reporting cleanup" et cetera. I'm sure there are a whole bunch of businesses out there that can be created based on applying civic principles to disruptive capitalist exploitation models
edit: please don't ever ask me the related dystopian business model generator.
edit: please don't ever ask me the related dystopian business model generator.
Ummmmm, Uber and Lyft take a lot more than 1% from drivers. And Uber drivers are typically the polar opposite of bored teenagers. They are dedicated adults trying to make driving their profession.
> And Uber drivers are typically the polar opposite of bored teenagers. They are dedicated adults trying to make driving their profession
Right, but were they the original target demographic? Just because a platform gets commandeered by desperate people doesn't mean the platform was originally designed to support them.
Right, but were they the original target demographic? Just because a platform gets commandeered by desperate people doesn't mean the platform was originally designed to support them.
Is the intent most important here or is it who the workers actually are? The fact is that Uber and Lyft employ people in the way you typically think of (and in the way that the law thinks of). These aren't children driving around for spare cash.
Uber even has financing options to help drivers buy cars specifically for this job. What type of person buys an entire car to accomplish side hustle or to dally around? The fact that Uber accomodates such a large investment into being a driver speaks towards what their "target demographic" is.
Uber even has financing options to help drivers buy cars specifically for this job. What type of person buys an entire car to accomplish side hustle or to dally around? The fact that Uber accomodates such a large investment into being a driver speaks towards what their "target demographic" is.
I think this makes a much deeper point. You can't create an app that will pay people badly because it will pay people badly.
We (society) have traditionally massively underpaid people who are time rich and cash poor, but who have basic life necessities provided outside of their income - teenagers, most obviously, but historically the same applied to middle-class married women (look up "working for pin money").
But that involved discrimination - either only offering these jobs to people who were not relying on them for basic life necessities, or paying people who were actually trying to make a living much more (at least minimum wage, and in some cases far more). That discrimination has usually been illegal, but paying a local teenager a few dollars to mow your lawn (when you would pay a much more substantial fee to a proper lawn-care firm) is the sort of informal small-scale law-breaking that no enforcement body would ever bother with.
But you can't, intrinsically, aggregate this sort of thing. That takes the human being out of the loop, which means there is no one to discriminate. It makes the law-breaking large-scale and formal, rather than small-scale and informal. This happens to all sorts of things - there are plenty of informal payments made to people in exchange for small amounts of their time (lots of us have paid a bit more than the fuel costs for a friend to give us a lift to the airport), but when this starts to scale up (ie Uber), you have to turn it into formal business and employment arrangements, and that changes the nature of the relationship. You can't scale it up without changing it in kind.
I know that a lot of people on HN don't like the idea that there are some things that can only be done one-to-one, personally, and informally, and therefore cannot be automated, done many-to-many, impersonally, and formally. But there are.
For the specific case, surely the solution is to assess how long the job will take, check the minimum wage or living wage, and then aggregate multiple bounties until there's enough to pay for the job to be done.
As for health benefits, the likely approach is something like how SAG health benefits work - you pay a percentage of your income into the plan; if you earn more than $X per year, then you get health benefits. Someone should organise this across all "gig" jobs and employers can then require people working gig jobs to sign up for this (and deduct the percentage at source). That someone would be a labor union, of course.
We (society) have traditionally massively underpaid people who are time rich and cash poor, but who have basic life necessities provided outside of their income - teenagers, most obviously, but historically the same applied to middle-class married women (look up "working for pin money").
But that involved discrimination - either only offering these jobs to people who were not relying on them for basic life necessities, or paying people who were actually trying to make a living much more (at least minimum wage, and in some cases far more). That discrimination has usually been illegal, but paying a local teenager a few dollars to mow your lawn (when you would pay a much more substantial fee to a proper lawn-care firm) is the sort of informal small-scale law-breaking that no enforcement body would ever bother with.
But you can't, intrinsically, aggregate this sort of thing. That takes the human being out of the loop, which means there is no one to discriminate. It makes the law-breaking large-scale and formal, rather than small-scale and informal. This happens to all sorts of things - there are plenty of informal payments made to people in exchange for small amounts of their time (lots of us have paid a bit more than the fuel costs for a friend to give us a lift to the airport), but when this starts to scale up (ie Uber), you have to turn it into formal business and employment arrangements, and that changes the nature of the relationship. You can't scale it up without changing it in kind.
I know that a lot of people on HN don't like the idea that there are some things that can only be done one-to-one, personally, and informally, and therefore cannot be automated, done many-to-many, impersonally, and formally. But there are.
For the specific case, surely the solution is to assess how long the job will take, check the minimum wage or living wage, and then aggregate multiple bounties until there's enough to pay for the job to be done.
As for health benefits, the likely approach is something like how SAG health benefits work - you pay a percentage of your income into the plan; if you earn more than $X per year, then you get health benefits. Someone should organise this across all "gig" jobs and employers can then require people working gig jobs to sign up for this (and deduct the percentage at source). That someone would be a labor union, of course.
It misses a bigger point: Uber/Lyft drivers don't set their own prices, and can't be considered independent contractors. Nothing stops me from putting up an ad on Craiglist and putting up a price for a gig, and taking more time to complete the gig than I would have gotten for waged labor. It would be absurd to consider me an employee of Craigslist, and rightly so. But if Craiglist forced me to accept a certain price and took their cut, I'm effectively performing waged labor.
What a great example of a capital strike
It would be better for society if the billions of dollars of capital invested in ride share platforms was invested in high productivity labor technologies instead of low labor productivity technologies.
Is there a member/driver owned rideshare app?
If so, would there be an equity-based loophole that would allow it to continue operating in California under these rules?
If so, would there be an equity-based loophole that would allow it to continue operating in California under these rules?
This law looks like a hack to try to smooth over negative effects from the root issue.
The root issue is that health insurance is tied to employment, which reduces human freedom and distorts the economy in diverse ways.
Solve the root issue and many things become less complicated.
The root issue is that health insurance is tied to employment, which reduces human freedom and distorts the economy in diverse ways.
Solve the root issue and many things become less complicated.
If you can't operate your business without independent contractors, then they aren't independent contractors.
If Lyft and Uber want to back up their claims that they aren't livery services but simply a technology platform, then there should be no problem with eliminating the independent contractor drivers.
The fact that they have to "shut down" only proves they were misrepresenting drivers for as long as they have existed.
If Lyft and Uber want to back up their claims that they aren't livery services but simply a technology platform, then there should be no problem with eliminating the independent contractor drivers.
The fact that they have to "shut down" only proves they were misrepresenting drivers for as long as they have existed.
They are providing a platform for independent contractors. If the state makes it so that there are no users of the platform, they can't do business as their is nobody to use their platform. It seems pretty reasonable that when a state attacks your platforms users, you remove the platform from said state
They just said they could operate, if you wanted to destroy jobs and the entire innovation of dynamic schedules/hours.
Why do you think they couldn't operate?
Why do you think they couldn't operate?
> If you can't operate your business without independent contractors, then they aren't independent contractors.
This makes no sense. There are industries ALL over that depend heavily on independent contractors - it's incredibly common in construction, agriculture, trade services, etc.
And yes, the business absolutely can operate without any given independent contractor, but it cannot operate without access to any independent contractors at all.
Hell, what do you think a "general contractor" does on a job site? Because the answer is basically organize a bunch of independent contractors. They also couldn't exist if legally they had to hire every plumber/painter/electrician/drywaller/roofer/framer etc full time.
So while I think uber/lyft DO need legislation to address, I think hamfisting them into the legal model of full time employment is... fucking dumb.
This makes no sense. There are industries ALL over that depend heavily on independent contractors - it's incredibly common in construction, agriculture, trade services, etc.
And yes, the business absolutely can operate without any given independent contractor, but it cannot operate without access to any independent contractors at all.
Hell, what do you think a "general contractor" does on a job site? Because the answer is basically organize a bunch of independent contractors. They also couldn't exist if legally they had to hire every plumber/painter/electrician/drywaller/roofer/framer etc full time.
So while I think uber/lyft DO need legislation to address, I think hamfisting them into the legal model of full time employment is... fucking dumb.
"Depend heavily" is different then, "can't operate without". Uber and Lyft would have zero revenue if you took away their "independent contractors". Literally zero.
Uber and Lyft have always lied about the nature of their business.
The first lie was that the passenger was, "sharing a ride". This lie was necessary to support the second lie which was that, "were not a Taxi service" but a "technology platform".
Your Uber or Lyft driver was not planning on going to your destination until you "hailed" them to do so. So it's not "ride sharing". It's a livery service.
But by lying both companies could ignore existing laws.
If it's ok for people to lie about what it is they do so they can skirt existing laws than I guess robbing banks could be classified as "undeclared venture capital opportunities".
Also why aren't predatory business laws ever used against VC backed businesses? Why is it ok for ultra wealthy people to destroy businesses by offering products and services at below what it costs to provide them? And to do this not for short periods of time but for over a decade?
In international trade this would be called, "dumping" and the US complains and files trade disputes about it constantly. Why? Because it destroys good paying jobs. But apparently if your a VC backed Unicorn and just so damn hip and sexy then everyone is supposed to just look the other way and praise you for "your genius".
I hope whatever you do for a living gets undermined in the same way, perhaps then you'll reevaluate what's actually legal, just and sustainable for a nation of people
Uber and Lyft have always lied about the nature of their business.
The first lie was that the passenger was, "sharing a ride". This lie was necessary to support the second lie which was that, "were not a Taxi service" but a "technology platform".
Your Uber or Lyft driver was not planning on going to your destination until you "hailed" them to do so. So it's not "ride sharing". It's a livery service.
But by lying both companies could ignore existing laws.
If it's ok for people to lie about what it is they do so they can skirt existing laws than I guess robbing banks could be classified as "undeclared venture capital opportunities".
Also why aren't predatory business laws ever used against VC backed businesses? Why is it ok for ultra wealthy people to destroy businesses by offering products and services at below what it costs to provide them? And to do this not for short periods of time but for over a decade?
In international trade this would be called, "dumping" and the US complains and files trade disputes about it constantly. Why? Because it destroys good paying jobs. But apparently if your a VC backed Unicorn and just so damn hip and sexy then everyone is supposed to just look the other way and praise you for "your genius".
I hope whatever you do for a living gets undermined in the same way, perhaps then you'll reevaluate what's actually legal, just and sustainable for a nation of people
How is it that taxi drivers can be independent contractors, but Uber & Lyft drivers can't? Or am I wrong and all taxi drivers are employees?
Aren't taxis inherently an on-demand business model? Uber/Lyft just made the whole model online.
Wouldn't it have been sensible to enforce and regulate minimum fare thresholds based on ride and distance which can be even applied on taxis?
Wouldn't it have been sensible to enforce and regulate minimum fare thresholds based on ride and distance which can be even applied on taxis?
Looks like they just got a temporary stay on the court decision: https://twitter.com/kateconger/status/1296520163441831936
[deleted]
baggy_trough(1)
When the monopolistic rideshare titans were banned in Austin there were local competitors within weeks. They kinda sucked for a few months, but by the time Lyft and Uber returned they worked quite well. They also paid the drivers FAR better, I heard on driver forums that it was easy to make over 20 an hour. Most drivers I talked to were very upset when Lyft/Uber returned, because they took over 50% pay cut.
With the technical might that is Silicon Valley, California only needs to hold their ground for a few months, then Lyft/Uber will become an afterthought
With the technical might that is Silicon Valley, California only needs to hold their ground for a few months, then Lyft/Uber will become an afterthought
This really needs to be the top post. The fact of the matter is that there isn’t anything special about Uber and Lyft, and the competitors that popped up in Austin during their absence proved that it is possible to have a viable business and treat your workers with respect and dignity by paying them well.
The state doesn't get a choice the people will vote on proposition 22 which is already polling very well; Uber and Lyft will get there exemption.
Uber will benefit from this, since the demand will go to Uber and they could see surge pricing.
Why are Uber and Lyft stocks now down on this news?
Great
Great, if this business is not feasible without workers rights, then it's not feasible business.
Funny how ridesharing companies have been successfully operating all over the world in countries that have very strong workers rights (like Finland, Sweden, Australia, France, and about 10-15 others).
So the issue is clearly not the ridesharing business. But sure, I'll bite. Let's follow this to its logical conclusion.
So you kill Uber and Lyft in California. Great. The California elite can pat themselves on the back for protecting all those workers from choosing to take "bad" jobs.
But wait. Now what? How are you going to ensure all those unemployed drivers get healthcare benefits now?
Will you go after all the fast food restaurants where they'll be forced to work part-time now (also with no benefits) to feed their children? And then after that, the next set of low wage jobs? I guess nobody thought that far.
My hunch is, the people who cared most about passing this law don't actually care about the workers. They just care about the narrative, and the self satisfied feeling of hurting the "evil capitalist" boogeyman. Once the boogeyman is killed, they will move on and leave the workers behind to fend for themselves. Because the goal wasn't to give workers healthcare. That would've been a healthcare bill.
So the issue is clearly not the ridesharing business. But sure, I'll bite. Let's follow this to its logical conclusion.
So you kill Uber and Lyft in California. Great. The California elite can pat themselves on the back for protecting all those workers from choosing to take "bad" jobs.
But wait. Now what? How are you going to ensure all those unemployed drivers get healthcare benefits now?
Will you go after all the fast food restaurants where they'll be forced to work part-time now (also with no benefits) to feed their children? And then after that, the next set of low wage jobs? I guess nobody thought that far.
My hunch is, the people who cared most about passing this law don't actually care about the workers. They just care about the narrative, and the self satisfied feeling of hurting the "evil capitalist" boogeyman. Once the boogeyman is killed, they will move on and leave the workers behind to fend for themselves. Because the goal wasn't to give workers healthcare. That would've been a healthcare bill.
I wish all the energy spent on introducing business-have-to-provide-this and business-have-to-provide-that laws were invested in getting public healthcare and more affordable housing.
There are rights in the United States: life, liberty, safe working environments.
But there is no right to a business model.
Lyft is a business model that found a loophole in a previously regulated business and was able to combine a technology upgrade with a way to pay substandard compensation. That legislators closed this loophole is not a surprise. The exact legislation will never be perfect, and will probably not be changed if it is "good enough".
But there is no right to a business model.
Lyft is a business model that found a loophole in a previously regulated business and was able to combine a technology upgrade with a way to pay substandard compensation. That legislators closed this loophole is not a surprise. The exact legislation will never be perfect, and will probably not be changed if it is "good enough".
Not sure who wins here? It seems bad for both drivers and riders.
Kudos on that moral victory California. You robbed my mobility-impaired younger sister of her legs without providing any alternative. Fuck your sorry excuse of public transit filled with gawkers and requiring her to wonder whether there will be connected sidewalks for her to solve her last-two-mile trip on her chair.
"Oh, but Uber and Lyft were brought down by their own greed" Well, where is the non-greedy alternative in this market, employing legitimate full-benefit workers and serving their community while making earnest profits? If there really exists a market that is sustainable via the terms outlined by the court of California, why the hell isn't anyone competing in this market that famously yields no incumbent benefits?
If, on the other hand, if the math doesn't check out and there isn't a viable market, then what is being accomplished by this ruling? It's both shutting down an extremely useful service while taking jobs away from people who need it most, when they need it most.
This is a terrible decision that is so far removed from reality that it's almost laughable. While I admire the idealistic worldview of those who rule from above, this is a classic case of the road to hell being paved by good intentions.
"Oh, but Uber and Lyft were brought down by their own greed" Well, where is the non-greedy alternative in this market, employing legitimate full-benefit workers and serving their community while making earnest profits? If there really exists a market that is sustainable via the terms outlined by the court of California, why the hell isn't anyone competing in this market that famously yields no incumbent benefits?
If, on the other hand, if the math doesn't check out and there isn't a viable market, then what is being accomplished by this ruling? It's both shutting down an extremely useful service while taking jobs away from people who need it most, when they need it most.
This is a terrible decision that is so far removed from reality that it's almost laughable. While I admire the idealistic worldview of those who rule from above, this is a classic case of the road to hell being paved by good intentions.
Why do you assume good intentions? It's more likely that this law was the result of campaign bribes from unions.
Unions want to have fewer (unionized) people employed at higher compensation. Gig workers go against that because there is higher employment at lower compensation.
Unions want to have fewer (unionized) people employed at higher compensation. Gig workers go against that because there is higher employment at lower compensation.
"You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don't know where the fuck it's gonna take you."
well said.
(Quote from character Lester Freamon from The Wire)
Where in California does your sister live that doesn't offer Paratransit services?
Or taxis.
I find it a little vulgar to suggest the regulatory capture variant of a service to a disabled person who was benefiting from the more libre configuration.
Maybe deregulate taxis instead of letting companies bypass labor restrictions with a polite fiction.
Where in California does that service even come close to what Uber/Lyft offer?
Rides subsidized by folks desperate enough to sacrifice tomorrow in order to eat today?
I hope nowhere.
I hope nowhere.
[deleted]
I think she still uses it when there's no alternative. I don't know much about it myself, but from what she tells me it's a fine service for when she needs to go to the library on a lazy day, but meeting a friend or having to make a schedule on a certain time? It's practically a coin flip.
moral victory? this is government overreach. people set their own hours. they are contractors not employees. the government changed the rules not because they care for you but because they collect more taxes from employers than contractors.
But they can't set their own rates.
How is enforcing worker protection government overreach? It’s what they’re supposed to do. And there’s lots of gig workers who aren’t happy with the setup. It’s not like the government took this up on their own accord.
As someone else mentioned Uber and Lyft impose restrictions on these workers that a typical contractor would not have. The litmus test isn’t simply whether you can set your number of hours.
As someone else mentioned Uber and Lyft impose restrictions on these workers that a typical contractor would not have. The litmus test isn’t simply whether you can set your number of hours.
And there's plenty who are fine with this setup. Why should they get screwed over? Calling the removal of worker choice a right is truly perverse.
> people set their own hours. they are contractors not employees
Millions of employees in the US have flexible schedules and work part-time.
Millions of employees in the US have flexible schedules and work part-time.
It's called a Taxi. They will drive to your location, pick you up, and take you anywhere you want to go.
You've clearly never tried to use a taxi in California.
For the majority who haven't tried to use taxis in California, what's the informative version of this comment?
Taxis everywhere are expensive due to constricted supply and are often unreliable.
Man I could tell some stories about that.
Man I could tell some stories about that.
Rideshares have their own cost and reliability problems for riders.
No one is saying taxi services are fine as-is, in addition to rideshare ride being artificially cheap thanks to VC money subsidizing costs, they did offer real user experience improvements. But the rideshare services have also shirked a lot of duties and created new externalized costs for others to bear.
No one is saying taxi services are fine as-is, in addition to rideshare ride being artificially cheap thanks to VC money subsidizing costs, they did offer real user experience improvements. But the rideshare services have also shirked a lot of duties and created new externalized costs for others to bear.
> They will drive to your location, pick you up, and take you anywhere you want to go.
The corrected version of this is "they will drive to your location some time within the next 24 hours, pick you up if you want to go to the places they want to go, and maybe accept payment in credit card".
Go on. Ask a brown person who lives by Lake Merced what it's like to try to get a taxi there from downtown.
Also, to be clear, I don't have a problem with this. I think you should have a right to transport whomsoever you desire if you can reach a consensual agreement.
But I don't think it's consensual if you ban the alternative.
The corrected version of this is "they will drive to your location some time within the next 24 hours, pick you up if you want to go to the places they want to go, and maybe accept payment in credit card".
Go on. Ask a brown person who lives by Lake Merced what it's like to try to get a taxi there from downtown.
Also, to be clear, I don't have a problem with this. I think you should have a right to transport whomsoever you desire if you can reach a consensual agreement.
But I don't think it's consensual if you ban the alternative.
If you live too out of the way, the taxi you called might never come.
> what's the informative version of this comment
Called out! But you're right, I should have been more specific.
I think it was covered well below: They are never around and have a low chance of coming if you call one, even if they say they are on the way.
Called out! But you're right, I should have been more specific.
I think it was covered well below: They are never around and have a low chance of coming if you call one, even if they say they are on the way.
Taxis sound way less reliable in the SF area than my experience with them in the Boston area.
I've only been to Boston a few times pre-Uber, but I agree. I've had great cab experiences in Boston and Chicago, and Manhattan (although in Manhattan they often pulled the "I can't take cards right now" crap).
Probably the most informative source
https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/Draft%20ManagingTa...
https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/Draft%20ManagingTa...
Or anywhere, in my experience. I've never had a taxi experience that wasn't terrible. Even before Uber and Lyft came along. That includes several different cities.
In Ireland, Uber has never been allowed. Taxis are pretty good. We use an app called "Free Now" (Previously "MyTaxi", previously "Hailo") where we can book a taxi and pay through the app. It's more expensive than Uber but it's regulated so always feels pretty safe.
We also have some strict laws like a taxi must produce a receipt if you request one etc
We also have some strict laws like a taxi must produce a receipt if you request one etc
flywheel is 'OK'. Better than it used to be before flywheel.
I love these comments like "you've clearly never X".
I have, in fact, used Taxis in California. Is it easier to use Uber or Lyft? Yes. Is there absolutely no alternative as the commenter above suggests? No.
We can have a conversation around why the Taxi system sucks, if you'd like.
I have, in fact, used Taxis in California. Is it easier to use Uber or Lyft? Yes. Is there absolutely no alternative as the commenter above suggests? No.
We can have a conversation around why the Taxi system sucks, if you'd like.
Right, except now instead of having the option of taxis and ride share companies she can only use taxis which have artificially inflated prices due to constricted supply.
As opposed to rideshare which had artificially deflated prices due to a temporary infusion of investors money. Maybe push for more rational taxi regulations?
How did that go before Uber showed up?
The OP says they can't be profitable and you're saying they're too profitable at the rider's expense.
Which is it?
Which is it?
The OP says ridesharing can't be profitable, parent says taxis are too expensive. These are statements are not inconsistent with one another.
Taxis are subject to the medallion system where municipalities deliberately limit the number of taxis that can operate. This certainly increases prices for consumers. If Uber and Lyft aren't profitable the they run the possibility of going out of business.
The former is a definite harm to consumers. The latter is a possibility of loss for investors.
The former is a definite harm to consumers. The latter is a possibility of loss for investors.
[deleted]
Taxis are horrible honestly. I'd rather just not go somewhere than use one instead of Uber/Lyft.
Most taxi's are 1099 as well... Almost 100% outside of the major cities. So no. This is going to backfire hard on the legislature. They should have done their jobs and created a new class. But nope. They went for the headlines.
[deleted]
> without providing any alternative
Taxis still exist.
Given the history of Uber and Lyft drivers denying access to riders with wheelchairs, decrying the loss of their services seems weird.
Taxis still exist.
Given the history of Uber and Lyft drivers denying access to riders with wheelchairs, decrying the loss of their services seems weird.
Uber and Lyft were made in San Francisco because the taxis here sucked so badly. Extremely unreliable. Always late. Not enough of them.
Taxis have not gotten better since then.
Taxis have not gotten better since then.
True Story: Before Uber and Lyft, a nice guy, who worked at a company in my building in SF, got so desperate to hail a cab he stepped off the curb to attract the cab's attention, and got killed by a Muni bus.
Taxis, even in San Francisco, were woefully inadequate prior to Uber. Further, it not as if taxis were driver friendly. The majority of the money went the the medallion holder. The medallion holders artificially constricted service to keep rates high via a monopoly. So, there was no pre-rideshare paradise to return to.
Taxi drivers pay the company for a shift upfront and absorb the risk on not getting enough rides to break even. And they are independent contractors without benefits.
So yeah, what parent was talking about doesn't exist.
So yeah, what parent was talking about doesn't exist.
HAHAHA. OMG - as one who doesn't drive, and took taxis in the Bay area (South Bay - Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Redwood City) for 7 years (2003 - 2010) - pretty much everywhere - let me tell you that taxis on the Peninsula are the most poorly managed, poorly responsive, and incredibly bad service imaginable. Fully 30-40% of taxis just never show up when you call them. That number gets even higher after 9:00 PM if you are down near Fremont. . Taxis took an absolute minimum of 30 minutes to arrive - I never understood how that was possible given they worked on a zone reservation system, and I presumed you would check into the zone you were geographically present in. The drivers were, as a class - horrible. They wouldn't last a month on Uber - neither their vehicles, nor the drivers themselves - they'd be rated out immediately.
I think the mistake that Uber and Lyft are making here is just not charging market rates that will let their drivers make a good living. If it turns out that costs 50% more than a taxi - fine. People then have a choice of Public Transit, Taxis, or Uber/Lyft. Their race to the bottom and attempt to price each other out of the market is what led us here.
Where they erred originally is trying to build a business model that didn't provide a good living to their key employees - and lets face it, Uber/Lyft drivers are employees.
I think the mistake that Uber and Lyft are making here is just not charging market rates that will let their drivers make a good living. If it turns out that costs 50% more than a taxi - fine. People then have a choice of Public Transit, Taxis, or Uber/Lyft. Their race to the bottom and attempt to price each other out of the market is what led us here.
Where they erred originally is trying to build a business model that didn't provide a good living to their key employees - and lets face it, Uber/Lyft drivers are employees.
> I think the mistake that Uber and Lyft are making here is just not charging market rates that will let their drivers make a good living.
Aren't the rates basically set by the drivers? I've never driven for Uber or Lyft but my impression was that drivers have a choice of whether to accept each request or not. If the offered price for a ride is "too low" (but someone still accepts it) that just highlights the fact that your idea of "too low" is not the only one that matters. Maybe your competition isn't relying on this for a living. Maybe they've found other ways to reduce their costs. Either way, I don't really see a problem aside from certain parties' unrealistically high expectations.
Personally I feel a bit sorry for all of the people that deliberately chose to take on these gig jobs as freelancers who are now being pressured into becoming employees to salve the overactive consciences of people who aren't even involved. Not everyone wants to be classified as an employee, with all the restrictions that entails.
Aren't the rates basically set by the drivers? I've never driven for Uber or Lyft but my impression was that drivers have a choice of whether to accept each request or not. If the offered price for a ride is "too low" (but someone still accepts it) that just highlights the fact that your idea of "too low" is not the only one that matters. Maybe your competition isn't relying on this for a living. Maybe they've found other ways to reduce their costs. Either way, I don't really see a problem aside from certain parties' unrealistically high expectations.
Personally I feel a bit sorry for all of the people that deliberately chose to take on these gig jobs as freelancers who are now being pressured into becoming employees to salve the overactive consciences of people who aren't even involved. Not everyone wants to be classified as an employee, with all the restrictions that entails.
This is a bit unfair. Yes, the public transit in cali sucks, but there needs to be a minimum standard with how we treat workers. Gig work was initially framed as a side thing where somebody going to the same area as you hops in your car and you share a ride. Like on demand carpooling. That is no longer the case, its people's livelihoods due to economic inequities and lack of normal jobs available to match the demand for jobs. Gig work should NOT be how people make a living, but due to reality it is what many people have resorted to and these people deserve to be treated like employees for normal companies. I have been in many ride shares where drivers drive from hours away to drive in SF or the bay area in general and then go back at night. They do this because their local economy doesn't provide an equivalently paying job (or jobs at all). Instead of telling people "hey go drive around endlessly in SF, hours from where you live. Also, you get no benefits" we can choose to bolster those local economies or we can choose to force companies to provide benefits. Either one of those options will make their lives better. We have chosen the latter, even though we should have chosen the former but politicians don't give a crap about people who aren't in the bay area, LA, or san diego. So they're screwed and forced to take these bad jobs.
> Gig work should NOT be how people make a living
I don't think I understand this. Why not? Seems like more options besides a traditional 9-5 is a good thing.
I don't think I understand this. Why not? Seems like more options besides a traditional 9-5 is a good thing.
With how gig work is defined under prop 22 (pre AB5), its unfair. Look at the parent comment. Apparently these gig workers are insanely important, but they don't deserve health insurance (all of this is operating under the assumption that we won't get universal health care any time soon). People who are doing these gig jobs full time are destroying themselves (many work 60+ hours) doing a menial task with no benefits. That's not fair. My father for years worked a back breaking manual labor job and got excellent health benefits, reasonable hours, and flexible time off most of the year (not all of it though). All of this from a university that was always on the brink of collapse. He didn't make a great salary but there were other benefits. We cannot regress as a society where people are expected to work longer hours and do something more boring and dangerous (driving ain't safe, also sitting down all day is known to be bad) and expect people to not have benefits or a reasonable pay. Maybe you can't give them everything (reasonable pay + good benefits), but at least do one.
What should happen is there should be a UBI in place. Many people would stop being a ride sharing drivers and the people who want to be a driver for extra cash will be paid fairly because only the people who WANT to do it will do it, not the people who NEED to do it. Lyft and Uber and benefiting from how many people are in the second category. Its not Lyft's and Uber's job to fix societies inequities, but they shouldn't be allowed to exist solely on those people's backs.
What should happen is there should be a UBI in place. Many people would stop being a ride sharing drivers and the people who want to be a driver for extra cash will be paid fairly because only the people who WANT to do it will do it, not the people who NEED to do it. Lyft and Uber and benefiting from how many people are in the second category. Its not Lyft's and Uber's job to fix societies inequities, but they shouldn't be allowed to exist solely on those people's backs.
1. If you think the public transit in California sucks, at least it exists.
2. There are many jobs available that don't allow the lifestyle freedoms of gig work (see the trucking industry, which as it turns out also has a long reputation for unfairly treating employees).
In my opinion, the US continues to punish employers, employees, and contractors by tying employment to healthcare. It's much easier to say: "Look at that company screwing their workers out of benefits!", than it is to say: "Look at our country screwing our citizens out of benefits!".
2. There are many jobs available that don't allow the lifestyle freedoms of gig work (see the trucking industry, which as it turns out also has a long reputation for unfairly treating employees).
In my opinion, the US continues to punish employers, employees, and contractors by tying employment to healthcare. It's much easier to say: "Look at that company screwing their workers out of benefits!", than it is to say: "Look at our country screwing our citizens out of benefits!".
1. U rite. I lived in a part of florida for many years with basically 0 transportation and didn't have a reliable car. It sucks
2. You are right, but at what cost. We can't have people who are desperate for a normal life take on jobs that nobody wants with no benefits. These jobs are clearly important (see parent comment and many other comments), but yet we don't want to pay them fairly or give them benefits.
If we get universal healthcare, then yeah this problem goes away. But california can't bank on that existing because even Biden during a pandemic isn't committing to single payer healthcare if he's elected. What is California supposed to do? We need standards, its probably not fiscally feasible for California to provide healthcare or UBI for all, therefore this is the best option it has to prevent workers from being abused.
If we get universal healthcare, then yeah this problem goes away. But california can't bank on that existing because even Biden during a pandemic isn't committing to single payer healthcare if he's elected. What is California supposed to do? We need standards, its probably not fiscally feasible for California to provide healthcare or UBI for all, therefore this is the best option it has to prevent workers from being abused.
> Instead of telling people "hey go drive around endlessly in SF, hours from where you live. Also, you get no benefits" we can choose to bolster those local economies or we can choose to force companies to provide benefits. Either one of those options will make their lives better. We have chosen the latter
Well, no. Prop 22 would force companies to provide benefits, and the rideshare companies themselves are behind it. What was actually chosen was to just put drivers out of work altogether until November at the earliest, because the government deemed that the current compromise was not good enough.
Well, no. Prop 22 would force companies to provide benefits, and the rideshare companies themselves are behind it. What was actually chosen was to just put drivers out of work altogether until November at the earliest, because the government deemed that the current compromise was not good enough.
The "it'll take time to make this change and so we're suspending services for a while" argument is just a PR stunt.
Even if you disagree with the law, Uber/Lyft knew it was coming - they've known for a long time now. Instead of getting ready for it, they chose to spend their time filing lawsuits (which were never going to succeed) and preparing for a ballot initiative. So let's not argue that the law itself "put drivers out of work altogether." - Uber and Lyft did that.
Even if you disagree with the law, Uber/Lyft knew it was coming - they've known for a long time now. Instead of getting ready for it, they chose to spend their time filing lawsuits (which were never going to succeed) and preparing for a ballot initiative. So let's not argue that the law itself "put drivers out of work altogether." - Uber and Lyft did that.
"knew it was coming" is hindsight 20/20 thinking. They've been fighting it tooth and nail the whole time. If prop 22 passes (as it seems it will), then can we really say we "saw it coming"? And likewise, legislators knew about the Austin precedent, so they can't say they "didn't see it coming" either.
Uber and Lyft could have spent the last 4 months implementing the necessary changes just-in-case if they had so chosen. They are choosing to shut down rather than sink time into work that may be unneeded come November. So yes, they are making the choice to put their drivers out of jobs.
By that logic, legislators could have chosen not to put forth AB5 and none of this discussion would be happening. Also, as I said elsewhere, one does not simply ramp up an HR org (plus whatever else) w/ capacity for an extra 50k headcount "just in case".
I'm not sure how you can pin this one on legislators. Legislators make laws, private companies (and individuals) follow them. If I don't want to follow the law, that's my own choice and I bear responsibility for the consequences. As for the HR org, I'm sure Uber/Lyft could have spent some of the $100 million they've spend so far supporting Prop 22 on such a thing. If they really cared about drivers, that would have been the thing to do.
> If I don't want to follow the law, that's my own choice and I bear responsibility
Sure, but the law is supposed to be in service of the people, otherwise it's no different from a dictatorship. The fact than some 100k drivers are in the prop 22 coalition alone should say something about what _they_ want.
> I'm sure Uber/Lyft could have spent some of the $100 million
How sure? More sure than the companies actually doing the due diligence of crunching those numbers to make such a large decision? $100M may seem like a lot of money, but consider that this was a one time spend, vs the ongoing cost of things like an HR org, etc
> that would have been the thing to do
TFA says they would only realistically be able to hire a fraction of current drivers (and the drivers themselves generally prefer to be contractors), and service reliability for riders would plummet to boot.
One could put it in different ways: if a driver wants to be an employee, then why not seek employment at a taxi/transportation company that works under that model? (amazon is hiring, for example) Why not put a taxi sign on a car and go line up at the airport with a zoned price model as a sole proprietorship company? As a software developer, I have the equivalent of all these options available to me. It would be inconceivable to enter a software development contract agreement with a company and then turn around and say they are now obligated by law to hire me.
Sure, but the law is supposed to be in service of the people, otherwise it's no different from a dictatorship. The fact than some 100k drivers are in the prop 22 coalition alone should say something about what _they_ want.
> I'm sure Uber/Lyft could have spent some of the $100 million
How sure? More sure than the companies actually doing the due diligence of crunching those numbers to make such a large decision? $100M may seem like a lot of money, but consider that this was a one time spend, vs the ongoing cost of things like an HR org, etc
> that would have been the thing to do
TFA says they would only realistically be able to hire a fraction of current drivers (and the drivers themselves generally prefer to be contractors), and service reliability for riders would plummet to boot.
One could put it in different ways: if a driver wants to be an employee, then why not seek employment at a taxi/transportation company that works under that model? (amazon is hiring, for example) Why not put a taxi sign on a car and go line up at the airport with a zoned price model as a sole proprietorship company? As a software developer, I have the equivalent of all these options available to me. It would be inconceivable to enter a software development contract agreement with a company and then turn around and say they are now obligated by law to hire me.
It is a lot of unfair. So gig workers need to be taken advantage of so the parent commenter’s sister can have a more convenient mode of transportation? Why should they bear the burden of a city that doesn’t provide people with disabilities appropriate options?
I'm pretty sure the people you want to help would consider having a job a better treatment than being unemployed.
If California's jobs suck, move. Yes, it's hard but it beats the alternative of destroying more jobs through misguided regulations.
If California's jobs suck, move. Yes, it's hard but it beats the alternative of destroying more jobs through misguided regulations.
> Gig work should NOT be how people make a living
There's a huge difference between 'People should not be forced to' vs. 'people should not be'. I think your case is the latter.
There's a huge difference between 'People should not be forced to' vs. 'people should not be'. I think your case is the latter.
> If there really exists a market that is sustainable via the terms outlined by the court of California, why the hell isn't anyone competing in this market that famously yields no incumbent benefits?
There was a cheaper alternative for companies to provide up until now, so I don't think the current lack of this type of service proves that it couldn't exist. Companies will tend to provide the service that costs them the least in the absence of other incentives; that's why labor laws exist in the first place. The fact that child labor and unsafe working conditions used to be the norm wasn't due to it being impossible to make a profit without them, but due to companies having no incentive to get rid of them.
There was a cheaper alternative for companies to provide up until now, so I don't think the current lack of this type of service proves that it couldn't exist. Companies will tend to provide the service that costs them the least in the absence of other incentives; that's why labor laws exist in the first place. The fact that child labor and unsafe working conditions used to be the norm wasn't due to it being impossible to make a profit without them, but due to companies having no incentive to get rid of them.
It's been stayed as of 10 minutes ago... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24227481
The parent post (from Lyft) looks hilarious in hindsight.
Edit: Added context
The parent post (from Lyft) looks hilarious in hindsight.
Edit: Added context
Some person with a legitimate concern about how this effected their disabled sister is not "hilarious".
I was referring to the Lyft post, not the parent comment...
I have edited the parent to make this easier to understand.
I have edited the parent to make this easier to understand.
What a surprising decision made by otherwise wise and well respected CA politicians.
Maybe relying on the exploitation of others for vital services is a bad situation to be in in the first place?
I'm sure uber and lyft drivers are also extremely upset by this, since they are only being exploited because they are vulnerable.
The fact that these drivers cannot survive without being exploited and that your sister can't be mobile with out their exploitation is not a problem with CA law makers.
Its beyond insane that so many people on HN will jump through such tremendous intellectual hoops to justify the world that they exist and temporarily thrive in. These companies might make your live easier today, but the distance from where you are to feeling that exploitation is not as far as you think.
I'm sure uber and lyft drivers are also extremely upset by this, since they are only being exploited because they are vulnerable.
The fact that these drivers cannot survive without being exploited and that your sister can't be mobile with out their exploitation is not a problem with CA law makers.
Its beyond insane that so many people on HN will jump through such tremendous intellectual hoops to justify the world that they exist and temporarily thrive in. These companies might make your live easier today, but the distance from where you are to feeling that exploitation is not as far as you think.
So you all want to turn them back into taxi drivers? Do you remember how crappy and expensive taxi service was? Ride sharing is not a career. It’s sharing a ride to make extra cash. Yes, we are runnning out of actual careers, I get that. But turning gigs into careers is not the answer. UBI + gig work+ universal healthcare is the answer you were looking for.
Hopefully lyft and uber will decide to move their companies out of CA to a more business friendly climate.
Shutdown has been averted by judge: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24227340
So, if Prop 22 is the solution to this mess, then it's natural to ask:
1) What do services like Uber/Lyft/Doordash (who are proposing Prop 22) currently offer in terms of benefits?
2) How do current benefits compare to what will be mandated by Prop 22?
3) If there is any difference, why? Is a state law required to treat your contractors better than the bare minimum?
1) What do services like Uber/Lyft/Doordash (who are proposing Prop 22) currently offer in terms of benefits?
2) How do current benefits compare to what will be mandated by Prop 22?
3) If there is any difference, why? Is a state law required to treat your contractors better than the bare minimum?
A lot of people have condemned Uber and Lyft for violating the new law, but I’m wondering whether there is any correct way to apply the law. Does anyone know how AB5 has affected taxi drivers (who typically cannot set their rates), particularly those who use hailing apps (flywheel.com)? Are taxi drivers guaranteed minimum wage, and if so is it on waiting time or only driving time (like in the proposed Proposition 22)? Do taxi drivers get health insurance coverage? If Uber and Lyft instituted a driver cap (medallion), would this bring them into compliance with AB5, or is AB5 compliance impossible even with a driver cap?
Now would be a good time to launch the Tesla Network
Everyone calm down, this called negotiating at scale. Lyft just got their stay. As usual, the effect of all lawmaking will be subtle and slow, so the average person will not notice.
Sigh.
Sigh.
Along with the bipartisan trend toward authoritarianism is a bipartisan trend away from economic freedom.
Some want to hinder our ability to trade with Chinese firms or hire foreign workers, others want to hinder our ability to take gig economy jobs or operate our home as an Airbnb.
The idea that these authoritarians have is that economic freedom is bad.
Why not just make laws that very specifically protect the most vulnerable and foist the tax burden fairly on everyone else? It's a historical accident that employee provided healthcare is tax deductible and that workers comp and social security/medicare are funded by payroll taxes.
All of the quirky rules and perverse incentives exist because at some point in the past they benefited some established interest group.
There is a very disappointing lack of creativity and willingness to look at the simple issue at the core of all of these problems. We can't let the most vulnerable workers be victimized, but we must do everything possible to preserve their economic freedom.
I think UBI is the closest we are seeing to a meaningful rethink of how we handle entitlement spending. We need the equivalent creativity to help manage the funding side.
Some want to hinder our ability to trade with Chinese firms or hire foreign workers, others want to hinder our ability to take gig economy jobs or operate our home as an Airbnb.
The idea that these authoritarians have is that economic freedom is bad.
Why not just make laws that very specifically protect the most vulnerable and foist the tax burden fairly on everyone else? It's a historical accident that employee provided healthcare is tax deductible and that workers comp and social security/medicare are funded by payroll taxes.
All of the quirky rules and perverse incentives exist because at some point in the past they benefited some established interest group.
There is a very disappointing lack of creativity and willingness to look at the simple issue at the core of all of these problems. We can't let the most vulnerable workers be victimized, but we must do everything possible to preserve their economic freedom.
I think UBI is the closest we are seeing to a meaningful rethink of how we handle entitlement spending. We need the equivalent creativity to help manage the funding side.
Not being from the US the only thing I don't understand is why does CA expect taxi drivers to be employees?
Here in Slovakia even regular taxi drivers can be independent contractors and it's perfectly OK with the law, a lot of taxi drivers here even ride for multiple companies (regular taxi dispatchers, uber, bolt, their own prices for longer trips)
Here in Slovakia even regular taxi drivers can be independent contractors and it's perfectly OK with the law, a lot of taxi drivers here even ride for multiple companies (regular taxi dispatchers, uber, bolt, their own prices for longer trips)
Drivers are allowed to be independent contractors in California. But the law requires that the drivers be truly independent in ways that Uber and Lyft do not allow.
from what I've just read about the AB5 the one thing that doesn't make sense to me is the clause that defines an independent contractor when "the service is performed outside the usual course of business of the employer".
This seems that it can also force software devs to become employed if they just want to do a short-term contract for a software company and potentially affect other businesses as well.
In our country, we instead require independent contractors to use their own resources/equipment to perform the job while allowing companies to hire them even if it's their main course of business.
This seems that it can also force software devs to become employed if they just want to do a short-term contract for a software company and potentially affect other businesses as well.
In our country, we instead require independent contractors to use their own resources/equipment to perform the job while allowing companies to hire them even if it's their main course of business.
Lyft and Uber work great for what they are: gig jobs. The problem is people trying to turn them into something completely different. If these companies don't offer the terms you want, maybe seek employment elsewhere?
Just when the World is in dire need for alternative and innovative ways to create jobs, politicians find a way to stop them with tired and failed arguments.
Stay order is here :| IDK what will that mean https://finance.yahoo.com/news/appeals-court-grants-stay-giv...
[deleted]
This is why healthcare benefits shouldn't be tied with employment. IMO, that's the biggest thing contractors are missing out on by not being traditional employees. It's not like being an employee in the US gives you much more legal protection than being a contractor due to "at-will" employment laws. Universal healthcare decouples this critical service from employment, making _everyone_ more able to work flexibly.
This is the time to release the open source version of these services that let individuals set their own rate and communicate with openness.
Wasn’t this a proposed example application of ethereum?
Wasn’t this a proposed example application of ethereum?
They got a reprieve until the election. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/08/20/app...
Imagine a distributed, open-source, bit-coin like version of Uber. There's no company, drivers get 100%, set their prices, and somehow a distributed protocol allows people to broadcast a bid for a ride, and nearby drivers could accept it.
It would
1) workaround the law, there's no employer, no company, and no one to sanction 2) be impossible to regulate or shutdown
It would
1) workaround the law, there's no employer, no company, and no one to sanction 2) be impossible to regulate or shutdown
That would actually be more in line with the law than Uber and Lyft's practices.
Currently drivers don't get to set their own prices and have to abide by other such things that don't make them independent contractors in the eyes on the law.
Currently drivers don't get to set their own prices and have to abide by other such things that don't make them independent contractors in the eyes on the law.
A sad state of affairs. Population loves the service. People lining up in droves to be paid to provide it. Government stomps it cause reasons.
I'm curious if this issue would be as contentious if we had a single payer health care system? It strikes me that one of the major issues with this kind of employment is little access to health care.
We also have a similar problems with taxi (and short-distance private mass transport) licences here in Turkey. However, we have learned a lesson from our history and solved medium-distance bus licensing problem, with a very thorough regulation (taxis and short-distance privately owned buses still are a problem, though):
*Suburban and rural passenger transport on a route, within the same province regardless of distance, or shorter than 100 kilometres without regards of provincial boundaries, count as medium-distance mass transportation.
*Those medium-distance bus licences are tied to vehicle and non-transferable.
*Medium-distance bus owners have to get a licence called D4, which is similar in shape to a European intercity bus company licence, however, subject to a more stringent regime. I am going to explain that below.
*A D4 licence is primarily intended for end-to-end and end-to-mid transportation. Up to 12 such vehicles is allowed to be registered to each such licence.
*In case that there are multiple overlapping such routes, shorter route takes the precedence of transporting inside the common section. For example, if you want to go from B to C, and there is a medium-distance bus covering B-C route, and one covering A-B-C-D route, the latter cannot accept you (you could also think of this as a mandatory gentleman's agreement). However, if you want to go from B to D, you can take the latter without requiring a transfer in C.
*D4 licences have their passenger capacity strictly regulated, such that you cannot have more vehicles than that, 100% demand at least one week's worth of trips each year, and 80% demand in average throughout the validity of the licence.
*D4 licences are reviewed thoroughly during renewals as if you get afresh. It takes approximately two weeks to process a D4 licence application (one week in the provincial transportation coordination centre, one week in the national D4 coordination centre).
*Those medium distance buses are usually operated by private operators, and allowed to enter the city centers more freely than long distance buses, subject to the restrictions above.
So this news really sucks, as you haven't been able to schedule DMV appointments at all and it looks like it will continue to be that way for the foreseeable futuere. I understand the Uber/Lyft may have had this a long time coming but it really is inconvenient for this to happen during COVID.