11 ms·

Refusal to recognize the rise of independent contractors is hurting the economy

111 points by endswapper 10y ago

hall_999 10y ago
Well, over-regulation and taxing of small business owners is the result of Democrats in power. What you want is less-government control. Most small business owners have been screaming about this for years. It seems to only get attention because of new Trendy startups like Uber and Lyft.
- dalke 10y ago
  When I had a small business in the US, my biggest concern was figuring out medical insurance and retirement. Since I had no clue one what to choose from the myriad of options. I wanted more government control - single payer health care and decent Social Security coverage. I didn't feel overtaxed either. I still feel that unions are far more over-regulated than businesses. I think many of the employee laws the article mentions are in place because collective bargaining has been so nerfed that the only remedy to bad but common management abuses (eg, wage theft) is through the legal system.
  - beached_whale 10y ago
    I think of a single payer system as infrastructure like roads, electrical supply, water... It collectively takes the risk from the individual and provides for everyone. A business no long gets distracted with pension, drug, medical... and focuses on the business of making money. They pay tax and that is it. In an ideal world.
    - throwaway_xx9 10y ago
      > In an ideal world. You mean, every other country in the Western world, except the USA.
    - crazy1van 10y ago
      >A business no long gets distracted with pension, drug, medical Unless that business was in the pension, drug, or medical industries. My point is that it's not super clear where to draw the line between common public services and businesses, and people's perspective is usually determined by the nature of their own business. For example, provide gov't healthcare and pensions so my smartphone company can focus on making great devices instead of worrying about health care. Or... provide gov't smartphones so my social media app company can focus on making great apps rather than worrying about what mobile OS to support. Or... provide gov't social media apps so my independent media company can focus on generating content rather than worrying about distributing it across many social media platforms.
      - dalke 10y ago
        There are still companies involved with "roads, electrical supply, water", even when they are part of the public infrastructure. It's not like there are no drug or medical companies in Switzerland. The evidence doesn't need to be "super clear." The numbers are pretty solid that universal healthcare is more efficient than the current system the US has. That is, the US government spending alone, on a per capita and GDP basis, is higher than the combined public+private spending in most countries with universal health care. Yet the public+private funding in the US doesn't result in a higher quality of health care, by most measures. Even sticking to the US, we can get an idea from Medicare and the VA system of the advantages to single payer systems. Those comparison numbers don't exist for the proposals you mentioned, and there is no reason or experience to suggest they make sense in the current market. (But, consider France's Minitel in the 1980s, when it did make sense.) Also, the failure costs in health care are much higher than the failure costs in choosing the wrong mobile OS. The worst case for the former is an nation-wide epidemic. The worst case for your company is ... you run out of money and need to get a job.
    - jomamaxx 10y ago
      Health Care is not like building roads. I live in Quebec, Canada and the healthcare here is among the worst in the civilized world. Also - it's illegal to pay a doctor to fix you. Canada is the only place in the world where it's illegal to pay someone to cure you of something. It's basically communist. The American system is untenable, but 'single payer' is not the solution. Successful countries that do it are tiny. Sweden is smaller than Los Angeles. Swtizerland does it at the cantonal level, which on average is 800 000 citizens. Can you imagine your entire hospital and insurance system being in blocks of 800 000? Maybe at the state level, subsidies, regulating drug prices etc. etc. - but full-on national level 'single payer' would be a huge disaster, beyond contemplation. Also in many single payer systems - the guy who snuck across the border illegally gets the exact same healthcare as you, working professional, paid a million in taxes, dutiful citizen etc.. I think there should be coverage for everyone, but single-payer is not the path.
      - icebraining 10y ago
        Not a word about the UK's NHS?
      - jomamaxx 10y ago
        You can vote me down if you want, but I live in a system where I cannot get a doctor. And it's illegal to pay for one. I' forced by the government, to use local clinics where they don't have my records, I don't have a relationship with the doctor, they can't make longer term prognosis, and frankly, the care is sub-par. I once had an ailment that was difficult to diagnose, the doctors at the clinics, used to seeing people for coughs and colds could give a shit. I ended up having to pay a few grand for an American entity operating barely within the bounds of legality in Canada (the Cleveland Clinic). I can assure you that it's a pretty desperate feeling when you are locked out of the system. Notre Dame Hospital in Montreal is lined with people in beds in the hallways, broken chairs, broken, leaking water fountains in the waiting room, broken / discarded beds in the waiting room - I thought I was in Cuba. The doctor was actually nice but the facilities were crazy. A well run McDonald's has more visible operating efficiency. It's far from optimal.
        10y ago
  - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
    Yes, thank you for posting this. It's exactly the case that if one were to start a small company, the more govt services that automatically take care of things like ins and retirement, the easier it is to focus on your business.
    - orangecat 10y ago
      This seems like a false dilemma. Housing, food, clothing, and most other things are not directly provided by either employers or governments, and yet people are able to acquire them.
      - dalke 10y ago
        I started learning about housing, food, and clothing from my parents, when I was a toddler. They taught the basics, including how to cook, how to buy groceries, how to maintain a house, etc.. I had over a decade of practice under their watchful eyes before doing it on my own. Then in school we learned more about food during health class. Those who wanted to learn more could take home economics. Also, many people purchased magazines to help understand and select clothing styles, participated in discussions on the topic, and spent a lot of time at stores evaluating the different options (i.e, "hanging out at the mall"). Even for housing, I did it in steps, with college dorm, then shared apartments, to shared houses, to my own apartment, to my own house. By comparison, when I started my company, I had no corresponding practice or experience in selecting health care or retirement options. Just like I had no practice in reading NDAs and consulting contracts, or setting up a company. But those are remarkably stable. A NoLo book on consulting and the advice of a friend who started a company a couple of years previous was enough. Then hire a CPA who has a legal obligation to work in my best interests. An insurance agent does not have the same obligation. I also don't have the experience to judge between the offerings from the different companies, nor experience in the local hospitals or clinics to know who is in which system or what I should be watching out for. That's straight 'paradox of choice', making it all the more difficult to figure out what to do. It didn't help that every few months I would get a message that the health insurance rates were increasing, making my wonder if I had made a mistake and was being screwed over by the insurance company, who knows that most small business owners really don't want to deal with re-evaluating the insurance market all the time.
- sremani 10y ago
  Uber's lobbying chief is Obama campaign manager in 2008 and of course money talks.
- ajmurmann 10y ago
  John Cochrane made the best statement about this I've heard so far on Econtalk a few weeks ago: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/09/john_cochrane_o.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/09/john_cochrane_o.htm... His point is that it's not about the quantity of regulation, but the type of regulation. In short he sees two types: 1. Regulation that I can read and now I know what to do and not do. 2. Regulation that requires me to consult an expert and apply to some government agency who then tells me if I am allowed to do something or not. Obviously the second type is the bad one. You cannot properly plan. There often is no guaranteed time frame, you have no proper recourse and ideally have some kind of fixer. This type of regulation also tends to give large businesses an edge over small ones, creates large overhead for the system as a whole and ultimately hurts innovation. I think it would help any discussion about regulation to carefully differentiate between these two types of regulation.
  - crazy1van 10y ago
    Econtalk ( http://www.econtalk.org http://www.econtalk.org ) is an amazing resource for understanding economics and the theories and incentives at play within it. The guests have a wide array of perspectives and the host does a good job of letting them talk so they can truly express their opinions during the hour conversation. It's so refreshing compared to the 2 minute soundbite theatrics you'll hear from "experts" on the tv news.
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    Masses of regulations are complex and require lawyers - even small business tax is a mess.
    - ajmurmann 10y ago
      He makes a ton of suggestions on how to simplify regulations. Among other things he wants to do taxing corporations altogether because according to him they eithe avoid them or pass them on anyways. Listen to it! You will enjoy it!
      - danieltillett 10y ago
- Naritai 10y ago
  This is almost embarrassingly naive. GWB years saw the house, senate, and white house controlled by republicans, yet regulations continued to grow apace. Furthermore, Republicans have long given up any pretext of wanting to reduce government control. No Child Left Behind, Sarbox, the entire mess that is Homeland Security, Defense of Marriage, "religious freedoms", increasing layers of drug regulation... it's just that Republicans want to regulate how people live their lives, instead of focusing on major corporations. (Then, this doesn't even begin to get into the fact that many regulations are state level!)
  - nine_k 10y ago
    This is correct. This is also a false dichotomy, unfortunately. Both Democrats and Republicans are for large, strong, overarching government. Probably a Libertarian president might make a difference and actually try to reduce the powers (and expenditures) of Washington, DC, and lower the burden of regulations. Try voting for Johnson. Unfortunately, chances to elect a candidate from outside the two big parties are about zero; Trump had to basically hijack the Republican party at its all-time weakest to become a real candidate.
    - vacri 10y ago
      A president can't do anything without the support of Congress. Electing a libertarian president would move the needle not a jot. Look at how Obama has been stymied, and he's all for the establishment. If Trump gets in, he'll be able to do a lot of reputational damage with his rhetoric, but without the support of Congress, he'll be able to do very little in the way of actual legislative change. Mind you, it'll be interesting to see what he does when the debt-limit timebomb comes up again.
      - wfo 10y ago
        A president can do an enormous amount without the support of congress. A president can veto, and many, MANY regulations are executive branch administration rules rather than laws passed by the legislative branch. I'm not particularly in favor of a president whose goal is to "burn it all down" in the way the Libertarians want to, but executive power is wide reaching and almost unfettered and there is a whole hell of a lot a president can do.
walshemj 10y ago
Uber et all are not "Independent contactors" and for those of us that could fall into that status" the tax authorities don't like the idea that non lawyers/doctors (aka greasy engineers) get the advantages of self employment.
sedachv 10y ago
> And worst of all, extraneous lawsuits targeting companies attempting to share helpful information with workers regarding taxes, insurance, and retirement accounts, are punishing the very individuals these groups falsely espouse. David Loeper's book has a few citations of surveys about how "helpful" the information about 401k plans actually is: https://www.amazon.com/Stop-401-Rip-Off-Eliminate-Improve/dp/1934454079 https://www.amazon.com/Stop-401-Rip-Off-Eliminate-Improve/dp... tl;dr - 401k plans are a Reagan-era privatization scam; almost no one understands what to choose, which makes it easier for plan management companies and funds to charge ridiculous fees. David Belk lectures on medical insurance plans (https://www.youtube.com/user/davidbelk46/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/davidbelk46/videos I recommend starting at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkAY15p2DN4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkAY15p2DN4). Same deal - deductible, copays, caps, lifetime caps, what to choose? A lot of these plan details deliberately obfuscate the fact that you would spend less paying for medication and procedures directly than the insurance co-pay! This article is privatization scam propaganda disguised in free-market jargon. Not surprising when you consider the author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Schweikert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Schweikert
- NotSammyHagar 10y ago
  I think you are completely wrong about medical insurance being cheaper to pay out of pocket than get the insurance. Perhaps this is true for some horrible 100$/month insurance. But my bills all come with: list price, plan discount (usually 30-60% off), next what the ins comp. covers = usually 80% of discounted price, then what I pay, that is a small amount, 20% * 60% * original price. I recently had a drug that wasn't covered by my insurance, they wanted me to use the generic. The non-generic was $288/month out of pocket, the generic cost nothing after the insurance paid their part. on 401ks, i think you might have more of an argument about costs, but since we don't have an alternative, it would lead to many people having no retirement. there's no law that makes people use 401ks instead of private retirement.
  - jknskjndf 10y ago
    On the whole medical insurance is more expensive than paying out of pocket, otherwise the insurance companies would be losing money and wouldn't exist.
werdna123 10y ago
This is a great idea. We should definitely undo the 40 hour work week and other progressive-era trifles, serfdom was way better. Who wants to own things anyway
ScottBurson 10y ago
I'm not sure you can make a good case that regulation opposed to the interests of AirBnB/Uber/etc. is a bad thing for the economy from the point of view of the workers. From that angle, it's zero-sum: the more people who use AirBnB, the fewer stay in hotels; the more who use Uber/Lyft, the fewer take taxis. Rather, it's from the point of view of the customers that you can make this case: people have transportation and travel options they didn't have before. That effect doesn't necessarily show up in GDP, but it does mean that life is a little bit better on the whole.
- mahyarm 10y ago
  With increased supply come decreased price and increased usage. Uber and airbnb increase the supply of transportation and hotel places in total, decreasing the price for customers and increasing the total volume used.
  - acjohnson55 10y ago
    Specifically, this is because demand for these things is elastic, in econ terms. A buddy of mine in the hotel industry says that this seems to be the case. They can't quantify the negative impact of AirBnB on their bottom line. But he's at a high end hotel, I'm sure different parts of the industry see different things.
- morgante 10y ago
  > I'm not sure you can make a good case that regulation opposed to the interests of AirBnB/Uber/etc. is a bad thing for the economy from the point of view of the workers. Sure you can. If I'm a part-time Uber driver, forcing me to be classified as an employee might very well remove a side income stream from me. It's even more farcical for AirBnB: people renting out their spare bedroom would not otherwise be working in hotels. > From that angle, it's zero-sum: the more people who use AirBnB, the fewer stay in hotels Actually, I'm not sure this is true. If AirBnB reduces the cost of temporary accommodation, you might very well see increased travel overall without hurting hotels. In fact, I strongly believe this is true: look at things like the digital nomad movement, which heavily uses AirBnB and would be much less common without modern technology. Right now I'm staying in an AirBnB—if this option weren't available, I wouldn't have stayed in a hotel.
lhopki01 10y ago
The regulation that this article tries to pretend is the problem is actually what protects so many people. Uber drivers are not harmed because the government doesn't recognise them as independent contractors, they are harmed because they aren't recognised as employees. Independent contractors should hold the power in the relationship not the other way around. As it currently stands independent contractors are just a way for companies like Uber to avoid paying taxes, sick pay and any other number of hard fought rights.
- SamReidHughes 10y ago
  The "rights" you describe are already priced in to the cost of an employee.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  I don't disagree with you that those are problems, but isn't the low friction to "hiring" an Uber driver, or renting your room on AirBnB, or picking up odd jobs via Postmate, part of what allows them to function?
  - Qworg 10y ago
    Just because it allows them to function doesn't make it correct.
    - brightball 10y ago
      Signing up for a job as an independent contractor agreed upon by both the contractor and the company...and then after the fact being told that they are actually employees isn't protecting either party involved in the initial agreement. It's using the government to protect OUTSIDE parties by by crippling the business with additional expenses.
      - wickawic 10y ago
        But the children in the mines contractually agreed to their positions! Who is the government to interfere with this business partnership?
skybrian 10y ago
It's a plausible argument, but citations are definitely needed. How do we know these things?
acjohnson55 10y ago
The biggest problem with Uber & Co to me is that drivers don't get to set their own rates. That makes it not a marketplace at all. They're so valuable because they get to run a command driving economy, but without any obligations to their workers. Not to mention that they're buying market share with subsidized prices. Basically dumping. That's a lot different than AirBnB to me.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  Exactly. I do think the independent contractor model (taxis) does not work well in provide a high quality transport option. There is room in the market for a employee-based model (such as what Uber is running in practice), but they should not get to don’t pretend that their employees are independent contractors just because they don’t like paying taxes and benefits. Uber is basically a heist of taxi medallions. Uber works best where regulation allow the owners of medallion to extract a large economic rent from their customers. Undercutting taxis in these markets is easy because the drivers don’t have to pay the medallion owners their cut. Uber has proven far less successful in markets (like Japan) where there is no economic rent to be extracted.
- coredog64 10y ago
  Taxi drivers don't get to set their own rates either.
  - kyllo 10y ago
    The city governments set them.
  - acjohnson55 10y ago
    Yeah, but as far as I can tell, at least in NYC, they are considered employees: http://www.wcb.ny.gov/content/main/onthejob/CoverageSituations/taxiCabs.jsp http://www.wcb.ny.gov/content/main/onthejob/CoverageSituatio...
matheweis 10y ago
It's not just independent contractors that need recognition. Self employed individuals who rely on near monopolies for their businesses also need protection - at least in the form of better due process. PayPal eBay Etsy Apple Google All these and more have banned people from their marketplaces without any serious form of due process. This might be fine if there are competing alternatives in place, but there are not.
catuskoti 10y ago
Below the line, you have many employees to one vacancy. Above the line, you have many vacancies to one employee. Below the line, do not hope to talk your employer out of making you showing up at work with a red nose, dressed like a clown, and sitting not to far away from the boss, so that he can conveniently spit at you, when he is not just ignoring you. Above the line, you will have to slam the phone to recruiters, and "No, you cannot have a minute my time, okay?". The boss will pay up to half of your salary as a finder's fee just for someone to find you and talk you into coming over. In fact, above the line, you can just work from home too, so that you do not need to hear the boss begging to please not chuck and abandon him like a used-up girlfriend, with not even a verbal contract to fall back on. I have enough of using you, ok? I am using someone else now, alright? The whole point is that no amount of regulating will shift around the line. The situation below the line cannot be made better. It can only be made even worse.

111 points by endswapper 10y ago

Well, over-regulation and taxing of small business owners is the result of Democrats in power. What you want is less-government control. Most small business owners have been screaming about this for years. It seems to only get attention because of new Trendy startups like Uber and Lyft.

dalke 10y ago
When I had a small business in the US, my biggest concern was figuring out medical insurance and retirement. Since I had no clue one what to choose from the myriad of options. I wanted more government control - single payer health care and decent Social Security coverage. I didn't feel overtaxed either. I still feel that unions are far more over-regulated than businesses. I think many of the employee laws the article mentions are in place because collective bargaining has been so nerfed that the only remedy to bad but common management abuses (eg, wage theft) is through the legal system.
- beached_whale 10y ago
  I think of a single payer system as infrastructure like roads, electrical supply, water... It collectively takes the risk from the individual and provides for everyone. A business no long gets distracted with pension, drug, medical... and focuses on the business of making money. They pay tax and that is it. In an ideal world.
  - throwaway_xx9 10y ago
    > In an ideal world. You mean, every other country in the Western world, except the USA.
  - crazy1van 10y ago
    >A business no long gets distracted with pension, drug, medical Unless that business was in the pension, drug, or medical industries. My point is that it's not super clear where to draw the line between common public services and businesses, and people's perspective is usually determined by the nature of their own business. For example, provide gov't healthcare and pensions so my smartphone company can focus on making great devices instead of worrying about health care. Or... provide gov't smartphones so my social media app company can focus on making great apps rather than worrying about what mobile OS to support. Or... provide gov't social media apps so my independent media company can focus on generating content rather than worrying about distributing it across many social media platforms.
    - dalke 10y ago
      There are still companies involved with "roads, electrical supply, water", even when they are part of the public infrastructure. It's not like there are no drug or medical companies in Switzerland. The evidence doesn't need to be "super clear." The numbers are pretty solid that universal healthcare is more efficient than the current system the US has. That is, the US government spending alone, on a per capita and GDP basis, is higher than the combined public+private spending in most countries with universal health care. Yet the public+private funding in the US doesn't result in a higher quality of health care, by most measures. Even sticking to the US, we can get an idea from Medicare and the VA system of the advantages to single payer systems. Those comparison numbers don't exist for the proposals you mentioned, and there is no reason or experience to suggest they make sense in the current market. (But, consider France's Minitel in the 1980s, when it did make sense.) Also, the failure costs in health care are much higher than the failure costs in choosing the wrong mobile OS. The worst case for the former is an nation-wide epidemic. The worst case for your company is ... you run out of money and need to get a job.
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    Health Care is not like building roads. I live in Quebec, Canada and the healthcare here is among the worst in the civilized world. Also - it's illegal to pay a doctor to fix you. Canada is the only place in the world where it's illegal to pay someone to cure you of something. It's basically communist. The American system is untenable, but 'single payer' is not the solution. Successful countries that do it are tiny. Sweden is smaller than Los Angeles. Swtizerland does it at the cantonal level, which on average is 800 000 citizens. Can you imagine your entire hospital and insurance system being in blocks of 800 000? Maybe at the state level, subsidies, regulating drug prices etc. etc. - but full-on national level 'single payer' would be a huge disaster, beyond contemplation. Also in many single payer systems - the guy who snuck across the border illegally gets the exact same healthcare as you, working professional, paid a million in taxes, dutiful citizen etc.. I think there should be coverage for everyone, but single-payer is not the path.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Not a word about the UK's NHS?
    - jomamaxx 10y ago
      You can vote me down if you want, but I live in a system where I cannot get a doctor. And it's illegal to pay for one. I' forced by the government, to use local clinics where they don't have my records, I don't have a relationship with the doctor, they can't make longer term prognosis, and frankly, the care is sub-par. I once had an ailment that was difficult to diagnose, the doctors at the clinics, used to seeing people for coughs and colds could give a shit. I ended up having to pay a few grand for an American entity operating barely within the bounds of legality in Canada (the Cleveland Clinic). I can assure you that it's a pretty desperate feeling when you are locked out of the system. Notre Dame Hospital in Montreal is lined with people in beds in the hallways, broken chairs, broken, leaking water fountains in the waiting room, broken / discarded beds in the waiting room - I thought I was in Cuba. The doctor was actually nice but the facilities were crazy. A well run McDonald's has more visible operating efficiency. It's far from optimal.
      - 10y ago
- NotSammyHagar 10y ago
  Yes, thank you for posting this. It's exactly the case that if one were to start a small company, the more govt services that automatically take care of things like ins and retirement, the easier it is to focus on your business.
  - orangecat 10y ago
    This seems like a false dilemma. Housing, food, clothing, and most other things are not directly provided by either employers or governments, and yet people are able to acquire them.
    - dalke 10y ago
      I started learning about housing, food, and clothing from my parents, when I was a toddler. They taught the basics, including how to cook, how to buy groceries, how to maintain a house, etc.. I had over a decade of practice under their watchful eyes before doing it on my own. Then in school we learned more about food during health class. Those who wanted to learn more could take home economics. Also, many people purchased magazines to help understand and select clothing styles, participated in discussions on the topic, and spent a lot of time at stores evaluating the different options (i.e, "hanging out at the mall"). Even for housing, I did it in steps, with college dorm, then shared apartments, to shared houses, to my own apartment, to my own house. By comparison, when I started my company, I had no corresponding practice or experience in selecting health care or retirement options. Just like I had no practice in reading NDAs and consulting contracts, or setting up a company. But those are remarkably stable. A NoLo book on consulting and the advice of a friend who started a company a couple of years previous was enough. Then hire a CPA who has a legal obligation to work in my best interests. An insurance agent does not have the same obligation. I also don't have the experience to judge between the offerings from the different companies, nor experience in the local hospitals or clinics to know who is in which system or what I should be watching out for. That's straight 'paradox of choice', making it all the more difficult to figure out what to do. It didn't help that every few months I would get a message that the health insurance rates were increasing, making my wonder if I had made a mistake and was being screwed over by the insurance company, who knows that most small business owners really don't want to deal with re-evaluating the insurance market all the time.
sremani 10y ago
Uber's lobbying chief is Obama campaign manager in 2008 and of course money talks.
ajmurmann 10y ago
John Cochrane made the best statement about this I've heard so far on Econtalk a few weeks ago: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/09/john_cochrane_o.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/09/john_cochrane_o.htm... His point is that it's not about the quantity of regulation, but the type of regulation. In short he sees two types: 1. Regulation that I can read and now I know what to do and not do. 2. Regulation that requires me to consult an expert and apply to some government agency who then tells me if I am allowed to do something or not. Obviously the second type is the bad one. You cannot properly plan. There often is no guaranteed time frame, you have no proper recourse and ideally have some kind of fixer. This type of regulation also tends to give large businesses an edge over small ones, creates large overhead for the system as a whole and ultimately hurts innovation. I think it would help any discussion about regulation to carefully differentiate between these two types of regulation.
- crazy1van 10y ago
  Econtalk ( http://www.econtalk.org http://www.econtalk.org ) is an amazing resource for understanding economics and the theories and incentives at play within it. The guests have a wide array of perspectives and the host does a good job of letting them talk so they can truly express their opinions during the hour conversation. It's so refreshing compared to the 2 minute soundbite theatrics you'll hear from "experts" on the tv news.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  Masses of regulations are complex and require lawyers - even small business tax is a mess.
  - ajmurmann 10y ago
    He makes a ton of suggestions on how to simplify regulations. Among other things he wants to do taxing corporations altogether because according to him they eithe avoid them or pass them on anyways. Listen to it! You will enjoy it!
    - danieltillett 10y ago
Naritai 10y ago
This is almost embarrassingly naive. GWB years saw the house, senate, and white house controlled by republicans, yet regulations continued to grow apace. Furthermore, Republicans have long given up any pretext of wanting to reduce government control. No Child Left Behind, Sarbox, the entire mess that is Homeland Security, Defense of Marriage, "religious freedoms", increasing layers of drug regulation... it's just that Republicans want to regulate how people live their lives, instead of focusing on major corporations. (Then, this doesn't even begin to get into the fact that many regulations are state level!)
- nine_k 10y ago
  This is correct. This is also a false dichotomy, unfortunately. Both Democrats and Republicans are for large, strong, overarching government. Probably a Libertarian president might make a difference and actually try to reduce the powers (and expenditures) of Washington, DC, and lower the burden of regulations. Try voting for Johnson. Unfortunately, chances to elect a candidate from outside the two big parties are about zero; Trump had to basically hijack the Republican party at its all-time weakest to become a real candidate.
  - vacri 10y ago
    A president can't do anything without the support of Congress. Electing a libertarian president would move the needle not a jot. Look at how Obama has been stymied, and he's all for the establishment. If Trump gets in, he'll be able to do a lot of reputational damage with his rhetoric, but without the support of Congress, he'll be able to do very little in the way of actual legislative change. Mind you, it'll be interesting to see what he does when the debt-limit timebomb comes up again.
    - wfo 10y ago
      A president can do an enormous amount without the support of congress. A president can veto, and many, MANY regulations are executive branch administration rules rather than laws passed by the legislative branch. I'm not particularly in favor of a president whose goal is to "burn it all down" in the way the Libertarians want to, but executive power is wide reaching and almost unfettered and there is a whole hell of a lot a president can do.

walshemj 10y ago

Uber et all are not "Independent contactors" and for those of us that could fall into that status" the tax authorities don't like the idea that non lawyers/doctors (aka greasy engineers) get the advantages of self employment.

sedachv 10y ago

> And worst of all, extraneous lawsuits targeting companies attempting to share helpful information with workers regarding taxes, insurance, and retirement accounts, are punishing the very individuals these groups falsely espouse. David Loeper's book has a few citations of surveys about how "helpful" the information about 401k plans actually is: https://www.amazon.com/Stop-401-Rip-Off-Eliminate-Improve/dp/1934454079 https://www.amazon.com/Stop-401-Rip-Off-Eliminate-Improve/dp... tl;dr - 401k plans are a Reagan-era privatization scam; almost no one understands what to choose, which makes it easier for plan management companies and funds to charge ridiculous fees. David Belk lectures on medical insurance plans (https://www.youtube.com/user/davidbelk46/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/davidbelk46/videos I recommend starting at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkAY15p2DN4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkAY15p2DN4). Same deal - deductible, copays, caps, lifetime caps, what to choose? A lot of these plan details deliberately obfuscate the fact that you would spend less paying for medication and procedures directly than the insurance co-pay! This article is privatization scam propaganda disguised in free-market jargon. Not surprising when you consider the author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Schweikert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Schweikert

NotSammyHagar 10y ago
I think you are completely wrong about medical insurance being cheaper to pay out of pocket than get the insurance. Perhaps this is true for some horrible 100$/month insurance. But my bills all come with: list price, plan discount (usually 30-60% off), next what the ins comp. covers = usually 80% of discounted price, then what I pay, that is a small amount, 20% * 60% * original price. I recently had a drug that wasn't covered by my insurance, they wanted me to use the generic. The non-generic was $288/month out of pocket, the generic cost nothing after the insurance paid their part. on 401ks, i think you might have more of an argument about costs, but since we don't have an alternative, it would lead to many people having no retirement. there's no law that makes people use 401ks instead of private retirement.
- jknskjndf 10y ago
  On the whole medical insurance is more expensive than paying out of pocket, otherwise the insurance companies would be losing money and wouldn't exist.

werdna123 10y ago

This is a great idea. We should definitely undo the 40 hour work week and other progressive-era trifles, serfdom was way better. Who wants to own things anyway

ScottBurson 10y ago

I'm not sure you can make a good case that regulation opposed to the interests of AirBnB/Uber/etc. is a bad thing for the economy from the point of view of the workers. From that angle, it's zero-sum: the more people who use AirBnB, the fewer stay in hotels; the more who use Uber/Lyft, the fewer take taxis. Rather, it's from the point of view of the customers that you can make this case: people have transportation and travel options they didn't have before. That effect doesn't necessarily show up in GDP, but it does mean that life is a little bit better on the whole.

mahyarm 10y ago
With increased supply come decreased price and increased usage. Uber and airbnb increase the supply of transportation and hotel places in total, decreasing the price for customers and increasing the total volume used.
- acjohnson55 10y ago
  Specifically, this is because demand for these things is elastic, in econ terms. A buddy of mine in the hotel industry says that this seems to be the case. They can't quantify the negative impact of AirBnB on their bottom line. But he's at a high end hotel, I'm sure different parts of the industry see different things.
morgante 10y ago
> I'm not sure you can make a good case that regulation opposed to the interests of AirBnB/Uber/etc. is a bad thing for the economy from the point of view of the workers. Sure you can. If I'm a part-time Uber driver, forcing me to be classified as an employee might very well remove a side income stream from me. It's even more farcical for AirBnB: people renting out their spare bedroom would not otherwise be working in hotels. > From that angle, it's zero-sum: the more people who use AirBnB, the fewer stay in hotels Actually, I'm not sure this is true. If AirBnB reduces the cost of temporary accommodation, you might very well see increased travel overall without hurting hotels. In fact, I strongly believe this is true: look at things like the digital nomad movement, which heavily uses AirBnB and would be much less common without modern technology. Right now I'm staying in an AirBnB—if this option weren't available, I wouldn't have stayed in a hotel.

lhopki01 10y ago

The regulation that this article tries to pretend is the problem is actually what protects so many people. Uber drivers are not harmed because the government doesn't recognise them as independent contractors, they are harmed because they aren't recognised as employees. Independent contractors should hold the power in the relationship not the other way around. As it currently stands independent contractors are just a way for companies like Uber to avoid paying taxes, sick pay and any other number of hard fought rights.

SamReidHughes 10y ago
The "rights" you describe are already priced in to the cost of an employee.
RangerScience 10y ago
I don't disagree with you that those are problems, but isn't the low friction to "hiring" an Uber driver, or renting your room on AirBnB, or picking up odd jobs via Postmate, part of what allows them to function?
- Qworg 10y ago
  Just because it allows them to function doesn't make it correct.
  - brightball 10y ago
    Signing up for a job as an independent contractor agreed upon by both the contractor and the company...and then after the fact being told that they are actually employees isn't protecting either party involved in the initial agreement. It's using the government to protect OUTSIDE parties by by crippling the business with additional expenses.
    - wickawic 10y ago
      But the children in the mines contractually agreed to their positions! Who is the government to interfere with this business partnership?

skybrian 10y ago

It's a plausible argument, but citations are definitely needed. How do we know these things?

acjohnson55 10y ago

The biggest problem with Uber & Co to me is that drivers don't get to set their own rates. That makes it not a marketplace at all. They're so valuable because they get to run a command driving economy, but without any obligations to their workers. Not to mention that they're buying market share with subsidized prices. Basically dumping. That's a lot different than AirBnB to me.

danieltillett 10y ago
Exactly. I do think the independent contractor model (taxis) does not work well in provide a high quality transport option. There is room in the market for a employee-based model (such as what Uber is running in practice), but they should not get to don’t pretend that their employees are independent contractors just because they don’t like paying taxes and benefits. Uber is basically a heist of taxi medallions. Uber works best where regulation allow the owners of medallion to extract a large economic rent from their customers. Undercutting taxis in these markets is easy because the drivers don’t have to pay the medallion owners their cut. Uber has proven far less successful in markets (like Japan) where there is no economic rent to be extracted.
coredog64 10y ago
Taxi drivers don't get to set their own rates either.
- kyllo 10y ago
  The city governments set them.
- acjohnson55 10y ago
  Yeah, but as far as I can tell, at least in NYC, they are considered employees: http://www.wcb.ny.gov/content/main/onthejob/CoverageSituations/taxiCabs.jsp http://www.wcb.ny.gov/content/main/onthejob/CoverageSituatio...

matheweis 10y ago

It's not just independent contractors that need recognition. Self employed individuals who rely on near monopolies for their businesses also need protection - at least in the form of better due process. PayPal eBay Etsy Apple Google All these and more have banned people from their marketplaces without any serious form of due process. This might be fine if there are competing alternatives in place, but there are not.

catuskoti 10y ago

Below the line, you have many employees to one vacancy. Above the line, you have many vacancies to one employee. Below the line, do not hope to talk your employer out of making you showing up at work with a red nose, dressed like a clown, and sitting not to far away from the boss, so that he can conveniently spit at you, when he is not just ignoring you. Above the line, you will have to slam the phone to recruiters, and "No, you cannot have a minute my time, okay?". The boss will pay up to half of your salary as a finder's fee just for someone to find you and talk you into coming over. In fact, above the line, you can just work from home too, so that you do not need to hear the boss begging to please not chuck and abandon him like a used-up girlfriend, with not even a verbal contract to fall back on. I have enough of using you, ok? I am using someone else now, alright? The whole point is that no amount of regulating will shift around the line. The situation below the line cannot be made better. It can only be made even worse.