3 ms·

This article, and most discussions on this topic are all rich with sub-text. It offers to connect drivers with an insurance broker, and helpfully notes that “t

This article, and most discussions on this topic are all rich with sub-text. It offers to connect drivers with an insurance broker, and helpfully notes that “the Affordable Care Act offers many choices to make sure you’re covered.” ..a lot of sub-text here, for example. One piece of the sub-text coming up in my internet & human bubble is "technological unemployment" which I have a slightly different take on then a lot of what I read. I think we're seeing it already and it manifests mostly as wage disparity, not unemployment. On the subtext of that quote, it seems to be on the side of what we generall call "labour socialism" in Europe. The idea that laws should focus on increasing low leverage emloyees' bargaining power and/or mandated benefits. IMO, this is a dated position. We've seen relatively consistent success with government provided primary services: health, education & transport. This gets called welfarism, though I think centralism is a better term. We have not seen that kind of success in the labour-socialist sphere. In fact, example like France suggest a problematic trade-off between "good" employment and unemployment. I think the main problem is labour-socialism's tendency to corporatism. I would really like to see employment (including the gig economy) be free-er but suplemented with free or subsidized basic services (health & education mostly) and a basic income. If housing prices are not pathological (as they often are), the gig-worker would be a lot better off. Instead of chasing our tail trying to force uber (or regular taxi companies) to provide stabilty, the state can just subsidize the citizen and provide stability on some fronts. It doesn't even require "big government" for the most part. In most of west Europe, we should be able to implement this relativley easily. Redundant conditional welfare benefits (dole, pensions) already spend 25-40% of what a UBI would cost. Another 25%-40% could be taxed back as income tax without disadvantaging workers (IE, your UBI is >= tax increases). That's most of the way to funding it. This remaining gap mostly represents the uber driver, workers earning well below national average dealing with insecurity and on the wrong end of employer provided benefits (like health insurance). I don't think the US can do it anytime soon though.

campbellmorgan 10y ago
I agree thoroughly with your sentiment and am a strong believer in the welfare state as a way of addressing social imbalances. I also like the economics of the state providing better stability to those in the gig economy because, in theory, it will mean that they feel less pressure to work unhealthy hours (as in the article) and this, in turn, should increase the minimum amount they will work for. However, my objection to this as solution is the situation of non-domiciled, largely un-taxed multinationals not contributing fairly to the pot that keeps the welfare working. As far as I can see, that amounts to a wealth transfer from the state to the shareholders and high-level managers of these companies. Of course the solution would be to tax these companies fairly (which at least in the UK, is slowly beginning to happen), but eventually when taxed fairly enough, doesn't the burden for the companies end up being the same? The only difference is that the state would be footing the bill for the admin overhead of supporting these workers.
- dalbasal 10y ago
  Think of it as supporting citizens instead of workers. UK corporate & capital gains taxes make up less than 10% of overall taxes. This is normal. I'm a pragmatist. Happy to support any realistic plan to shift tax burdens upmarket, if possible but my starting position is that we have X resources to work with. X= about 40% of gbp in most countries. I don't think economies can support much more. I'm not counting on any of the politicians promising to tax multinationals. If they succeed in bringing in VAT-like sums without taking it from the pocket of workers I will change my mind. For now, work with what we got.

campbellmorgan 10y ago

I agree thoroughly with your sentiment and am a strong believer in the welfare state as a way of addressing social imbalances. I also like the economics of the state providing better stability to those in the gig economy because, in theory, it will mean that they feel less pressure to work unhealthy hours (as in the article) and this, in turn, should increase the minimum amount they will work for. However, my objection to this as solution is the situation of non-domiciled, largely un-taxed multinationals not contributing fairly to the pot that keeps the welfare working. As far as I can see, that amounts to a wealth transfer from the state to the shareholders and high-level managers of these companies. Of course the solution would be to tax these companies fairly (which at least in the UK, is slowly beginning to happen), but eventually when taxed fairly enough, doesn't the burden for the companies end up being the same? The only difference is that the state would be footing the bill for the admin overhead of supporting these workers.

dalbasal 10y ago
Think of it as supporting citizens instead of workers. UK corporate & capital gains taxes make up less than 10% of overall taxes. This is normal. I'm a pragmatist. Happy to support any realistic plan to shift tax burdens upmarket, if possible but my starting position is that we have X resources to work with. X= about 40% of gbp in most countries. I don't think economies can support much more. I'm not counting on any of the politicians promising to tax multinationals. If they succeed in bringing in VAT-like sums without taking it from the pocket of workers I will change my mind. For now, work with what we got.