13 ms·

How much help did he earn? How much does he deserve? The money a driver gets paid is the help. There is a market for non-fulltime jobs that would not exist a

How much help did he earn? How much does he deserve? The money a driver gets paid is the help. There is a market for non-fulltime jobs that would not exist at all if it was forced to be full time. Forcing Lyft to hire employees instead of contractors won't mean there will be more workers with a safety-net; it means there won't be any Lyft. That would be bad for both drivers and the people being driven.

baby 8y ago
“How much does he deserve”. Welcome to America. Honestly. This market is not a problem in European country where you get free health care. Why would uber/lyft make an exception for the US? If they can get away with it of course they will.
- ams6110 8y ago
  It isn't free.
- denormalfloat 8y ago
  As a rider, I am going to pick the cheapest ride. If Lyft pays their drivers less, it's because I pay Lyft less. If society as a whole picks Lyft, then it's society as a whole paying Lyft drivers less. I view Lyft more as a market maker rather than a company. In that sense, I agree with you, the market isn't the problem. The people to blame are riders, who got fed up with expensive and bad service taxis, and wanted cheaper rides. Lyft (and Uber) delivered on that, but they are only reflecting the will of us as riders.
  - baby 8y ago
    That’s why some stuff like health care should not be privatized. Because the market will always go against it.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      That is absolutely not true. You're generalising too much. There are many people that are trying to democratise healthcare the private way.
      - baby 8y ago
        Look at how it's doing
        TomMarius 8y ago
        It's doing very well, just not in the USA (if you mean healthcare in general). The attempts I've been talking about are doing well as well.
- RHSeeger 8y ago
  > “How much does he deserve”. Welcome to America. I'm assuming there's sarcasm in that statement. However... > My father has been truck driver his entire life and for the last 20 years worked as a contractor, while driving his own truck and trailer, since it gives him more $$$ than average driver who works as employee. One of the primary reasons one makes more as a contractor is because the company isn't paying for those safety nets (insurance, pension, etc). That extra money the contractor is making is supposed to be going towards those things. If said contractor is not using it to buy health insurance and contribute to retirement, then it's that contractor's fault.
  - baby 8y ago
    We have the same stuff in France. You lose on benefits as a contractor. But you do not lose on healthcare. That’s a basic human right.
    - cinquemb 8y ago
      I wonder what happens when basic human rights can no longer be paid for with hypothetical future cash flows… future gillets jeunes to be mown down by domestic metadata drone strikes under emergency powers acts when they try to demand for their basic rights?
- baddox 8y ago
  > “How much does he deserve”. Welcome to America. Sure, that’s a good way to hyperbolically sum up a country or society, but it is very hyperbolic, and one could construct hyperbolic summations of other countries or societies too. Like “everyone deserves everything, regardless of their effort or contribution or ability.” The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
zbentley 8y ago
> How much help did he earn? How much does he deserve? The money a driver gets paid is the help. That seems naïve and inhumane. Compensation and benefits are understood to be separate things in the US at this time. From social security to health insurance, the costs of securing such things without an employer (an entity on the other side of the wealth gap, usually) are often untenable. > Forcing Lyft to hire employees instead of contractors won't mean there will be more workers with a safety-net; it means there won't be any Lyft. That would be bad for both drivers and the people being driven. The choice between untenably-expensive benefits as a contractor or untenably-unaffordable benefits as an unemployed person is no choice at all--especially for people with health problems/children/debt. Ignoring the people being driven (I'mma say that the benefit to the most needy customers of Lyft is negligible compared to the costs/benefits to the drivers in this scenario--otherwise we should have a different discussion about whether or not rides-for-hire should be a public utility), I think saying "you got paid your safety net in your insultingly-low wages last week" is deliberately obtuse and fails to engage with the issue at hand.
- viscanti 8y ago
  > The choice between untenably-expensive benefits as a contractor or untenably-unaffordable benefits as an unemployed person is no choice at all--especially for people with health problems/children/debt. It appears that lots of people choose to drive for Lyft knowing they won't get those benefits. Why ignore their choice? If they're choosing to do it and Lyft can't give them the same opportunity along with the benefits it's effectively saying they shouldn't have any opportunity for work until they have the perfect opportunity. I'm not convinced that it's better for someone to starve than to have the opportunity to drive for Lyft. The people choosing to drive for Lyft do so over all other work opportunities. If there was something equally good that also provided health benefits, then Lyft wouldn't have any drivers as everyone would pick that better alternative. Given there's not a better alternative, why pick on Lyft? They're the most appealing opportunity for work for lots of people.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    A lot of people choose to drive for Lyft because there aren't many other options to make money. When you have a choice between $0 and $Something, you're going to choose $Something. Companies know this and take advantage of this in order to underpay people who might not have other options. It gets even worse if you consider people who already have a job which can't support them or their family. People can and do make bad choices, such as people who choose to forgo health insurance which then burden hospitals and tax payers in a way that affects everyone else. The solution is to either force Lyft to play ball and not allow them to avoid things like minimum wage laws by calling their workers contractors, or to ensure that the government covers their healthcare.
michaelmrose 8y ago
Since lyft operates at a loss by convincing morons to keep flushing money I'm not sure Lyft or Uber has any long term future of any variety.
- denormalfloat 8y ago
  Calling drivers morons is not helpful. Realistically, there is no way for me to make money between now and the 2 hours before bedtime. Lyft (and Uber) provide a way for me to work that extra few hours if I want to, which I previously couldn't.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    In case it wasn't clear I meant investors.
rat87 8y ago
> Forcing Lyft to hire employees instead of contractors won't mean there will be more workers with a safety-net; it means there won't be any Lyft. So? If lift fails a better business will come along that can treat employees well. Or someone will make a successful community run app (which gives 95% of fares to employees taking only overhead) will come along to replace uber/lyft since it would actually be treating them as contractors unlike uber/lyft

baby 8y ago

“How much does he deserve”. Welcome to America. Honestly. This market is not a problem in European country where you get free health care. Why would uber/lyft make an exception for the US? If they can get away with it of course they will.

ams6110 8y ago
It isn't free.
denormalfloat 8y ago
As a rider, I am going to pick the cheapest ride. If Lyft pays their drivers less, it's because I pay Lyft less. If society as a whole picks Lyft, then it's society as a whole paying Lyft drivers less. I view Lyft more as a market maker rather than a company. In that sense, I agree with you, the market isn't the problem. The people to blame are riders, who got fed up with expensive and bad service taxis, and wanted cheaper rides. Lyft (and Uber) delivered on that, but they are only reflecting the will of us as riders.
- baby 8y ago
  That’s why some stuff like health care should not be privatized. Because the market will always go against it.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    That is absolutely not true. You're generalising too much. There are many people that are trying to democratise healthcare the private way.
    - baby 8y ago
      Look at how it's doing
      - TomMarius 8y ago
        It's doing very well, just not in the USA (if you mean healthcare in general). The attempts I've been talking about are doing well as well.
RHSeeger 8y ago
> “How much does he deserve”. Welcome to America. I'm assuming there's sarcasm in that statement. However... > My father has been truck driver his entire life and for the last 20 years worked as a contractor, while driving his own truck and trailer, since it gives him more $$$ than average driver who works as employee. One of the primary reasons one makes more as a contractor is because the company isn't paying for those safety nets (insurance, pension, etc). That extra money the contractor is making is supposed to be going towards those things. If said contractor is not using it to buy health insurance and contribute to retirement, then it's that contractor's fault.
- baby 8y ago
  We have the same stuff in France. You lose on benefits as a contractor. But you do not lose on healthcare. That’s a basic human right.
  - cinquemb 8y ago
    I wonder what happens when basic human rights can no longer be paid for with hypothetical future cash flows… future gillets jeunes to be mown down by domestic metadata drone strikes under emergency powers acts when they try to demand for their basic rights?
baddox 8y ago
> “How much does he deserve”. Welcome to America. Sure, that’s a good way to hyperbolically sum up a country or society, but it is very hyperbolic, and one could construct hyperbolic summations of other countries or societies too. Like “everyone deserves everything, regardless of their effort or contribution or ability.” The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

zbentley 8y ago

> How much help did he earn? How much does he deserve? The money a driver gets paid is the help. That seems naïve and inhumane. Compensation and benefits are understood to be separate things in the US at this time. From social security to health insurance, the costs of securing such things without an employer (an entity on the other side of the wealth gap, usually) are often untenable. > Forcing Lyft to hire employees instead of contractors won't mean there will be more workers with a safety-net; it means there won't be any Lyft. That would be bad for both drivers and the people being driven. The choice between untenably-expensive benefits as a contractor or untenably-unaffordable benefits as an unemployed person is no choice at all--especially for people with health problems/children/debt. Ignoring the people being driven (I'mma say that the benefit to the most needy customers of Lyft is negligible compared to the costs/benefits to the drivers in this scenario--otherwise we should have a different discussion about whether or not rides-for-hire should be a public utility), I think saying "you got paid your safety net in your insultingly-low wages last week" is deliberately obtuse and fails to engage with the issue at hand.

viscanti 8y ago
> The choice between untenably-expensive benefits as a contractor or untenably-unaffordable benefits as an unemployed person is no choice at all--especially for people with health problems/children/debt. It appears that lots of people choose to drive for Lyft knowing they won't get those benefits. Why ignore their choice? If they're choosing to do it and Lyft can't give them the same opportunity along with the benefits it's effectively saying they shouldn't have any opportunity for work until they have the perfect opportunity. I'm not convinced that it's better for someone to starve than to have the opportunity to drive for Lyft. The people choosing to drive for Lyft do so over all other work opportunities. If there was something equally good that also provided health benefits, then Lyft wouldn't have any drivers as everyone would pick that better alternative. Given there's not a better alternative, why pick on Lyft? They're the most appealing opportunity for work for lots of people.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  A lot of people choose to drive for Lyft because there aren't many other options to make money. When you have a choice between $0 and $Something, you're going to choose $Something. Companies know this and take advantage of this in order to underpay people who might not have other options. It gets even worse if you consider people who already have a job which can't support them or their family. People can and do make bad choices, such as people who choose to forgo health insurance which then burden hospitals and tax payers in a way that affects everyone else. The solution is to either force Lyft to play ball and not allow them to avoid things like minimum wage laws by calling their workers contractors, or to ensure that the government covers their healthcare.

michaelmrose 8y ago

Since lyft operates at a loss by convincing morons to keep flushing money I'm not sure Lyft or Uber has any long term future of any variety.

denormalfloat 8y ago
Calling drivers morons is not helpful. Realistically, there is no way for me to make money between now and the 2 hours before bedtime. Lyft (and Uber) provide a way for me to work that extra few hours if I want to, which I previously couldn't.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  In case it wasn't clear I meant investors.

rat87 8y ago

> Forcing Lyft to hire employees instead of contractors won't mean there will be more workers with a safety-net; it means there won't be any Lyft. So? If lift fails a better business will come along that can treat employees well. Or someone will make a successful community run app (which gives 95% of fares to employees taking only overhead) will come along to replace uber/lyft since it would actually be treating them as contractors unlike uber/lyft