7 ms·

Good for Uber. California has its hands on too many things. It has so many ethics it has destroyed the middle class. I want much less regulation.

lokar 7y ago
IMO, often arguments about "less regulation" related to employment law (and generally how large employers treat workers) tend to neglect the fact that these arrangements don't happen in a vacuum. The seeming less-regulated employment is in fact supported by a great deal of government safety net programs taxpayers. Many of these low paying / independent contractor / "gig economy" jobs are really only feasible due to government support. Given that, it seems more reasonable for the government to regulate.
- justinzollars 7y ago
  I'm not sure this is in fact true. We have experiments going on at the state level. People have a higher standard of living in states with less regulation. IMO I would argue California's new law is not about protecting workers, who are actually able to earn more money as independent contractors, but about protecting higher tax revenues collected on employees. In San Francisco where I live, we have almost no middle class primarily because it's so expensive to live. Thats right no middle class. We have effectively outlawed housing with 7 year approval cycles, and exclusionary zoning. It's nearly impossible to develop in California. What does the data show? People are leaving California to move to states like Texas. Half of Californias are thinking of leaving the state. Poverty is shrinking everywhere except California where 18% of the population is living in poverty.
mwfunk 7y ago
Oh no, not ethics! Next thing you know it’ll have morals.
- justinzollars 7y ago
  * ethics and morals at the expense of being able to see the failure of their own policy. How many homeless people did they have to ignore to win a cheap political argument? (a lot)
adrr 7y ago
Our median income in California is the highest in the nation at $70k. Bay is $100k. California seems to be doing everything right in terms wage growth. https://datausa.io/profile/geo/california https://datausa.io/profile/geo/california
- justinzollars 7y ago
  Sure. But compare wage growth with the amount you can buy in California. Local inflation is a killer because we do/will/can not develop things like housing or infrastructure. My housing costs have gone from $700 to $3950 in 10 years. If I wasn't one of the lucky few, I would be priced out. Hence my point we need much less regulation so that middle class people can afford to live in California. We could 10x pay, but with the same stock of housing, the poor will do no better.
  - learc83 7y ago
    >Hence my point we need much less regulation so that middle class people can afford to live in California Middle class people can afford to live in plenty of California, just not in certain places like the bay area. The problems with housing are mostly caused by local NIMBYism not statewide regulation, which is an issue that doesn't have a specific political affiliation.
    - justinzollars 7y ago
      Regulations do in fact have a political component. San Francisco has laws on the books mandating "affordable housing". These laws have have made housing construction much more expensive and have reduced the overall stock of housing. An unintended consequence. A new ballot measure, sponsored by progressives on the board of supervisors this year, will further limit construction and tie commercial development to these affordable housing mandates. The result will be less overall development and increased cost of living. Sponsored by progressives. What I see locally is progressives fighting development, and this hurts us all. Yes there is a NIMY component, but with a super majority in the state legislature - Democrats could easily overrule local laws. But they do not. Japan is an example of a place with housing decisions made at the state level.

lokar 7y ago

IMO, often arguments about "less regulation" related to employment law (and generally how large employers treat workers) tend to neglect the fact that these arrangements don't happen in a vacuum. The seeming less-regulated employment is in fact supported by a great deal of government safety net programs taxpayers. Many of these low paying / independent contractor / "gig economy" jobs are really only feasible due to government support. Given that, it seems more reasonable for the government to regulate.

justinzollars 7y ago
I'm not sure this is in fact true. We have experiments going on at the state level. People have a higher standard of living in states with less regulation. IMO I would argue California's new law is not about protecting workers, who are actually able to earn more money as independent contractors, but about protecting higher tax revenues collected on employees. In San Francisco where I live, we have almost no middle class primarily because it's so expensive to live. Thats right no middle class. We have effectively outlawed housing with 7 year approval cycles, and exclusionary zoning. It's nearly impossible to develop in California. What does the data show? People are leaving California to move to states like Texas. Half of Californias are thinking of leaving the state. Poverty is shrinking everywhere except California where 18% of the population is living in poverty.

mwfunk 7y ago

Oh no, not ethics! Next thing you know it’ll have morals.

justinzollars 7y ago
* ethics and morals at the expense of being able to see the failure of their own policy. How many homeless people did they have to ignore to win a cheap political argument? (a lot)

adrr 7y ago

Our median income in California is the highest in the nation at $70k. Bay is $100k. California seems to be doing everything right in terms wage growth. https://datausa.io/profile/geo/california https://datausa.io/profile/geo/california

justinzollars 7y ago
Sure. But compare wage growth with the amount you can buy in California. Local inflation is a killer because we do/will/can not develop things like housing or infrastructure. My housing costs have gone from $700 to $3950 in 10 years. If I wasn't one of the lucky few, I would be priced out. Hence my point we need much less regulation so that middle class people can afford to live in California. We could 10x pay, but with the same stock of housing, the poor will do no better.
- learc83 7y ago
  >Hence my point we need much less regulation so that middle class people can afford to live in California Middle class people can afford to live in plenty of California, just not in certain places like the bay area. The problems with housing are mostly caused by local NIMBYism not statewide regulation, which is an issue that doesn't have a specific political affiliation.
  - justinzollars 7y ago
    Regulations do in fact have a political component. San Francisco has laws on the books mandating "affordable housing". These laws have have made housing construction much more expensive and have reduced the overall stock of housing. An unintended consequence. A new ballot measure, sponsored by progressives on the board of supervisors this year, will further limit construction and tie commercial development to these affordable housing mandates. The result will be less overall development and increased cost of living. Sponsored by progressives. What I see locally is progressives fighting development, and this hurts us all. Yes there is a NIMY component, but with a super majority in the state legislature - Democrats could easily overrule local laws. But they do not. Japan is an example of a place with housing decisions made at the state level.