4 ms·
Why stop at Uber drivers? Why don’t the California regulators just regulate away all jobs that don’t pay a livable wage? Why don’t the California regulators jus
by r29vzg2 6y ago
Why stop at Uber drivers? Why don’t the California regulators just regulate away all jobs that don’t pay a livable wage? Why don’t the California regulators just raise the minimum wage to $90k a year?
Like I mentioned in the post above, regulations don’t exist in a vacuum, just because you say something should be a certain way doesn’t mean it will be. There are costs, and Uber and Lyft have determined that it’s not economically feasible for them keep operating in California under those regulations.
If we’re ok with California regulators dictating what jobs should exist regardless of what the market can support, then this is the result.
- Talanes 6y ago"Why don’t the California regulators just regulate away all jobs that don’t pay a livable wage?" I'm down.
- um_ya 6y agoAll the people fleeing California disagree with you
- ikiris 6y agoThis is not why we're fleeing.
- winkeltripel 6y agoIs it cause you want to own a home one day? Or at least stop paying more rent each month than a mortgage in other states?
- ikiris 6y ago"FINE< WHY NOT GO EVEN FURTHER AND REALLY HELP THE POOR?!?! IM SURE YOU'LL BE SORRY THEN!" I never really understand some arguments with people who think most regulation is bad and not voted in blood.
- r29vzg2 6y agoBy removing all jobs that don’t pay a livable wage you essentially remove all jobs that low-skilled workers are working. I don’t see how that would help the poor. Fighting poverty is done by giving the impoverished more opportunities, not less. Simply put, regulating all jobs to pay a livable wage won’t make those jobs suddenly do so. It will instead make those jobs disappear, as the employer no longer making any money.
- viraptor 6y ago> By removing all jobs that don’t pay a livable wage you essentially remove all jobs that low-skilled workers are working. That's demonstrably not true as written. UK requires paying over living wage at 25yo and minimum wage before. The low-skilled jobs have not disappeared. But think about what it really means as you wrote it: you don't think people doing low skill work deserve to not live in poverty. That is what living wage means. If we can't afford people to earn living wage as a default, it's a problem with general economy that needs to be addressed - if killing jobs that can't afford workers is a first step, it will have to happen at some point. (Ideally we'd have a different approach, maybe a UBI, or another highway network project, or something else)
- kyleee 6y agoI doubt the person you are responding to believes that low skill workers deserve to live in poverty. I don't think that's a particulalry charitable interpretation
- ikiris 6y agoPlease explain a charitable version of the logical results of this policy.
- viraptor 6y ago> Fighting poverty is done by giving the impoverished more opportunities, not less. This is a nicely worded "let them fight for scraps" when contrasted with the idea of living wage. This is the hill I'm willing to die on. A job opportunity under living wage may help separate people survive today, but it's a terrible idea for everyone long term.
- XMPPwocky 6y ago"There are costs, and Uber and Lyft have determined that it’s not economically feasible for them keep operating in California under those regulations." Do you know that's the case, or do you just mean "that's what they said!" It's in their interest to say they just can't afford to treat their workers better- that they'll be forced to shut down- regardless of whether or not they can afford to.
- r29vzg2 6y agoThey were prepared to do it. It was set to go into effect and was going to it if wasn’t for the emergency stay order.
- XMPPwocky 6y agoIs that something you know to be true, or something you heard from the companies? Remember, there's a history of just this kind of stunt with these particular actors. So, personally, I'm very wary of taking their statements at face value!
- RandoHolmes 6y agoYou can imagine just these sorts of arguments being raised when things like the 40 hour work week was going into effect. And yet, here we are, years later, with the 40 hour work week and companies somehow successfully surviving.
- unishark 6y agoOr, according to the last poll I saw, here we are with an average work week of something like 47 hours in the US. But we did ensure that workers at the low end aren't allowed the same flexibility as the higher paid employees, along with a nice demeaning time clock to punch every day.
- RandoHolmes 6y agoDude, so right that I can't slam that upvote hard enough... I'm just saying, if we can't have exactly a 40 hour work week, and we can't do it exactly for every person alive, then obviously the 40 hour work week failed over the 100 hour work week and we just shouldn't have tried. fist bump my nigga
- CodeWriter23 6y ago> Why don’t the California regulators just regulate away all jobs that don’t pay a livable wage? That’s what they did with AB5, and also decided to regulate lucrative freelance gigs while they were at it. The result however wasn’t that companies hired former contractors as employees; no they just farm all their freelance work to out of state freelancers.
- jacobush 6y agoThe other states should maybe follow suit.
- CodeWriter23 6y agoHave you read the law? It’s about 100 words of code and thousands about exemptions to the code, and the exemptions all have their own specific boundaries, like a writer can freelance 35 articles per outlet. But not a cartoonist. That’s not a good law. If it were a computer program, we’d call it spaghetti code, kludge, dirty hack job (and be fired for writing it). And it creates unequal protection under the law based on choice of profession. I get that profession isn’t a protected class. But gender is, and as I’ve learned recently, wow a lot of moms take contractor gigs so they can have flexibility dividing their time between work and children.