5 ms·

This ruling could pave the way for a model that is good for everyone. As of now the gig economy exploits the poor[0]. Unless you think making 70% less than mini

This ruling could pave the way for a model that is good for everyone. As of now the gig economy exploits the poor[0]. Unless you think making 70% less than minimum wage is fair. 0: https://web.archive.org/web/20180302041610/http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2018-005-Brief.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20180302041610/http://ceepr.mit....

dpc_pw 6y ago
Is not being able to work for Uber and being unemployed more fair? Or do you or California's government have any more fair deal to offer these people?
- randmeerkat 6y ago
  These zero sum arguments are pointless and needlessly inflammatory.
  - s17n 6y ago
    That's exactly what's going to happen, though. Uber and Lyft are not very profitable so they can't actually afford to increase wages or benefits out of their own pockets. If they increase prices, the market will shrink, so drivers won't have work.
- dybber 6y ago
  That’s not the alternative scenario. The alternative scenario is that either Uber/Lyft or another company abides by the rules, and deliver the same service with hired employees. The demand is there. Yes, it will become a bit more expensive for the consumer, but that price difference, is what it costs to give decent benefits and rights to workers.
  - brian_cloutier 6y ago
    Your alternative scenario isn't entirely correct either. Yes, the workers you see will be paid more and they will appreciate the labor protections. However, there will be a number of people whom you will not see, because they will no longer be employed at all.
    - dpc_pw 6y ago
      Exactly. Employment and benefits requirement will completely eliminate part-time and flexible-hours workers, and other people that were really benefiting from this type of work.
  - s17n 6y ago
    > The demand is there. I'd be very surprised if this turns out to be true. Ridesharing is competing with public transit, personal vehicles, walking, etc. If prices significantly increase, the market size will go back to what it was before Uber.
  - dpc_pw 6y ago
    I take it as a "no". You nor California's government have no better options for them. > The alternative scenario... Another scenario is that Uber hikes prices, people cease to use their services because they are too expensive, and the company fails, and all these drivers lose their jobs, and customers lose the service, which will double-hurt the working class because rich people can afford their own cars and/or expensive taxis. The drivers are not exploited. Had their have better options, they would be working elsewhere. You want to help them, give them better options, make opening business easier and so on. Not kill their options. Ehh... I'm wasting my time... Socialists are the worst enemy of the people the claim to want to protect.
  - SamReidHughes 6y ago
    If workers get paid more in benefits and "rights," more people will become rideshare drivers. And then pay will get pushed down, until the work is just as undesirable as it is now, only differently undesirable, because the compensation is in the form of benefits and "rights," instead of cash that the driver can spend however they want.
  - solidasparagus 6y ago
    > The demand is there That's not true. The demand is there because the cost makes sense. I had a car, but after considering the cost of owning (and parking) that car, I found that I was better off not having a car and relying on Uber when I need to get somewhere that requires a car. If that math no longer makes sense, I'll probably go back to driving.
- ketzo 6y ago
  I think the more fair deal would be employing them at a more fair job, as should be the goal of a responsible government.
brian_cloutier 6y ago
It's incredibly hard for me to consider this exploitation when people are freely entering into these agreements. I would not accept 70% less than minimum wage, and I'm sure these workers would all prefer to make more than 30% of minimum wage, but they have an entire labor market of other options and they have decided that this is their best option. The onus should be on you to explain why you think it's better that these jobs not be available to them at all. If people deserve some minimum standard of living, why should only employed people deserve that minimum standard? I don't see why gig economy employers are the ones getting the blame here. Surely our legislature is to blame for allowing people to have such a low standard of living that they feel forced to accept such terrible jobs.
- haroldegibbons 6y ago
  > they have decided that this is their best option Do you think they'd still sign up if Uber was upfront about only paying ~$4/hr? > why should only employed people deserve than minimum standard Why does Uber think unemployed people don't deserve the minimum standard? > Surely our legislature is to blame for allowing people to have such a low standard of living Do you think this ruling lines up with that?
  - qeternity 6y ago
    > Do you think they'd still sign up if Uber was upfront about only paying ~$4/hr? Do you think that people would continue to work for Uber after the first month if they were really earning $4/hr when they could walk into a fastfood chain and earn minimum wage? So either your number is wrong, or the answer is yes. Either way, you're not arguing for what you think you are.
  - brian_cloutier 6y ago
    I don't quite understand what you're saying. If I'm understanding you right then you don't quite understand what I'm saying. My claim is that it's disingenuous to say that Uber is exploiting their workers. If you think these are terrible conditions that nobody would ever work under unless they were being coerced you have to grapple with the fact that nobody is coercing anybody to become Uber drivers. If you think that these are immoral working conditions then what you really believe is that a large chunk of our society is immorally made to live in poverty, and you're blaming Uber but how could this be Uber's fault? If someone has genuinely decided to accept work for $4/hr and this shocks you so much that you're demanding Uber give them more, you should also be shocked that so many people are currently earning $0/hr if you have any hope of having a consistent worldview. When seen from this lens the whole argument over SB 5 and Prop 22 makes no sense at all. Stop focusing on Uber, ask your legislators to stop focusing on Uber, and to start attempting to solve the real problem.

dpc_pw 6y ago

Is not being able to work for Uber and being unemployed more fair? Or do you or California's government have any more fair deal to offer these people?

randmeerkat 6y ago
These zero sum arguments are pointless and needlessly inflammatory.
- s17n 6y ago
  That's exactly what's going to happen, though. Uber and Lyft are not very profitable so they can't actually afford to increase wages or benefits out of their own pockets. If they increase prices, the market will shrink, so drivers won't have work.
dybber 6y ago
That’s not the alternative scenario. The alternative scenario is that either Uber/Lyft or another company abides by the rules, and deliver the same service with hired employees. The demand is there. Yes, it will become a bit more expensive for the consumer, but that price difference, is what it costs to give decent benefits and rights to workers.
- brian_cloutier 6y ago
  Your alternative scenario isn't entirely correct either. Yes, the workers you see will be paid more and they will appreciate the labor protections. However, there will be a number of people whom you will not see, because they will no longer be employed at all.
  - dpc_pw 6y ago
    Exactly. Employment and benefits requirement will completely eliminate part-time and flexible-hours workers, and other people that were really benefiting from this type of work.
- s17n 6y ago
  > The demand is there. I'd be very surprised if this turns out to be true. Ridesharing is competing with public transit, personal vehicles, walking, etc. If prices significantly increase, the market size will go back to what it was before Uber.
- dpc_pw 6y ago
  I take it as a "no". You nor California's government have no better options for them. > The alternative scenario... Another scenario is that Uber hikes prices, people cease to use their services because they are too expensive, and the company fails, and all these drivers lose their jobs, and customers lose the service, which will double-hurt the working class because rich people can afford their own cars and/or expensive taxis. The drivers are not exploited. Had their have better options, they would be working elsewhere. You want to help them, give them better options, make opening business easier and so on. Not kill their options. Ehh... I'm wasting my time... Socialists are the worst enemy of the people the claim to want to protect.
- SamReidHughes 6y ago
  If workers get paid more in benefits and "rights," more people will become rideshare drivers. And then pay will get pushed down, until the work is just as undesirable as it is now, only differently undesirable, because the compensation is in the form of benefits and "rights," instead of cash that the driver can spend however they want.
- solidasparagus 6y ago
  > The demand is there That's not true. The demand is there because the cost makes sense. I had a car, but after considering the cost of owning (and parking) that car, I found that I was better off not having a car and relying on Uber when I need to get somewhere that requires a car. If that math no longer makes sense, I'll probably go back to driving.
ketzo 6y ago
I think the more fair deal would be employing them at a more fair job, as should be the goal of a responsible government.

brian_cloutier 6y ago

It's incredibly hard for me to consider this exploitation when people are freely entering into these agreements. I would not accept 70% less than minimum wage, and I'm sure these workers would all prefer to make more than 30% of minimum wage, but they have an entire labor market of other options and they have decided that this is their best option. The onus should be on you to explain why you think it's better that these jobs not be available to them at all. If people deserve some minimum standard of living, why should only employed people deserve that minimum standard? I don't see why gig economy employers are the ones getting the blame here. Surely our legislature is to blame for allowing people to have such a low standard of living that they feel forced to accept such terrible jobs.

haroldegibbons 6y ago
> they have decided that this is their best option Do you think they'd still sign up if Uber was upfront about only paying ~$4/hr? > why should only employed people deserve than minimum standard Why does Uber think unemployed people don't deserve the minimum standard? > Surely our legislature is to blame for allowing people to have such a low standard of living Do you think this ruling lines up with that?
- qeternity 6y ago
  > Do you think they'd still sign up if Uber was upfront about only paying ~$4/hr? Do you think that people would continue to work for Uber after the first month if they were really earning $4/hr when they could walk into a fastfood chain and earn minimum wage? So either your number is wrong, or the answer is yes. Either way, you're not arguing for what you think you are.
- brian_cloutier 6y ago
  I don't quite understand what you're saying. If I'm understanding you right then you don't quite understand what I'm saying. My claim is that it's disingenuous to say that Uber is exploiting their workers. If you think these are terrible conditions that nobody would ever work under unless they were being coerced you have to grapple with the fact that nobody is coercing anybody to become Uber drivers. If you think that these are immoral working conditions then what you really believe is that a large chunk of our society is immorally made to live in poverty, and you're blaming Uber but how could this be Uber's fault? If someone has genuinely decided to accept work for $4/hr and this shocks you so much that you're demanding Uber give them more, you should also be shocked that so many people are currently earning $0/hr if you have any hope of having a consistent worldview. When seen from this lens the whole argument over SB 5 and Prop 22 makes no sense at all. Stop focusing on Uber, ask your legislators to stop focusing on Uber, and to start attempting to solve the real problem.