4 ms·

Prop 22 may or may not be good, but its passage means that AB5 was bad. The state Assembly screwed up. When you pass a law that affects so many ordinary peopl

Prop 22 may or may not be good, but its passage means that AB5 was bad. The state Assembly screwed up. When you pass a law that affects so many ordinary people, you better be sure that's what they want. Instead of a practical solution, AB5 came across as just meddling.

whimsicalism 6y ago
> When you pass a law that affects so many ordinary people, you better be sure that's what they want The reason we have a representative democracy is because sometimes legislators can make decisions that might be different from the typical voter who has not spent extensive time thinking about the issue.
- sida 6y ago
  And the counter-argument would be that the reason for possibilities of direct democracy is for situations like this where unions have achieved regulatory capture, such that a small number of people wield disproportionate influence and drive the legislature against what the people want
  - mdorazio 6y ago
    I have a hard time believing that claim when Uber and Lyft were massively abusing their own platforms and public reach to run bullshit campaigns on behalf of Prop 22. California's proposition system also doesn't have a great track record of enacting legislation that's actually a good thing in hindsight.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    I think it's hard to seriously claim that there is regulatory capture of the legislature by unions in America, but okay. > such that a small number of people wield disproportionate influence and drive the legislature against what the people want Much better to have Uber wield its disproportionate influence to display push notifications telling me to vote for Prop 22 every day leading up to the election.
- chmod600 6y ago
  Are you sure the Assembly knows best? Drivers can't be on-the-clock for two employers at the same time. So drivers who use both Uber and Lyft would have to choose. That means the customers outside of major urban centers would be less likely to find a driver nearby, because they may be looking in Uber and the driver is on-the-clock with Lyft. It seems like the effect would end up being monopolistic because the network effects would be even stronger than they are now. That would be compounded by the lack of drivers. Market stickiness of the employment relationship would drive the equilibrium of drivers down, wait times up, prices up, and riders down.
- chmod600 6y ago
  We also have special interest groups that do their research and endorse or oppose these propositions. Mothers Against Drunk Driving endorsed Prop 22. If the state Assembly didn't see that one coming, they really screwed up.
  - mixmastamyk 6y ago
    Good point. I’d forgotten about how rideshare had removed a lot of drunks from the roads.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
  Those same reps changed their minds and carved out tons of “whoops that’s not what we meant” exemptions, which is presumably what that comment is referring to with “you better be sure that’s what they want.”
mdorazio 6y ago
> you better be sure that's what they want. This logic makes no sense at all. For example, everyone wants a bunch of free money - should the Assembly pass a ton of bills that write blank checks with no budget changes to back them up? Everyone loves artificially low property taxes for existing residents, and that's been an unmitigated disaster for the state. The Assembly's job is to pass bills that positively benefit California as a state and as a society long-term. Sometimes that means certain groups will not be happy with the bills. It is extremely dubious to claim that Prop 22 is definitely a good thing for California and a strong society.
- jimbob21 6y ago
  >The Assembly's job is to pass bills that positively benefit California as a state and as a society long-term. While also ensuring that what they're passing is what members of their state want. If they're not sure, you should not pass that thing. If the state needs the benefits of that thing (and that need is backed by research), then they should go about finding another way to acquire the benefits that has public approval. That's the entire point of a democracy
  - mdorazio 6y ago
    I think you missed most of my point. Which "members" are you talking about? States have multiple interest groups on every issue.
- chmod600 6y ago
  Reducto ad absurdum is unconvincing in this context. It's simple. A lot of people like app-based driving, both customers and drivers. Some people don't, like professional full-time drivers who are trying to use it for their primary income. The Assembly failed to communicate why AB5 was a good balance between those needs, and as far as I can tell, it was not a good balance.

whimsicalism 6y ago

> When you pass a law that affects so many ordinary people, you better be sure that's what they want The reason we have a representative democracy is because sometimes legislators can make decisions that might be different from the typical voter who has not spent extensive time thinking about the issue.

sida 6y ago
And the counter-argument would be that the reason for possibilities of direct democracy is for situations like this where unions have achieved regulatory capture, such that a small number of people wield disproportionate influence and drive the legislature against what the people want
- mdorazio 6y ago
  I have a hard time believing that claim when Uber and Lyft were massively abusing their own platforms and public reach to run bullshit campaigns on behalf of Prop 22. California's proposition system also doesn't have a great track record of enacting legislation that's actually a good thing in hindsight.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  I think it's hard to seriously claim that there is regulatory capture of the legislature by unions in America, but okay. > such that a small number of people wield disproportionate influence and drive the legislature against what the people want Much better to have Uber wield its disproportionate influence to display push notifications telling me to vote for Prop 22 every day leading up to the election.
chmod600 6y ago
Are you sure the Assembly knows best? Drivers can't be on-the-clock for two employers at the same time. So drivers who use both Uber and Lyft would have to choose. That means the customers outside of major urban centers would be less likely to find a driver nearby, because they may be looking in Uber and the driver is on-the-clock with Lyft. It seems like the effect would end up being monopolistic because the network effects would be even stronger than they are now. That would be compounded by the lack of drivers. Market stickiness of the employment relationship would drive the equilibrium of drivers down, wait times up, prices up, and riders down.
chmod600 6y ago
We also have special interest groups that do their research and endorse or oppose these propositions. Mothers Against Drunk Driving endorsed Prop 22. If the state Assembly didn't see that one coming, they really screwed up.
- mixmastamyk 6y ago
  Good point. I’d forgotten about how rideshare had removed a lot of drunks from the roads.
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
Those same reps changed their minds and carved out tons of “whoops that’s not what we meant” exemptions, which is presumably what that comment is referring to with “you better be sure that’s what they want.”

mdorazio 6y ago

> you better be sure that's what they want. This logic makes no sense at all. For example, everyone wants a bunch of free money - should the Assembly pass a ton of bills that write blank checks with no budget changes to back them up? Everyone loves artificially low property taxes for existing residents, and that's been an unmitigated disaster for the state. The Assembly's job is to pass bills that positively benefit California as a state and as a society long-term. Sometimes that means certain groups will not be happy with the bills. It is extremely dubious to claim that Prop 22 is definitely a good thing for California and a strong society.

jimbob21 6y ago
>The Assembly's job is to pass bills that positively benefit California as a state and as a society long-term. While also ensuring that what they're passing is what members of their state want. If they're not sure, you should not pass that thing. If the state needs the benefits of that thing (and that need is backed by research), then they should go about finding another way to acquire the benefits that has public approval. That's the entire point of a democracy
- mdorazio 6y ago
  I think you missed most of my point. Which "members" are you talking about? States have multiple interest groups on every issue.
chmod600 6y ago
Reducto ad absurdum is unconvincing in this context. It's simple. A lot of people like app-based driving, both customers and drivers. Some people don't, like professional full-time drivers who are trying to use it for their primary income. The Assembly failed to communicate why AB5 was a good balance between those needs, and as far as I can tell, it was not a good balance.