24 ms·
Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
- mfDjB 6y agoAnecdotally when I talk to Uber drivers about how they feel about laws like this, they are staunchly against it, in fact I haven't found one that is for it (sample size of maybe 20 or so). Does anyone have any data on whether these drivers actually want AB5 in effect? All I see from the pro side are cherry-picked examples.
- wavepruner 6y agoAs an Uber driver, I can tell you, the majority of drivers are against AB5, but that doesn't fit into the mainstream media or Democrat's agenda, so you'll rarely hear that fact. The driver's that are for AB5 tend to be newer one's who have yet to figure out their market and how to be profitable.
- ZoomerCretin 6y agoWeren't Uber drivers bombarded with Pro-Prop 22 messaging every time they opened the app or picked up a passenger? It would make sense that they would support it if >95% of the messaging they got about Prop 22 was from their employer who stood to gain hundreds of millions from its passage.
- dragonwriter 6y agoThey were also threatened that Uber would shut down and California entirely if it failed. If you had an upcoming vote on abolishing penal slavery, and prisoners were threatened with being gunned down if it passed, they might well oppose it.
- egberts1 6y agoYou get what you vote for.
- awb 6y agoSaying a voting block was "tricked" or "bought" ignores millions of CA residents who read the law and formed their own conclusions. There's a very progressive and pro-business case to be made for decoupling benefits from the employer-employee or contract-gig relationship and making those benefits universal instead. Progressives get the social safety net they want and businesses gets the fewer regulations they want.
- rtkwe 6y agoSure if we could snap fingers and get to the UBI full social safety net overnight maybe it'd be fine, but right now what happens is businesses fight and lobby to reduce both taxes that would fund that net and against regulations to prevent abuses of workers who have to work or die.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago> Saying a voting block was "tricked" or "bought" ignores millions of CA residents who read the law and formed their own conclusions. This isn't a fair characterization of how people cast their ballots. They see the ad and it has some non-zero effect. If running ads was ineffective in swaying public opinion, there wouldn't have been a $200m persuasion campaign.
- themacguffinman 6y agoAnd this isn't a fair characterization of how ads work. They don't magically change people's minds and stop people from forming their own conclusions. It doesn't mean the vote was "tricked" or "bought. Try spending $200MM on a nonsense bill and see how much support you can actually buy. Like any endeavor, ads & marketing can be dishonest. If you actually thought any part of Uber's campaign was dishonest, I encourage you to say what you mean rather than cast vague aspersions.
- awb 6y ago> Try spending $200MM on a nonsense bill and see how much support you can actually buy. Or $1B on a 3 month primary campaign: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/bloomberg-spent-nearly-1-billion-his-three-month-presidential-campaign-n1165306 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/bloomberg-spe...
- jimmar 6y agoMaybe I'm too libertarian-leaning, but doesn't the author of the article have the option of NOT driving for Uber? If California is truly one of the wealthiest economies, the author should be able to find a different line of work.
- piokoch 6y agoThat's a valid point. The question is why all other Uber/Lyft drivers are not changing jobs for something fancier if that is so easy.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y agoWell, maybe it's because the flexibility of work is important to those people, and they don't want a full-time job. Nearly 75% of all Uber drivers in CA drive <25 hours per week. More than 40% of all trips in CA are driven by those drivers.
- Oliphaunts 6y agoSome plausible reasons the drivers don't change jobs are (1) that RideCos offer the drivers paying work they prefer to their other realistic options, and (2) relatedly, that RideCos are more willing than other companies to offer the drivers work. Perhaps the drivers would have more good options if employment in other professions were not so heavily regulated. But (absent significant price controls) it seems like this is the sort of profession we should expect to attract marginal, low-skilled employees whose lives may inspire some sympathy, through no particular fault of the RideCos.
- satya71 6y agoHave you tried finding work when your education is not in demand? Please don’t minimize other’s lived experience.
- sokoloff 6y agoThat's a fair point, but if your education is not in demand, I don't see a reason to think that driving a car, something that 80+% of American adults are capable of doing, should provide a full household income on 40 hours per week of effort. That initial condition (your education is not in demand) definitely represents a tough position, but it's not clear that it's ride-sharing's "fault" in any way. Instead, it seems to me like ride-sharing is providing them with a better alternative than whatever their next-best alternative is; in other words, it's helping them not harming them.
- mkl 6y agoWhat's with the weird punctuation in the altered title? Makes it hard to read. The article title is "Uber bought itself a law. Here's why that's dangerous for struggling drivers like me", and if you want to fit it into 80 characters, just drop the "like me".
- googthrowaway42 6y ago"In California, one of the world’s wealthiest economies, I should be able to afford rent and pay my bills as a driver. I shouldn’t be forced to scour for public bathrooms or work 70-hour weeks to do this job. But that’s what these companies have forced upon us." "Uber may have bought itself a law, but it has not bought itself reprieve. All labor has dignity, and driving for Uber or Lyft should be no different." Cherri Murphy is a social justice minister and Lyft driver based in Oakland, California. She is also an organizer with Gig Workers Rising. Oh ok, that makes sense.
- deweller 6y agoWhat is a "social justice minister"?
- qorrect 6y agoA Philosophy major.
- eplanit 6y agoMore like ethnic and gender studies, probably.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- barry-cotter 6y agoThe kind of Christian minister that cares more about, and talks more about social justice than they do about Christ.
- maxehmookau 6y agoYou're right, Jesus didn't give a damn about social justice. Christianity and the need for justice and equality are completely separate. /s
- GavinMcG 6y agoEllipsis is accomplished with an ellipsis, not a dash. Use ... next time.
- smt88 6y agoThis is the worst kind of pedantic because it is both pedantic and wrong[1]. You could argue against the dramatic period after the word "law," but why would you? We all understand her meaning and the dashes emphasize her point without bold or italic letters. 1. https://writingessentialsbyellen.com/when-to-use-the-ellipsis-or-the-dash-in-writing/ https://writingessentialsbyellen.com/when-to-use-the-ellipsi...
- mkl 6y ago> We all understand her meaning and the dashes emphasize her point without bold or italic letters. I didn't understand the meaning until I clicked through to the article. In fact, trying to understand the weird punctuation is the only reason I took any interest in this story. I don't think dashes can work as emphasis for that part of a sentence.
- GavinMcG 6y agoWe don't all understand the meaning. And yes, here, the purpose was ellipsis: the original text was "Uber bought itself a law. Here's why that's dangerous for struggling drivers like me" and the submission was eliding portions of that. Your link and criticism are entirely inapt. The title was not using the dash for emphasis, and even if it were, it would have been inappropriate. The examples in the article you link are of a dash making a break in the chain of thought more emphatic. Dashes are not used to emphasize enclosed text itself.
- mkl 6y agoThey're not trying to do an ellipsis, or a pause. I think it might be an attempt at emphasis, like italics.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y agoAlternative spin, same facts: "voters undo unpopular overreach by state government".
- yohannparis 6y agoThat's the point of a government. Every law is an overreach by the government.
- moduspol 6y agoFor real. My exposure to California news is basically just what I see on HN and anything that hits national headlines. I had no idea Californians would vote for something like this. Kind of makes you wonder how large the disconnect is between what we see in the media and what people actually think.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y agoRight. Another great example, which confounds the liberal-conservative aspect some people will see in Prop 22, is soft drug legalization. How many states have legalized personal marijuana usage due to action initiated in their legislatures? How many have done so due to ballot initiatives?
- MattGaiser 6y agoI suspect it is a pocketbook issue. Californians don’t want to pay more for transport and food delivery. Political ideals often give way to cheaper goods.
- uptown 6y agoOne element of Prop 22 which seems extreme to me are the voting requirements to one-day overturn the law: "A change to the law would require a seven-eighths majority in the California legislature." I realize that we don't want laws on the books that are continually changed, but that's an extremely steep climb, should the majority of the legislature feel that this law is problematic. They need virtual total agreement.
- kilotaras 6y agoAFAIK proposals (e.g infamous prop 13) cannot be overturned by legislature at all, even with 100%. So 7/8th is actually easier than default.
- refurb 6y agoCorrect. "The California State Legislature may not amend or repeal an approved measure without submitting the change to voters. However, a ballot measure may include a clause waiving this protection either entirely or conditionally." https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_California https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_proces...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- SkyBelow 6y agoCouldn't government do it in two parts with 50%+1? First vote removes the requirement, second vote changes the law.
- Gaelan 6y agoPresumably the requirement is subject to itself?
- renewiltord 6y ago
- treeman79 6y agoGot injured awhile back. Disability decided to play hardball. Gig jobs are all that kept family off the street while I recovered. Starting and stopping anytime as my body could tolerate. Or renting out rooms on Airbnb. Sometimes it took me 4 hours to change sheets and tidy up, but it made the difference. Not saying their good companies. But gigs was crazy valuable to me.
- yohannparis 6y agoThe issue is not the gig economy but businesses that force rules and behaviours (when to work, which client, you cannot refuse jobs, etc.) without labour protection. Either you are a platform that connects you to a potential client (like a powerful yellow page), or you are an employer.
- Jommi 6y agoAnd where does the line go?
- yohannparis 6y agoCan you please elaborate, because, in the case of Uber/Lyft, it's simple, if you force when drivers go, they can't refuse clients, etc. Then you are not "just" a platform to connect driver and people looking for a ride. If you are imposing rules, other than local regulations, to the drivers, you are an employer, and you should follow labour law. If you use Stripe API for examples, if you follow the law, and their T&C of services, they can't force you to sell to some clients, etc.
- Jommi 6y agoSo if you do only one of those things are you still an employer or now a platform?
- yohannparis 6y agoI'm still confused, because you are not giving any example or explanation for "one of those things". As soon as you tell somebody how to make their money, outside of government regulations, you are in fact an employer. Which is different from a contractual work where you can define requirements. In the case of Uber/Lyft (and other Gig economy for that matter) you do not sign a contract with each transaction you do with them. Therefore, your contract with them, it's to pick up and drive users of the platform under terms set by the platform. This is obviously an employer - employee relationship.
- ericabiz 6y agoMy husband drives for Uber, and I’m glad the proposition passed as it is. He drives the way Uber was originally envisioned. He goes out some nights if there’s a surge, and in the morning on the way to work he points the app toward our stores and grabs a person (pre-pandemic) or a food delivery (today) on his way in. It pays for gas money, car maintenance, and then some. Some months he makes a few hundred dollars. Some months over $1000. He can work when he wants, and make as much or as little money as he needs. I feel strongly like this law was pushed by people who want Uber to be a full-time job. It’s not. I understand that some people want it to be full-time, but I wish they would stop trying to make Uber something it’s not. Had the law passed, people like my husband would have had to quit working for Uber. It would have unfairly punished the part-time and “free time” drivers in favor of full-time drivers. I still think we need a third class of employment, but that’s not what was on the table here.
- intricatedetail 6y agoPeople who want it to be full time, in reality want it so they can install unions and then leech money of the workers with no options.
- Bjartr 6y agoCare to share what makes you so certain of this?
- esrauch 6y agoIt's anecdotal but I always chat with my Uber drivers and nearly 100% of them are driving full time. I assume it's a "most rides are driven by a full-timer, most drivers are part timers" situation. I don't really see why we need a third category, it should just be that some drivers are full time and some are not. I don't believe that Uber could sufficiently fulfill even half the rides with only the true part timers short of driver incentives also going way up (which would benefit people like your husband).
- JamesBarney 6y ago
- SllX 6y agoIf the 2020 elections proved anything, it’s that money doesn’t buy elections. Bloomberg tried in the Primary, and tried again in Texas on behalf of Biden and the Democrats and their portion of the Texan Congressional election actually shrank in a State the mainstream media was selling as a swing State. Money gets you into the game, it doesn’t get you over the finish line. Back to Prop 22, Uber didn’t buy a law, Californian voters bought this law with their votes, and punched a hole in an even worse law that screwed over 1099s with exceptions for the legislature’s preferred constituents. Now the California State legislature faces a choice: repeal what’s left of AB5 or let the gimped version stand without hitting their prized targets. A total repeal of AB5 would have been even better, but this will do for now.
- jryle70 6y ago> Bloomberg tried in the Primary, and tried again in Texas on behalf of Biden and the Democrats and their portion of the Texan Congressional election actually shrank in a State the mainstream media was selling as a swing State This is incorrect. Bloomberg spent $100 million to help Biden in Florida, not Texas. They may hope to flip Florida, but the main goal was to force Trump to defend there, and therefore unable to focus elsewhere, notably Pennsylvania, as they explained in the article below back in September. From that perspective they did very well. "In a statement issued Sunday, Mr. Sheekey said Mr. Bloomberg’s latest commitments “will mean Democrats and the Biden campaign can invest even more heavily in other key states like Pennsylvania, which will be critical to a Biden victory.” [0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-flo...
- SllX 6y agoNope, we’re both wrong. I’m not planning to track down which of the last two dozen podcasts I listened to that I heard my figure for Texas on, particularly since it was off, but that $100M was split between Florida, Ohio and Texas, lion’s share to Florida[1]. Note that your article is from September. Trump carried all three States, all three will walk into 2021 as Republican trifectas during redistricting season, and all three will be sending a majority Republican delegation to the House. Texas walks out of the 116th Congress with 22 Republicans of 36 House seats and will walk into the 117th without losing a single seat. However my original claim of a shrunken Democratic delegation was incorrect, garbage in, garbage out. My apologies. Kudos to you, you forced me to re-evaluate both my claims and my sources, however you haven’t come back at my main point in that paragraph: money doesn’t buy elections. Beyond this $100M spent in support of Democrats in three States they did abysmally in, Bloomberg spent $1B on his own Primary run which failed almost the moment voting started. $1B bought him 49 delegates and American Samoa in the very first batch of States and Territories he was on the ballot for in the Democratic Primary. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/04/bloomberg-sees-losses-after-spending-over-100-million-in-florida-ohio-texas.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/04/bloomberg-sees-losses-after-...
- oftenwrong 6y agoThey didn't buy a law; they ran a campaign (along with other companies). Over 9 million Californians voted "yes" on the proposition. This article glosses over the blame the voters deserve.
- crazy1van 6y agoIf these companies are as bad to work for as this author describes, why on earth would she continue to work for them? The author’s rebuttal might be that she has no choice because these are her only options. If that were true, then I’d be much more grateful and wouldn’t advocate for laws that might destroy them. These companies didn’t exist a decade ago and the continued existence of gig work is not a foregone conclusion. Also, it seems like the far more reliability successful path to improve ones lot in life would be to work to personally improve your skill set instead of focusing on legal changes in the hands of millions of people you don’t know and don’t control.
- zests 6y agoMy cynical take: the alternative is to write freelance articles that are sufficiently tribalistic to fit in with modern digital media. Luckily for the author, freelance writing was carved an exemption from AB5 after AB5 originally crushed freelance writing opportunities.
- Jommi 6y agoThis. It's just beautiful really.
- Tarsul 6y agoConceptually, it's pretty clear: For the single person that needs (or wants) its Uber income, the law is good because they get their income as before. However, it's only good because the whole system is bad (e.g. that labor has no power in the US). So the question whether the law is "good" is rather the question: What's the alternative? For as long as there's no alternative for Uber etc., the law is good. If there were alternatives (e.g. jobs that have benefits), it would be the worst. To sum it up: Poor people in America have no choice. The system is bad. You have to take what you get (e.g. a Uber Job) and be happy for it. As an aside: all these anecdotes about people using Uber as a sidejob and enjoying it are missing the point: Uber might be a good sidejob for you/your friends but that's only because either they don't get a fulltime job or their fulltime job doesnt pay enough. They don't do it because they want to, they do it because they need to.
- stevenhuang 6y ago> all these anecdotes about people using Uber as a sidejob and enjoying it are missing the point I can agree with your former point but not sure about this. Who are you to say they need to or not? Some here have provided examples of driving a few times a month to supplement their vacation savings or pay for discretionary spending like lattes or whatever. Hardly something necessary.
- randompwd 6y agoIs somebody poor in America if they have access to and use of a vehicle fit for Uber? (regardless whether is financed or not)? I think unskilled would be a more apt term.
- Def_Os 6y agoHear, hear. As a European living in the US, this is exactly what I think causes the debate. Thanks for writing it up so clearly.
- tasuki 6y ago> The company, along with Lyft and DoorDash, spent more than $200m to deny drivers the wages and benefits we’re entitled to I wonder, why does the author think they're entitled to wages and benefits beyond what they agreed to? I'd understand the sentiment a little more if Uber was wildly profitable, but it isn't. If Uber isn't treating the drivers right, they don't have to drive for Uber. Or they can go and try to change the laws and regulations to be more fair. But no one is entitled to anything.
- colejohnson66 6y ago> Or they can go and try to change the laws and regulations to be more fair. Wasn’t that the whole point of AB5? To change the law so Uber/Lyft drivers are paid what they deserve?
- CodeWriter23 6y agoNo. The point of AB5 was to make freelancing illegal and capture independent contractors and reduce their choices for employment to be union or non-union employees. The author, in addition to being generously funded by the AFL-CIO, astutely granted an exception to professions that had the means to sue the state (doctors, lawyers, realty agents) and crushed over 400 other professions from freelance coder to hair stylist to forensic nurse to actors and stagehands receiving a stipend to perform in community theater. AB5 is strongly anti-woman, more specifically, anti-mother, as many mothers choose to be yoga or pilates instructors or work a nail salon to gain extra revenue while having the flexibility time wise to shuttle their children to school and extracurriculars. Not the least of which, people like us, if we live in California, we can’t be hired on a freelance basis to code or be cybersecurity tiger teams for tech companies because we would have a hand in the finished product. And thanks to a last minute amendment, changing “worker” to “person” (and Citizens United), we can’t even legally do it if incorporated. The FTB will come a knockin’ for the fines legislated by AB5, you can count on that. AB5 is so convoluted, attorneys have only the one choice in advising clients: don’t hire freelancers from California. Because the law is so convoluted it will be necessarily refined in the court system. And lawyers need to defend their malpractice insurance, so they can only advise their clients to play it safe. One final point. The core of AB5 is about 300 words. And thousands of words about who is exempt. What does that say about any law written in such a fashion. IMO, it means the law is specifically designed to choose winners and losers.
- anovikov 6y agoWell, people got used to the taxi rides being dirt cheap. It will be very hard to convince them otherwise: number of people who ride Uber is in any case much higher than number of people who drive for Uber, so in any democratic society measures supporting them, will fail.
- dublidu 6y agoWhat we really need is better protection for all 1099 workers.
- pembrook 6y agoWhy stop there. There's millions of W2 employees who don't even have access to 401ks.
- SmokeyHamster 6y agoWhat a nonsense and biased article. Biden just raised and spent $1 billion on the 2020 campaign, but you won't see The Guardian claiming Biden "bought the election". Yet if ridesharing companies spend money to advertise their position that, if the new ride-sharing rules were upheld, they would be forced to leave California, depriving thousands of people of work, that's somehow "buying a law"? It was a referendum. People voted. The facts were on the side of Uber and Lyft, and they were able to persuade the public to see that. The law was being pushed knowing full well that it would have killed Uber and Lyft. It was strongly supported by the unions who see Uber and Lyft as an existential threat. The unions can't compete with them, so they tried using the politicians they've bought to effectively outlaw them. Fortunately, it didn't work. Uber and Lyft provide a service millions of people voluntarily use, with drivers who voluntarily chose to work. That's how our society should work. Government shouldn't be interfering with voluntary transactions.
- mikro 6y agoI think the fake 'progressive voter guide' mailers may have contributed to the passage: https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Fake-progressive-mailers-urge-yes-on-Uber-Lyft-15635173.php https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Fake-progressive-mai... https://www.reddit.com/r/Sacramento/comments/j8a8hx/i_just_got_this_fake_progressive_voter_guide_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Sacramento/comments/j8a8hx/i_just_g... I was really shocked when I got one in the mail in Los Angeles.
- quotha 6y agoWhat is this, Bartertown?!
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- barnesto 6y agoThis doesn't address the bigger problem that is AB5, which never should have been passed in the first place. How many more carve outs do we need before AB5 is basically gutted? How many more millions of dollars need to be spent to overturn this tyrannical law? Seems like that money could be put to better use. We don't need government controlling our freedom to work when and how we desire.
- namesbc 6y agoWhen software companies switch to on-demand flex labor at below minimum wage everyone on this site who supports Prop 22 will be singing a different tune.
- esoterica 6y agoIt's already 100% legal to pay software engineers minimum wage, why don't the FAANGs of the world do it? Is it possible that the market forces set the floor on engineer wages, not the legal system?
- namesbc 6y agoEngineers have workers rights because labor activists fought for them and won.
- randompwd 6y agoA very irrational comment. Software engineering isn't something everybody in the country can do at the drop of a hat. If somebody wants to be a full time driver-employee, there are taxi firms/limousine companies/bus driving companies/courier companies. They don't want that though. They want the freedom that comes with picking your own hours using a low effort/common & widespread skill(driving a non-commercial vehicle). Also, the site fiverr and similar sites already exists(as well as entire outsourcing industries) if somebody does want to have their software developed by transient programmers.
- Rebelgecko 6y agoProp 22 sets the base pay at 120% minimum wage
- namesbc 6y agoThey only count hours that a customers is in the car when calculating that, so it comes out to about $5/hr minimum wage which is below federal minimum wage.
- 6y ago
- BMSmnqXAE4yfe1 6y agoThey didn't have to buy anything, obviously people want cheaper rides. We all remember how it was before uber.
- esoterica 6y agoIt was not a close vote. Prop 22 won by 17%, which is very far out of the margin the most successful political ad campaign could plausibly hope to skew the vote by. It won because middle class Californians didn't want to spend more money on Ubers, not because Uber and Lyft successfully bought the election.
- Der_Einzige 6y agoWould it have cost more than 200 million to treat all of the California Uber employees as full time employees (ergo, to do what Uber didn't want to do so badly they got a ballot initiative). I voted no on this because Uber can deal with it. I bet the costs to them from following through would have been less than 200 million...
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Would it have cost more than 200 million to treat all of the California Uber employees as full time employees They wouldn't have had to treat them all as full-time employees, only as employees.
- Der_Einzige 6y agoHahaha, good correction. All that does is reduce my already low amounts of sympathy for Uber
- Rebelgecko 6y agoThe number I saw thrown around online was that it'd cost $500m/year, so if you consider their campaigning to be an investment it'll definitely pay off and reduce their unprofitability. TBH I think it's a moot point. How many human drivers will there be in 5 years? Or 10?
- macrael 6y agoThat we have now set the precedent that companies can buy a proposition to regulate themselves makes me feel sick.
- LatteLazy 6y agoIt's sad that no one wanted a compromise solution. First the state government insisted everyone be 100% employees, then the only option on the ballot was keep that or 0%. So now we're at 0.
- rthrowaway1223 6y agoDisclaimer: I’m a former Uber employee Dara (Uber CEO) did advocate for a third category in a New York Times op-ed in August. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/opinion/uber-ceo-dara-khosrowshahi-gig-workers-deserve-better.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/opinion/uber-ceo-dara-kho...
- vicpara 6y agoWhat a typical American law and counter response. As an European is fascinating and mind numbing how much you guys are squezeeing the ones in need through crazy lobbying and sophisticated mechanisms. You keep inventing new ways of paying people less than the legal hourly rate just because you got them by the ..... Then you have a principled, transparent, democratic approach in your congress trying to fix social injustice. This article was on the first page of HN today with this article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25083315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25083315 The same step by step, slow moving ratched applied not to systematic genocide but to corporate benefits and squeezing whomever you can for one extra penny. Well done you. Surely you have already forgotten how you ended up with Prop 22 in the first place.
- hikerclimb 6y agoI think California are dumb. They will pay when a big earthquake happens.
- s09dfhks 6y agoa lot of the responses on this post feel like AstroTurf. Color me skeptical
- known 6y agoAbuse/Exploitation will lead to disintegration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Asia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_move...