4 ms·

Well there are tons of companies for people who want full time employment (it's basically the default). It's good for people to have another option.

slg 6y ago
I want the option for my 12 year old to work in a coal mine. It's good for people to have another option. Lots of labor laws exist that prevent people from working jobs they could work without those laws. This individuals will likely be against those laws. It doesn't mean those laws are bad for society.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  I don't follow. Are you arguing that the very concept of part-time labor is or could be exploitative? If not, then the problem with Uber isn't the part-time-ness, and forcing the job to be full time is a very awkward way to try to fix the exploitation.
  - slg 6y ago
    I am saying having more options is not inherently good and the will of the individual working should not be the ultimate deciding factor in labor law. What is best for an individual Uber driver is not necessarily what is best for society as a whole or even the population of all Uber drivers. Just like we need to protect the 12 year old who voluntary enters a coal mine, we might need to protect the Uber driver who voluntary gets into their car.
    - wonder_er 6y ago
      > we might need to protect the Uber driver who voluntary gets into their car. By "protect" you seem to suggest "outlaw the thing they want to do". Can you imagine how outraged you'd feel, to be treated the way you're suggesting treating others? How would you like for the state to say: "Hey, /u/slg, for your own protection, you're not allowed to eat sugar anymore. It is now illegal to buy and sell sugar. You'll be fined if you try to purchase sugar, and if you're found with sugar in your house, you'll be taken to jail. These threats are, of course, for your protection, as the harmful effects of sugar are well-established."
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        You can make that exact same argument against labor laws, consumer protection laws, building codes, etc. "How would you like for the state to tell you that you can't buy a house with lead paint?"
      - slg 6y ago
        Yes, I can imagine being outraged in that situation. However I would also understand this is how life in a society works. Sometimes my personal needs come second to the needs of the society. I don't personally agree with the US's war on drugs for example. There is probably an argument that on total sugar is more damaging to American society than marijuana. If society decided to ban sugar, I wouldn't be thrilled, but I would understand it.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      We might need to, but my default position is that we do not want the government to interfere with someone's pursuit of happiness in the general case.
      - slg 6y ago
        I wouldn't be nearly as outraged at Prop 22 if it simply repealed AB5. However it goes much beyond that. It is a proactive law that prevents new and better laws from being created. It creates a new protection for these companies. This isn't a win for small government.

slg 6y ago

I want the option for my 12 year old to work in a coal mine. It's good for people to have another option. Lots of labor laws exist that prevent people from working jobs they could work without those laws. This individuals will likely be against those laws. It doesn't mean those laws are bad for society.

Dylan16807 6y ago
I don't follow. Are you arguing that the very concept of part-time labor is or could be exploitative? If not, then the problem with Uber isn't the part-time-ness, and forcing the job to be full time is a very awkward way to try to fix the exploitation.
- slg 6y ago
  I am saying having more options is not inherently good and the will of the individual working should not be the ultimate deciding factor in labor law. What is best for an individual Uber driver is not necessarily what is best for society as a whole or even the population of all Uber drivers. Just like we need to protect the 12 year old who voluntary enters a coal mine, we might need to protect the Uber driver who voluntary gets into their car.
  - wonder_er 6y ago
    > we might need to protect the Uber driver who voluntary gets into their car. By "protect" you seem to suggest "outlaw the thing they want to do". Can you imagine how outraged you'd feel, to be treated the way you're suggesting treating others? How would you like for the state to say: "Hey, /u/slg, for your own protection, you're not allowed to eat sugar anymore. It is now illegal to buy and sell sugar. You'll be fined if you try to purchase sugar, and if you're found with sugar in your house, you'll be taken to jail. These threats are, of course, for your protection, as the harmful effects of sugar are well-established."
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      You can make that exact same argument against labor laws, consumer protection laws, building codes, etc. "How would you like for the state to tell you that you can't buy a house with lead paint?"
    - slg 6y ago
      Yes, I can imagine being outraged in that situation. However I would also understand this is how life in a society works. Sometimes my personal needs come second to the needs of the society. I don't personally agree with the US's war on drugs for example. There is probably an argument that on total sugar is more damaging to American society than marijuana. If society decided to ban sugar, I wouldn't be thrilled, but I would understand it.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    We might need to, but my default position is that we do not want the government to interfere with someone's pursuit of happiness in the general case.
    - slg 6y ago
      I wouldn't be nearly as outraged at Prop 22 if it simply repealed AB5. However it goes much beyond that. It is a proactive law that prevents new and better laws from being created. It creates a new protection for these companies. This isn't a win for small government.