3 ms·

Did it occur to you that some people could be in situations where they simply cannot quit a job no matter how miserable it makes them?

hsgdh3487 6y ago
It probably did occur to GP, that's the whole point (if I'm right to be charitable). Top comment is arguing that these people should be laid off as part of a government initiative to reshape the economy. If these people can't quit, what will happen if they are laid off? Is there any policy that could help these workers? My best guess is UBI, but that is another discussion.
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  I would be more charitable to calls to destroy the gig industry if the proposals were coupled with any realistic path to retraining or alternatively-employing the employees. When the comment is just "this job should not exist" I just know there's no intellectual consistency behind it. They want to punish employers they don't like, and don't especially care who is hurt in the process.
jdminhbg 6y ago
That's going to be bad news when it gets legislated away then, isn't it.
- MereInterest 6y ago
  The solution to a race to the bottom, or to other kinds of prisoner's dilemma, is frequently to outlaw the option of racing to the bottom. Healthy bread can't compete because bread with sawdust is cheaper? Outlaw adding sawdust to the bread. Environmentally conscious factories can't compete because it is cheaper to pollute? Outlaw polluting to make a level playing field. Companies that pay their workers a living wage cannot compete with those who don't? Outlaw paying workers below a living wage, so that companies paying a living wage can compete. In this case, I'd also want to see some form of UBI.
  - bpodgursky 6y ago
    The best kind of safety nets are ones you set up BEFORE you throw people off the bridge. If you want to protect the workers, set up a UBI now. Then destroy the jobs. Don't talk about hypothetical-might-maybe-work solutions to fix the problem you're about to create. Focus on making things not worse, not punting and hoping you can save the workers from homelessness later.

hsgdh3487 6y ago

It probably did occur to GP, that's the whole point (if I'm right to be charitable). Top comment is arguing that these people should be laid off as part of a government initiative to reshape the economy. If these people can't quit, what will happen if they are laid off? Is there any policy that could help these workers? My best guess is UBI, but that is another discussion.

bpodgursky 6y ago
I would be more charitable to calls to destroy the gig industry if the proposals were coupled with any realistic path to retraining or alternatively-employing the employees. When the comment is just "this job should not exist" I just know there's no intellectual consistency behind it. They want to punish employers they don't like, and don't especially care who is hurt in the process.

jdminhbg 6y ago

That's going to be bad news when it gets legislated away then, isn't it.

MereInterest 6y ago
The solution to a race to the bottom, or to other kinds of prisoner's dilemma, is frequently to outlaw the option of racing to the bottom. Healthy bread can't compete because bread with sawdust is cheaper? Outlaw adding sawdust to the bread. Environmentally conscious factories can't compete because it is cheaper to pollute? Outlaw polluting to make a level playing field. Companies that pay their workers a living wage cannot compete with those who don't? Outlaw paying workers below a living wage, so that companies paying a living wage can compete. In this case, I'd also want to see some form of UBI.
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  The best kind of safety nets are ones you set up BEFORE you throw people off the bridge. If you want to protect the workers, set up a UBI now. Then destroy the jobs. Don't talk about hypothetical-might-maybe-work solutions to fix the problem you're about to create. Focus on making things not worse, not punting and hoping you can save the workers from homelessness later.