9 ms·

I know it's super popular to complain about over-regulation in California; however, I think it's worth pointing out that most regulations are things like this.

I know it's super popular to complain about over-regulation in California; however, I think it's worth pointing out that most regulations are things like this. Generally, lawmakers in the state of California do things to try to make things better for most of it's citizens. Do they always get it right? Of course not! But when they do, its wonderful.

sillyquiet 5y ago
Yeah, I was going to make this point - the consumer and employee protection laws in California are things to be emulated. I think it gets lost in the AVALANCHE of ill-considered laws California makes that are pointed to as gov overreach, and rightfully so in my somewhat libertarian opinion - but it IS possible to have the one without the other, and one could argue the mountain of bad or hasty laws is doing nobody, including proponents of the rightful place of government in protecting citizens like this, any favors. edit: I should clarify I don't consider the consumer protection law in question is one of those bad laws of course, I just worry the scattershot lawmaking that California sometimes indulges in makes it harder to point to the successes of that model. I would appreciate the silent downvoters to explain, but I guess HN has gotten too far away from its roots and too close to the Reddit model of 'downvote things I disagree with'
- ev1 5y ago
  I didn't up or downvote, but to me, your comment sounds like generic yelling about how almost everything (other than consumer and employee protection) is overreach and a shitty law while citing no examples at all, then complaining about downvotes.
  - sillyquiet 5y ago
    Well, yeah that's on me, because that's not my intent nor my point. The California lege's default position is, when in doubt, pass a law - some are good, well crafted, and effective. Many are not. This is the scattershot I mentioned. There, however is a lot of legislative 'noise' to the signal of the effective laws. That's all my point was.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- ska 5y ago
  > it gets lost in the AVALANCHE of ill-considered laws California makes Citation needed, I think. It's not obviously true that California is particularly notable in this regard in terms of volume or fraction that are ill-considered. They of course have some notable unintended consequence problems, but that's not the same thing.
  - sillyquiet 5y ago
    I think any glance at the legislative records of any session will prove this. Sure, the 'ill-considered' part is highly subjective, but I am not the only one that has that opinion, and that's my point - the people who would oppose a government regulating stuff points to California rightly or wrongly as a bad model because of high volume of relatively ineffective lawmaking.
    - ska 5y ago
      A glance will prove out “AVALANCHE” ? Color me sceptical, I guess.
      - sillyquiet 5y ago
        Yes, it will, as in the sheer volume of passed legislation. No need to be skeptical. The below link will have to be filtered for the passed legislation, but as you can see, it's not a minor amount. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml?session_year=20212022&house=Both&author=All&lawCode=All https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xh...
        ska 5y ago
        > Yes, it will, as in the sheer volume of passed legislation. But that wasn’t the claim. How do we see it is mostly ill conceived? Or indeed notable compared to similar populations ? I’m not saying you are wrong. I’m saying it doesn’t seem at all obvious.
Pfhreak 5y ago
Protections for workers in tech are better too. Things like moonlighting and protecting your intellectual property is easier in California than most places in the states. In most of the country, your employer can claim 100% of your intellectual output, no matter if your work was 'on your time'. If you come up with something clever on the weekend on your own computer, your employer still owns it. (Aside, I think this is one issue that could be a motivation for unionizing tech folks.... or at least collectively bargaining.)
- compiler-guy 5y ago
  Unfortunately, work from home greatly confuses the, "On your own time, with your own equipment" distinction. Hope your employer isn't paying for your internet, and that you aren't using its hardware for anything other than exact work situations.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    I don't think CA is THAT much different in this regard. They can still claim ownership of inventions and IP for things done at home on your own time and equipment if it relates to the employer’s business or anticipated research or development (emphasis mine), which, for many large companies encompasses every project you could think of. EDIT: Odd voting on this one. It's literally in my employment agreement. You might want to check yours! EDIT: OK, let's look at CA labor code, specifically 2870 (a) (1): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=2870 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > It's literally in my employment agreement Without making any argument about what is legal in California, I will note that it is not particularly valid to argue for “it is California law” on the basis of “its what my employer claims in the employment agreement”. Employers are notorious for claiming things beyond what the law allows, knowing that the resulting effect on employee behavior is nearly as good as if the claim was actually enforceable.
chrisseaton 5y ago
> Generally, lawmakers in the state of California do things to try to make things better for most of it's citizens. WARNING: This comment contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  You see, that idiocy did not originate with the lawmakers of California, it originated with the people, who are, bar none, the most gullible people on the planet.
  - TimesOldRoman 5y ago
    You mean, people are the most gullible people on the planet. I doubt California has a higher percentage of gullibles, but it certainly has more people in total.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    If it's a law then the people who made it are law makers, aren't they?
    - jedberg 5y ago
      California allows citizens to put laws directly into the state constitution. You propose the law, get signatures to put it on the ballot, and then if 50%+1 vote for it, it becomes part of the constitution. So if you want to be pedantic, they are laws made by unelected lawmakers.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        The people elected the laws - they are the law makers. Each of the people is 'elected' simply by being a citizen.
        jedberg 5y ago
rsj_hn 5y ago
No matter how "wonderful" it is when things go right, it is disastrous when things go wrong -- e.g. AB 5. That is why most governmental systems prioritize harm reduction over the provision-of-the-wonderful.
anonytrary 5y ago
And when they don't it's catastrophic. Still confused about stimulus checks not taking into account COL. Did no one think that was necessary? A body of 535+ elected officials decided that it would be equal because the calculation is too hard. $1400 stimulus check for a family living paycheck-to-paycheck in CA goes nowhere.
roenxi 5y ago
Are you absolutely sure you want to hold up unsubscribing from a newspaper as a bold success of government regulation? There is a lobby, politically motivated as these things may be, who argue that California's housing policy is causing immeasurable but substantial damage to the tune of much more than a NYT subscription. California has the largest net outflow of any state in America [0], although that sort of comparison is made challenging because of population differences. The point isn't specific political argument, the point is that there are really big issues to be dealt with and this isn't one. Who cares if the government gets this right or wrong? Every other state could be getting it wrong and nobody really cares. Government can't get those issues right reliably because it is too busy arguing about stuff that actually matters. It is challenging to look at that as one of the major issues of debate and then say "well, but it gets some details right". Government isn't about details, it is dealing with a big picture. A government's success or failure isn't about the small details it doesn't screw up. It isn't like unsubscribing unilaterally is even that hard; just stop sending the NYT money. I'm sure they'll get the message sooner or later. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_net_migration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

sillyquiet 5y ago

Yeah, I was going to make this point - the consumer and employee protection laws in California are things to be emulated. I think it gets lost in the AVALANCHE of ill-considered laws California makes that are pointed to as gov overreach, and rightfully so in my somewhat libertarian opinion - but it IS possible to have the one without the other, and one could argue the mountain of bad or hasty laws is doing nobody, including proponents of the rightful place of government in protecting citizens like this, any favors. edit: I should clarify I don't consider the consumer protection law in question is one of those bad laws of course, I just worry the scattershot lawmaking that California sometimes indulges in makes it harder to point to the successes of that model. I would appreciate the silent downvoters to explain, but I guess HN has gotten too far away from its roots and too close to the Reddit model of 'downvote things I disagree with'

ev1 5y ago
I didn't up or downvote, but to me, your comment sounds like generic yelling about how almost everything (other than consumer and employee protection) is overreach and a shitty law while citing no examples at all, then complaining about downvotes.
- sillyquiet 5y ago
  Well, yeah that's on me, because that's not my intent nor my point. The California lege's default position is, when in doubt, pass a law - some are good, well crafted, and effective. Many are not. This is the scattershot I mentioned. There, however is a lot of legislative 'noise' to the signal of the effective laws. That's all my point was.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
ska 5y ago
> it gets lost in the AVALANCHE of ill-considered laws California makes Citation needed, I think. It's not obviously true that California is particularly notable in this regard in terms of volume or fraction that are ill-considered. They of course have some notable unintended consequence problems, but that's not the same thing.
- sillyquiet 5y ago
  I think any glance at the legislative records of any session will prove this. Sure, the 'ill-considered' part is highly subjective, but I am not the only one that has that opinion, and that's my point - the people who would oppose a government regulating stuff points to California rightly or wrongly as a bad model because of high volume of relatively ineffective lawmaking.
  - ska 5y ago
    A glance will prove out “AVALANCHE” ? Color me sceptical, I guess.
    - sillyquiet 5y ago
      Yes, it will, as in the sheer volume of passed legislation. No need to be skeptical. The below link will have to be filtered for the passed legislation, but as you can see, it's not a minor amount. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml?session_year=20212022&house=Both&author=All&lawCode=All https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xh...
      - ska 5y ago
        > Yes, it will, as in the sheer volume of passed legislation. But that wasn’t the claim. How do we see it is mostly ill conceived? Or indeed notable compared to similar populations ? I’m not saying you are wrong. I’m saying it doesn’t seem at all obvious.

Pfhreak 5y ago

Protections for workers in tech are better too. Things like moonlighting and protecting your intellectual property is easier in California than most places in the states. In most of the country, your employer can claim 100% of your intellectual output, no matter if your work was 'on your time'. If you come up with something clever on the weekend on your own computer, your employer still owns it. (Aside, I think this is one issue that could be a motivation for unionizing tech folks.... or at least collectively bargaining.)

compiler-guy 5y ago
Unfortunately, work from home greatly confuses the, "On your own time, with your own equipment" distinction. Hope your employer isn't paying for your internet, and that you aren't using its hardware for anything other than exact work situations.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  I don't think CA is THAT much different in this regard. They can still claim ownership of inventions and IP for things done at home on your own time and equipment if it relates to the employer’s business or anticipated research or development (emphasis mine), which, for many large companies encompasses every project you could think of. EDIT: Odd voting on this one. It's literally in my employment agreement. You might want to check yours! EDIT: OK, let's look at CA labor code, specifically 2870 (a) (1): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=2870 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > It's literally in my employment agreement Without making any argument about what is legal in California, I will note that it is not particularly valid to argue for “it is California law” on the basis of “its what my employer claims in the employment agreement”. Employers are notorious for claiming things beyond what the law allows, knowing that the resulting effect on employee behavior is nearly as good as if the claim was actually enforceable.

chrisseaton 5y ago

> Generally, lawmakers in the state of California do things to try to make things better for most of it's citizens. WARNING: This comment contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

jeffbee 5y ago
You see, that idiocy did not originate with the lawmakers of California, it originated with the people, who are, bar none, the most gullible people on the planet.
- TimesOldRoman 5y ago
  You mean, people are the most gullible people on the planet. I doubt California has a higher percentage of gullibles, but it certainly has more people in total.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  If it's a law then the people who made it are law makers, aren't they?
  - jedberg 5y ago
    California allows citizens to put laws directly into the state constitution. You propose the law, get signatures to put it on the ballot, and then if 50%+1 vote for it, it becomes part of the constitution. So if you want to be pedantic, they are laws made by unelected lawmakers.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      The people elected the laws - they are the law makers. Each of the people is 'elected' simply by being a citizen.
      - jedberg 5y ago

rsj_hn 5y ago

No matter how "wonderful" it is when things go right, it is disastrous when things go wrong -- e.g. AB 5. That is why most governmental systems prioritize harm reduction over the provision-of-the-wonderful.

anonytrary 5y ago

And when they don't it's catastrophic. Still confused about stimulus checks not taking into account COL. Did no one think that was necessary? A body of 535+ elected officials decided that it would be equal because the calculation is too hard. $1400 stimulus check for a family living paycheck-to-paycheck in CA goes nowhere.

roenxi 5y ago

Are you absolutely sure you want to hold up unsubscribing from a newspaper as a bold success of government regulation? There is a lobby, politically motivated as these things may be, who argue that California's housing policy is causing immeasurable but substantial damage to the tune of much more than a NYT subscription. California has the largest net outflow of any state in America [0], although that sort of comparison is made challenging because of population differences. The point isn't specific political argument, the point is that there are really big issues to be dealt with and this isn't one. Who cares if the government gets this right or wrong? Every other state could be getting it wrong and nobody really cares. Government can't get those issues right reliably because it is too busy arguing about stuff that actually matters. It is challenging to look at that as one of the major issues of debate and then say "well, but it gets some details right". Government isn't about details, it is dealing with a big picture. A government's success or failure isn't about the small details it doesn't screw up. It isn't like unsubscribing unilaterally is even that hard; just stop sending the NYT money. I'm sure they'll get the message sooner or later. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_net_migration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...