5 ms·

> I don't know what the answer is One potential answer is to make gig workers employees.

hellojesus 5y ago
Taking away voluntary transactions that incur no third party harm is not a solution, in my opinion. It would be a violation of freedom of contract.
- turbinerneiter 5y ago
  The freedom to get rekt, it's in the constitution.
  - hellojesus 5y ago
    I'm quite serious. Think about the consequences of taking away freedom of contact (which we technically already did with the repulsive reinterpretation of Lochner vs. NY). For this example: 1. Gov says no more 1099 workers -> consequence is every single contractor loses their job (thankfully those whose contracts were killed would be due just compensation under the 5th ammendment). 2. Gig worker now must get rehired as a w2 worker or they need to find a new job. 3. They get paid less if they take their old job back because now their employer needs to provide them the equipment to do their job, plus any benefits required by law, plus minimum wage. 3b. They get their job back at the same wage but consumers now have to pay more for all the reasons in [3]. Or they no longer can find work because they don't provide enough value at the adjusted wage rate to justify it, in the event consumer demand falls at the new price levels. Let's say all the above happens, and they still have their job. Next week another tornado comes and they have to swerve off course again, same conditions, to not die. Their employer can still fire them without a second thought as either party may end the working relationship at any time for any reason! So you've done nothing except make more, useless, legislation. *Note: I just read the article and saw nothing about this being a situation derived from the worker being 1099 or in the "gig" economy. However, this response is with respect to the comment specifically targeting "gig" workers.
    - turbinerneiter 5y ago
      Nobody wants to end freedom of contract. We want to end the abuse of pseudo-contracting as a way for Megacorps to skirt their responsibilitirs as employers. Gig workers are misslabelled as contractors. They are not. It's a perversion of the idea. All your arguments can be sued against minimum wage as well, but minimum wage increase have shown positive effects every time. Your arguments can also be used to justify slavery. Where do you think this society is headed? A bunch of gig workers scrapping the bottle of the barrel, with no insurances, no job safety, bad working conditions, but doing all the jobs servicing us fat middle class programmers, who think these people can't earn more because then we would have to pay a shopping fee on Amazon? You and I work to afford a house and a vacation. Others work to afford basic survival. And we deny them improved working conditions because of why? And gig working is only one part of the problem. Abuse if sub-contracting achieves the same, and missing worker protection laws even allow companies to mistreat their actual employees. There is no need for this economic brutality. There is enough for everyone, the super rich can even stay super rich once we improve the situation of the people on the other end of the scale.
      - hellojesus 5y ago
        Restricting voluntary transactions is congruent to ending freedom of contract. If a gig worker is voluntarily accepting to work the gig, why should anyone come in and force their hand in what they're willing to do? It is absolutely not the same as slavery because we are talking about voluntary transactions. Minimum wage increases have shown positive effects every time? Not so fast. For those that are able to keep their jobs, yes. Those people earn higher wages for the same work. However, there are always people that lose employment entirely when minimum wage increases are legislated because they either can't provide enough utility to justify the cost from the businesses' pov or the business fires them to keep total overhead lower so they don't have to pass the costs onto the customers, which would put them at a competitive disadvantage. In a free society, people should be allowed to make any voluntary transaction so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

Taking away voluntary transactions that incur no third party harm is not a solution, in my opinion. It would be a violation of freedom of contract.

turbinerneiter 5y ago
The freedom to get rekt, it's in the constitution.
- hellojesus 5y ago
  I'm quite serious. Think about the consequences of taking away freedom of contact (which we technically already did with the repulsive reinterpretation of Lochner vs. NY). For this example: 1. Gov says no more 1099 workers -> consequence is every single contractor loses their job (thankfully those whose contracts were killed would be due just compensation under the 5th ammendment). 2. Gig worker now must get rehired as a w2 worker or they need to find a new job. 3. They get paid less if they take their old job back because now their employer needs to provide them the equipment to do their job, plus any benefits required by law, plus minimum wage. 3b. They get their job back at the same wage but consumers now have to pay more for all the reasons in [3]. Or they no longer can find work because they don't provide enough value at the adjusted wage rate to justify it, in the event consumer demand falls at the new price levels. Let's say all the above happens, and they still have their job. Next week another tornado comes and they have to swerve off course again, same conditions, to not die. Their employer can still fire them without a second thought as either party may end the working relationship at any time for any reason! So you've done nothing except make more, useless, legislation. *Note: I just read the article and saw nothing about this being a situation derived from the worker being 1099 or in the "gig" economy. However, this response is with respect to the comment specifically targeting "gig" workers.
  - turbinerneiter 5y ago
    Nobody wants to end freedom of contract. We want to end the abuse of pseudo-contracting as a way for Megacorps to skirt their responsibilitirs as employers. Gig workers are misslabelled as contractors. They are not. It's a perversion of the idea. All your arguments can be sued against minimum wage as well, but minimum wage increase have shown positive effects every time. Your arguments can also be used to justify slavery. Where do you think this society is headed? A bunch of gig workers scrapping the bottle of the barrel, with no insurances, no job safety, bad working conditions, but doing all the jobs servicing us fat middle class programmers, who think these people can't earn more because then we would have to pay a shopping fee on Amazon? You and I work to afford a house and a vacation. Others work to afford basic survival. And we deny them improved working conditions because of why? And gig working is only one part of the problem. Abuse if sub-contracting achieves the same, and missing worker protection laws even allow companies to mistreat their actual employees. There is no need for this economic brutality. There is enough for everyone, the super rich can even stay super rich once we improve the situation of the people on the other end of the scale.
    - hellojesus 5y ago
      Restricting voluntary transactions is congruent to ending freedom of contract. If a gig worker is voluntarily accepting to work the gig, why should anyone come in and force their hand in what they're willing to do? It is absolutely not the same as slavery because we are talking about voluntary transactions. Minimum wage increases have shown positive effects every time? Not so fast. For those that are able to keep their jobs, yes. Those people earn higher wages for the same work. However, there are always people that lose employment entirely when minimum wage increases are legislated because they either can't provide enough utility to justify the cost from the businesses' pov or the business fires them to keep total overhead lower so they don't have to pass the costs onto the customers, which would put them at a competitive disadvantage. In a free society, people should be allowed to make any voluntary transaction so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.