4 ms·

Living in SoCal still offers distinct advantages in terms of civil rights, a social safety net, and access to a vast number of small and large businesses (for b

Living in SoCal still offers distinct advantages in terms of civil rights, a social safety net, and access to a vast number of small and large businesses (for both work and services). The entry-level job thing is compounded by requirements for degrees and experience that fully expect folks to down-skill to lower-wage roles. One factor that looms large is the gig economy: Uber/Lyft/DoorDash/etc. They've become a lynchpin in providing delivery services that restaurants have come to rely on, while hitting both them and consumers with large fees. Pizza delivery is being shifted from actual drivers to gig workers, to avoid a recent law change requiring more pay; this has become an act of cost-externalization, and further increases the dependency on the gig workers. And overall the gig workers aren't necessarily seeing gains from this change, since their employers fight tooth and nail on efforts to increase their pay. This doesn't even begin to cover what's happening in the agricultural and creative industries; the latter of which I believe has been covered writ-large in this space.

readyman 3y ago
[flagged]
- screenobobeano 3y ago
  [flagged]
- gotoeleven 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - readyman 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - sunshowers 3y ago
      The probability of an HIV+ person on antivirals, with undetectable levels of the virus, transmitting it to you, is lower than the probability of someone who thinks they're HIV- transmitting it to you. It is correct for the law to reflect this reality. We all know that the way the world works is that unintentional actions from stigmatized minorities are treated as intentional. I'd recommend this article from Lambda Legal, which outlines exactly what was wrong with the old law in practice while making the extremely reasonable point that treating HIV differently from every other communicable disease is terrible public policy. https://legacy.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/publications/downloads/faq_for_new_ca_law_sb_239.pdf https://legacy.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/publicati...
      - whatshisface 3y ago
        I'm not so sure that a right to give me a cold is a good idea... Especially when there are options like outdoor air ventilation that reduce the spread of airborne viruses. Maybe there should be some sort of liability for preventable spread of disease.
        sunshowers 3y ago
        The issue here concerns criminal law. Liability is civil law. Whether institutions should be held liable for not putting things like ventilation in place is an interesting question, but irrelevant to interpersonal criminal law. And besides, the law turns the act from a felony to a misdemeanor. We are not even in the same ballpark as asserting some kind of "right" to give someone else a cold or HIV.
      - readyman 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - sunshowers 3y ago
        To readyman's flagged response, I was referring to HIV+ people in general as the stigmatized minority. But shame on you for your response—no reasonable person would say that sex workers aren't a stigmatized minority.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    We need to stop censoring blood
- dehrmann 3y ago
  California's maximum unemployment payout is below its minimum wage.
- marcinzm 3y ago
  > If not, what specifically are you talking about? The right to have an abortion for one.
  - readyman 3y ago
    That would cost a pretty penny in Socal! As long as the Hyde Amendment is in play, this is not a civil right imo.
whatshisface 3y ago
Not being beaten up by police is part of your rights, but freely deciding how you want to work with someone else, and not being forced into the gig economy, is a right too. Every state seems to have certain coalitions with way too much power, and in California it's exercised whenever well-established interests can rephrase something that benefits them in economically leftist language: "Let's all raise the wages of pizza delivery drivers (who work directly for managers who aren't using us as a minimum-wage-circumventing middle-man.)" See also: "Supply and demand is a capitalist hoax, let's ban the construction of houses other than the ones I'm renting out."
- leetcrew 3y ago
  > having laws passed that force a pizza parlor manager to turn their drivers into unemployed app users this sounds like an exaggeration, but I'm not familiar with the law you're referencing. what exactly are you talking about?
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    I think they mean minimum wage laws in general. Another comment mentioned that restaurants were reclassifying their workers as contractors to pay them less. Describing this as restaurants being "forced" to reclassify their drivers is mildly disingenuous. There's some coercion in minimum wage laws, yes, but it does not specifically prescribe a particular solution to balancing your books. The restaurants could alternatively not offer delivery, or charge more for delivery orders. Lord knows companies are very good at passing along costs to consumers these days...
    - whatshisface 3y ago
      Low margin businesses like restaurants aren't at liberty to provide services in a more expensive way than their competitors. There's almost no "extra" money in the food service industry. I'm not actually criticising minimum wage laws with this argument. If it applies to every possible way to hire someone, all of your competitors will have to do it too and the costs will be passed on to the consumer. I am however sharply criticizing minimum wage laws that have a tech company shaped loophole. Market forces will require every competing business to use the loophole if any of them do.

readyman 3y ago

[flagged]

screenobobeano 3y ago
[flagged]
gotoeleven 3y ago
[flagged]
- readyman 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - sunshowers 3y ago
    The probability of an HIV+ person on antivirals, with undetectable levels of the virus, transmitting it to you, is lower than the probability of someone who thinks they're HIV- transmitting it to you. It is correct for the law to reflect this reality. We all know that the way the world works is that unintentional actions from stigmatized minorities are treated as intentional. I'd recommend this article from Lambda Legal, which outlines exactly what was wrong with the old law in practice while making the extremely reasonable point that treating HIV differently from every other communicable disease is terrible public policy. https://legacy.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/publications/downloads/faq_for_new_ca_law_sb_239.pdf https://legacy.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/publicati...
    - whatshisface 3y ago
      I'm not so sure that a right to give me a cold is a good idea... Especially when there are options like outdoor air ventilation that reduce the spread of airborne viruses. Maybe there should be some sort of liability for preventable spread of disease.
      - sunshowers 3y ago
        The issue here concerns criminal law. Liability is civil law. Whether institutions should be held liable for not putting things like ventilation in place is an interesting question, but irrelevant to interpersonal criminal law. And besides, the law turns the act from a felony to a misdemeanor. We are not even in the same ballpark as asserting some kind of "right" to give someone else a cold or HIV.
    - readyman 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - sunshowers 3y ago
      To readyman's flagged response, I was referring to HIV+ people in general as the stigmatized minority. But shame on you for your response—no reasonable person would say that sex workers aren't a stigmatized minority.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  We need to stop censoring blood
dehrmann 3y ago
California's maximum unemployment payout is below its minimum wage.
marcinzm 3y ago
> If not, what specifically are you talking about? The right to have an abortion for one.
- readyman 3y ago
  That would cost a pretty penny in Socal! As long as the Hyde Amendment is in play, this is not a civil right imo.

whatshisface 3y ago

Not being beaten up by police is part of your rights, but freely deciding how you want to work with someone else, and not being forced into the gig economy, is a right too. Every state seems to have certain coalitions with way too much power, and in California it's exercised whenever well-established interests can rephrase something that benefits them in economically leftist language: "Let's all raise the wages of pizza delivery drivers (who work directly for managers who aren't using us as a minimum-wage-circumventing middle-man.)" See also: "Supply and demand is a capitalist hoax, let's ban the construction of houses other than the ones I'm renting out."

leetcrew 3y ago
> having laws passed that force a pizza parlor manager to turn their drivers into unemployed app users this sounds like an exaggeration, but I'm not familiar with the law you're referencing. what exactly are you talking about?
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  I think they mean minimum wage laws in general. Another comment mentioned that restaurants were reclassifying their workers as contractors to pay them less. Describing this as restaurants being "forced" to reclassify their drivers is mildly disingenuous. There's some coercion in minimum wage laws, yes, but it does not specifically prescribe a particular solution to balancing your books. The restaurants could alternatively not offer delivery, or charge more for delivery orders. Lord knows companies are very good at passing along costs to consumers these days...
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    Low margin businesses like restaurants aren't at liberty to provide services in a more expensive way than their competitors. There's almost no "extra" money in the food service industry. I'm not actually criticising minimum wage laws with this argument. If it applies to every possible way to hire someone, all of your competitors will have to do it too and the costs will be passed on to the consumer. I am however sharply criticizing minimum wage laws that have a tech company shaped loophole. Market forces will require every competing business to use the loophole if any of them do.