3 ms·

But that's the thing, isn't it? Universal healthcare isn't magic. It's paid for by taxes. Yet Uber claimed its drivers where independent contractors that had to

by troupo 1y ago

But that's the thing, isn't it? Universal healthcare isn't magic. It's paid for by taxes. Yet Uber claimed its drivers where independent contractors that had to pay for anything: taxes, medical, insurance, car depreciation etc. etc.

JustExAWS 1y ago
And that’s fine. Uber drivers should pay taxes and Uber itself pays taxes - or at least should. And the drivers have the free will to choose to drive for Uber.
- troupo 1y ago
  > Uber drivers should pay taxes and Uber itself pays taxes - or at least should. Yup. The drivers should have to pay everything because despite working for Uber they are "free contractors" > And the drivers have the free will to choose to drive for Uber Ah yes, I forgot that's exactly how price dumping works: there are multiple companies to chose from and all of them offer competitive wages. I mean, it's not ancient history. For half of Uber's existence the ongoing story was: drivers have to drive almost 24 hours a day to make living wage with Uber randomly stealing their wages. This only somewhat changed once governments stepped in and forced Uber to change some of its practices.
  - JustExAWS 1y ago
    There are multiple jobs to choose from. California’s attempt to regulate contractors was a disaster. Jason Snell, the former editor of Macworld, left to go independent and makes a living based on a combination of podcasting, writing books and freelance writing and he said how much harder the rules made it for him to do freelance writing because of the requirenments around hiring contractors. Trust me, Snell is far from a fire breathing libertarian conservative. It’s not the responsibility of a corporation to decide what a “living wage” is. Should Uber pay more to a single mother with three kids than a single father with no kids? Again it’s society’s responsibility to provide for a safety net and to tax corporations to fund it. On the federal level, that’s what the earned income tax credit was suppose to do and until 2016, it had wide bi-partisan support and was championed by both Republican and Democratic Presidents.
    - troupo 1y ago
      > California’s attempt to regulate contractors was a disaster. You have to decide whether you want the society to provide safety nets through healthcare, strong labor protections etc. or not. > Again it’s society’s responsibility to provide for a safety net and to tax corporations to fund it. Indeed. That's why governments and regulators eventually stepped in. You can't in good conscience or good faith argue that Uber didn't offload anything onto society and people working for it just because "it's not the job of a company" etc. Uber literally engaged in multiple illegal and borderline illegal practices across the globe, including the US. And yes, it's the literal job of a taxi company to make sure its drivers work a healthy amount of hours. In Uber's case it meant that it had to pay drivers enough money to cover the costs Uber offloaded onto them, and enough money left over so that they didn't have to drive 18-20 hours a day to make ends meet. And yeah, not everyone can become Jason Snell
      - JustExAWS 1y ago
        > You have to decide whether you want the society to provide safety nets through healthcare, strong labor protections etc. or not. My argument is simply that the only “labor protections” the government should enforce on private enterprise is that a company can’t actively harm employees - OSHA protections, discrimination etc. > And yes, it's the literal job of a taxi company to make sure its drivers work a healthy amount of hours. In Uber's case it meant that it had to pay drivers enough money to cover the costs Uber offloaded onto them, and enough money left over so that they didn't have to drive 18-20 hours a day to make ends meet. It’s up to individuals to decide whether the tradeoffs are worth it. It’s not the responsibility of private industry to calculate what a “living wage” is for an individual. Uber never put a gun to anyone’s head to force them to drive for Uber. If anything the government should enforce how long someone can drive because it puts others in danger. But does the government stop people from working two jobs that might add up to 20 hours? What should happen when the driver drives for Uber, Lyft and DoorDash? The illegal practices at least in New York were around taxi medallion monopoly where taxi drivers were getting in hundreds of thousands in debt to own them for the right to drive. As far as not everyone being Jason Snell, there were other freelance writers and contractors like truck drivers who had to leave California to save their business https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/i-had-leave-california-save-my-business-now-theres-hope https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/i-had-leave-california-save-... It even affected 1099 (as opposed to W2) tech workers who were contractors.

by troupo 1y ago

JustExAWS 1y ago

And that’s fine. Uber drivers should pay taxes and Uber itself pays taxes - or at least should. And the drivers have the free will to choose to drive for Uber.

troupo 1y ago
> Uber drivers should pay taxes and Uber itself pays taxes - or at least should. Yup. The drivers should have to pay everything because despite working for Uber they are "free contractors" > And the drivers have the free will to choose to drive for Uber Ah yes, I forgot that's exactly how price dumping works: there are multiple companies to chose from and all of them offer competitive wages. I mean, it's not ancient history. For half of Uber's existence the ongoing story was: drivers have to drive almost 24 hours a day to make living wage with Uber randomly stealing their wages. This only somewhat changed once governments stepped in and forced Uber to change some of its practices.
- JustExAWS 1y ago
  There are multiple jobs to choose from. California’s attempt to regulate contractors was a disaster. Jason Snell, the former editor of Macworld, left to go independent and makes a living based on a combination of podcasting, writing books and freelance writing and he said how much harder the rules made it for him to do freelance writing because of the requirenments around hiring contractors. Trust me, Snell is far from a fire breathing libertarian conservative. It’s not the responsibility of a corporation to decide what a “living wage” is. Should Uber pay more to a single mother with three kids than a single father with no kids? Again it’s society’s responsibility to provide for a safety net and to tax corporations to fund it. On the federal level, that’s what the earned income tax credit was suppose to do and until 2016, it had wide bi-partisan support and was championed by both Republican and Democratic Presidents.
  - troupo 1y ago
    > California’s attempt to regulate contractors was a disaster. You have to decide whether you want the society to provide safety nets through healthcare, strong labor protections etc. or not. > Again it’s society’s responsibility to provide for a safety net and to tax corporations to fund it. Indeed. That's why governments and regulators eventually stepped in. You can't in good conscience or good faith argue that Uber didn't offload anything onto society and people working for it just because "it's not the job of a company" etc. Uber literally engaged in multiple illegal and borderline illegal practices across the globe, including the US. And yes, it's the literal job of a taxi company to make sure its drivers work a healthy amount of hours. In Uber's case it meant that it had to pay drivers enough money to cover the costs Uber offloaded onto them, and enough money left over so that they didn't have to drive 18-20 hours a day to make ends meet. And yeah, not everyone can become Jason Snell
    - JustExAWS 1y ago
      > You have to decide whether you want the society to provide safety nets through healthcare, strong labor protections etc. or not. My argument is simply that the only “labor protections” the government should enforce on private enterprise is that a company can’t actively harm employees - OSHA protections, discrimination etc. > And yes, it's the literal job of a taxi company to make sure its drivers work a healthy amount of hours. In Uber's case it meant that it had to pay drivers enough money to cover the costs Uber offloaded onto them, and enough money left over so that they didn't have to drive 18-20 hours a day to make ends meet. It’s up to individuals to decide whether the tradeoffs are worth it. It’s not the responsibility of private industry to calculate what a “living wage” is for an individual. Uber never put a gun to anyone’s head to force them to drive for Uber. If anything the government should enforce how long someone can drive because it puts others in danger. But does the government stop people from working two jobs that might add up to 20 hours? What should happen when the driver drives for Uber, Lyft and DoorDash? The illegal practices at least in New York were around taxi medallion monopoly where taxi drivers were getting in hundreds of thousands in debt to own them for the right to drive. As far as not everyone being Jason Snell, there were other freelance writers and contractors like truck drivers who had to leave California to save their business https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/i-had-leave-california-save-my-business-now-theres-hope https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/i-had-leave-california-save-... It even affected 1099 (as opposed to W2) tech workers who were contractors.