3 ms·

Those of us who "bristle" think that it's absolute nonsense that free adults should be prevented from engaging in a mutually beneficial transaction because the

by stvswn 11y ago

Those of us who "bristle" think that it's absolute nonsense that free adults should be prevented from engaging in a mutually beneficial transaction because the government is concerned with protecting one of them. Treating Uber drivers or AirBnB property owners as if they are the characters in an Upton Sinclair novel is a tough sell. Let me rephrase the argument from the left: "we mandated all of these great things for employees, but it increased the cost of employment, and workers and employers started voluntarily opting out. This is a problem because it threatens our original premise, that everyone will be better off if we regulate employment." Finally, Hillary's hedged, "sophisticated" view is basically that she wants credit for protecting workers but none of the blame when the citizens of progressive-leaning cities get Uber taken away. Even if you're a likely supporter, you shouldn't let her get away with it until she tells us what sort of proposals she imagines would avoid the trade-off and magically allow these markets to flourish while also "protecting workers."

s73v3r 11y ago
You're completely insane if you think workers are "voluntarily" opting out of worker protection laws.
discodave 11y ago
"workers and employers started voluntarily opting out" Erm, many workers drive for Uber because they lost their jobs, don't have other choices or are between jobs etc. Many of these people are NOT opting out of full time jobs, they would take a full time job with benefits if it were offered to them. Employers opt out of regulation whenever they can (see: the environment). The claim that employers opting out of regulation undercuts the original premise is completely false. They are doing so to cut costs which is entirely to the benefit of their shareholders who are a much smaller slice of society than workers. In summary: Workers aren't necessarily entering the gig economy voluntarily and employers opting out of regulation doesn't threaten the original premise.

by stvswn 11y ago

s73v3r 11y ago

You're completely insane if you think workers are "voluntarily" opting out of worker protection laws.

discodave 11y ago

"workers and employers started voluntarily opting out" Erm, many workers drive for Uber because they lost their jobs, don't have other choices or are between jobs etc. Many of these people are NOT opting out of full time jobs, they would take a full time job with benefits if it were offered to them. Employers opt out of regulation whenever they can (see: the environment). The claim that employers opting out of regulation undercuts the original premise is completely false. They are doing so to cut costs which is entirely to the benefit of their shareholders who are a much smaller slice of society than workers. In summary: Workers aren't necessarily entering the gig economy voluntarily and employers opting out of regulation doesn't threaten the original premise.