
CA Law Was to Give Uber Drivers New Protections. Instead, Comedians Lost Work - supernova87a
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-california-law-was-supposed-to-give-uber-drivers-new-protections-instead-comedians-lost-work-11599883243
======
awb
Honestly this is the worst part of contracting, when two consenting parties
can't work together. If I prefer the gig economy and contract work to full-
time employment, CA gets in the way. It's been much more challenging trying to
get long-term contract work as companies are afraid of me being classified as
an employee and then owing the state (or me) taxes and penalities.

I have a skill that adds value to a company. They want to pay me to do it. I
agree to the price. What's the problem? According to CA, a lot.

~~~
marcinzm
>I have a skill that adds value to a company. They want to pay me to do it. I
agree to the price. What's the problem? According to CA, a lot.

Are you arguing that all labor laws, workplace safety laws, minimum wage laws,
anti-compete laws and so on should be repealed? After all, they all get in the
way of two consenting parties deciding to work together. If not then it's
merely a question of where the line is drawn and that's a murky issue.

~~~
baryphonic
> Are you arguing that all labor laws, workplace safety laws, minimum wage
> laws, anti-compete laws and so on should be repealed? After all, they all
> get in the way of two consenting parties deciding to work together. If not
> then it's merely a question of where the line is drawn and that's a murky
> issue.

We should repeal every minimum wage law, yes. They were created a century ago
with racist intentions, their effects are still racist and yet today they are
defended as being "anti-racist." The actual minimum wage is and always has
been $0, and more people get to (not) work for this wage in the minimum wage
regime than would without it.

I have yet to see a reason why a body of torts and collective bargaining would
not be completely effective at resolving the real issues that need solutions
in labor law and workplace safety. (I'm not sure what you mean by "anti-
compete" laws in a labor relations context.) The existing regime where
administrative bureaucracies are essentially intermediaries with perverse
incentives to reduce exchange between two otherwise consenting parties seems
like the worst possible world.

To reframe your question, I think the solution is not "no laws," but laws that
encourage more exchange but in a way that reduces power imbalances between
consenting parties and give the parties a solid basis of legal (or equitable)
recourse for undeniable wrongs that happen that were not anticipated by the
contract.

~~~
0xB31B1B
Raising the minimum wage in Seattle was shown to help the local economy. The
economy doesn't grow if people don't have money to spend. The marginal dollar
made going to a worker making 15 dollars and hour or less is better for
everyone than if that marginal dollar made goes to a capital owner of the
company because the worker will have a higher utility from that marginal
dollar and they will spend it in their local economy, which causes local
economic growth. If the marginal dollar instead went to a capital owner of a
large corporation or franchise owner, the dollar has left the local economy,
and the economy has shrunk. Obviously there is a limit to this, you can't set
the minimum wage at 200 dollars/hour, but the balance of evidence we have
shows that increasing the miminum wage will increase the US GDP because those
dollars go to things like hair cuts and groceries, not savings accounts. You
need to spend money to grow.

~~~
ChrisLomont
It seems academic literature shows the Seattle min wage had the opposite
effect of your claims. It hurt workers and drove up prices, as expected.
Here’s two representative papers; you can find more using Google scholar.

[1] [https://www.nber.org/papers/w23532](https://www.nber.org/papers/w23532)

[2]
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/107808741878766...](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1078087418787667)

~~~
Jweb_Guru
For your first paper, the same team published a study a year later that
complicated their initial results:
[https://www.nber.org/papers/w25182](https://www.nber.org/papers/w25182). And
"workers in low wage jobs earned less money" does not necessarily imply that
workers are earning less money overall in any case.

The second study is a survey of what employers say they were doing. It is not
terribly surprising that they feel raising the minimum wage was bad.

I'm not saying raising the minimum wage was a slam dunk in Seattle or
anything, but if we want to have an actual evidence-based discussion, let's
not cherrypick papers. It's also worth noting that employers simply "taking
their business elsewhere" is much easier if the minimum wage increase is
highly local as it was in Seattle, which isn't the proposal most people are
talking about.

~~~
ChrisLomont
>the same team published a study a year later

And from that paper: "We attribute significant hourly wage increases and hours
reductions to the policy." and "Approximately one-quarter of the earnings
gains can be attributed to experienced workers making up for lost hours in
Seattle with work outside the city limits."

Read the paper. It does not appear that the min wage of Seattle was a net
positive for the workers or the city.

>The second study is a survey of what employers say they were doing. It is not
terribly surprising that they feel raising the minimum wage was bad.

It's also not surprising that an increase in labor costs results in less labor
being hired and an increase in prices.

Feel free to post papers that contradict the findings.

>let's not cherrypick papers

Agreed. Post papers if you think these were cherry picked and not
representative of the outcome of Seattle min wage. You don't like the results
I posted, which I think are representative (I've followed the academic lit on
min wage for a long, long time), yet you don't post supporting evidence for
your claims.

Simply type seattle minimum wage into Google scholar and look at the papers.
I've found many with results similar to these, and none with the opposite
claims.

For those following, the Seattle min wage seems consistent with what you'd
expect from price floors: benefits for a smaller pool of workers at the cost
of other workers priced out of work, increased prices, a decrease in labor
hours, and some workers having to go outside the price floor (here, working
outside Seattle) to make up the lost money.

------
ktal
The root cause of all of this is the abysmal safety net in the US. If vitally
important things like healthcare, unemployment and disability weren't tied to
your employment, then there wouldn't be an issue in the first place because
companies couldn't weasel their way out of paying for it by calling employees
"contractors".

~~~
t-writescode
This. 100% this. The real thing we should be championing isn't forcing
companies like Uber to pay for healthcare because health care is so important.

If healthcare is so important, which it is, our taxes should be paying for it,
yes, even (edit: for) the people that don't have work.

~~~
heavyset_go
Until that safety net exists, it's important that people are provided with
health insurance by whatever means are necessary and available. Right now, the
system is set up such that health insurance is provided though employers.

Champion the safety net, but also recognize that people need healthcare _right
now_.

~~~
scarface74
There is nothing stopping California from increasing corporate taxes and
providing health care to everyone in the state.

Why go through the Rube Golberg solution?

~~~
tolbish
As byzantine as it is, it's more comfortable and familiar than adopting a new
unknown system.

~~~
scarface74
So let’s pass more laws that make it more difficult for freelancers,
independent truck drivers, etc to earn money as they wish.

Jason Snell for instance was the editor in chief of MacWorld. He was laid off
and decided to go full time with his blog, podcasts, etc.

He also wanted to do freelance writing. Now, it’s harder for him to do
freelancing because of California laws.

------
graeme
Many comments are treating these results as unforeseeable consequences. But
the law pretty obviously banned most contracting.

You can read the conditions here. Unless the worker meets _all_ of them, they
are an employee.

Part A is a pretty normal contractor condition. But Part B bans _all_
subcontracting within an industry.

Part C seems to ban people from becoming new contractors if they weren’t one
already. How would you get established in a trade? Part C says you’re an
employee if you’re not already so established.

————

Effective January 1, 2020, hiring entities are required to classify workers as
employees unless they meet all conditions of the ABC test:

1\. The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in
connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the
performance of the work and in fact. 2\. The person performs work that is
outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business. 3\. The person is
customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or
business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

[https://edd.ca.gov/Payroll_Taxes/ab-5.htm](https://edd.ca.gov/Payroll_Taxes/ab-5.htm)

~~~
maxsilver
> But Part B bans all subcontracting within an industry.

I don't see the problem here. It's not obvious to me that subcontracting
should ever have been legal in the first place -- the majority of the time,
I've generally only seen subcontracting used to do something immoral,
unethical, or irresponsible.

> Part C seems to ban people from becoming new contractors if they weren’t one
> already.

Is that what it actually does? Reading it, does not seem to communicate that.
It seems to be saying, "if you are a contractor, you have to actually be a
contractor, and not just filling out contractor-like legal paperwork because
your employer forced you to"

Uber and Lyft drivers are not actual businesses, they are employees of Uber
and Lyft, picking up piecework employment, and Uber and Lyft are abusing a
legal loophole to not pay them fairly. But if you run "Acme Transportation
LLC" and own a vehicle that you use as your own Limo Shuttle service, you
would fulfill Part C, even if it's your first day of business.

Uber and Lyft want everyone to pretend those two groups of people are the
exact same. But they aren't the same, and I've not heard any good reason why
the rest of us should pretend likewise.

~~~
MR4D
What about the person who drives for both Uber and Lyft?

My brother does that, and tells me most drivers he knows do the same.

Should they be employees?

And if so, can I work for Google and Apple at the same time as an employee?

~~~
maxsilver
I'd argue yes, they should definitely still be employees.

When a person flips burgers for both McDonalds and Burger King, they're still
clearly an employee with two different jobs at two companies, and not some
sort of "independent food consultant". If you work as a cashier at both Shell
and Speedway, you are today an employee with two different jobs at two
different companies, and not some kind of "independent petroleum cashier
contractor". Having two jobs at different companies happens all the time in
the US today for low/middle-class folks, and has for many many decades now --
these folks are generally all still considered W2 employees.

------
vore
I find a lot of the lines that come out of ride-sharing companies just absurd:

> A Lyft spokeswoman said: “If the legislature had done its job and made
> policy that actually protected drivers, the ballot initiative wouldn’t have
> been necessary.”

This reads like "if you twisted our arm in a way we would have preferred (in
approximately 0 preferred ways), then we wouldn't be pulling out our political
spin machine against you to continue exploiting drivers."

Comedians and yoga studios should not be caught in this crossfire at all, but
it's clear that these ride-sharing companies are acting in extremely bad will,
and the system lets them get away with it.

~~~
bestnameever
I don't know how you reach that conclusion without pre-existing bias against
the ride-sharing companies.

The legislature is absolutely to blame for comedians and yoga studios getting
caught in the crossfire. They are the ones that passed the regulation.

~~~
Daishiman
The pre existing bias borne out of the morally challenged Uber executives who
have time and time again broken laws by outright ignoring labor laws in many
places on the world?

Yeah I wonder why...

~~~
bestnameever
the why does not matter as much as acknowledging that you may be drawing
faulty conclusions based on a bias.

~~~
dundarious
You seem to be implying the bias is unreasonable, by claiming the conclusions
it leads to are faulty. I think that framing is uncharitable at best. What you
call bias, might be better described as contextual understanding, or awareness
of other highly relevant information. Given the wealth of (prominent on HN)
discourse around "ride-sharing companies acting in bad faith", there's little
reason to immediately frame this argument in terms of "pre-existing bias" that
must be exorcised before rational discourse can begin.

Of course, reasonable people can disagree with the accusations of bad faith,
but for a knowledgeable person to claim it as "bias" instead of "reasoned
opinion" is extremely uncharitable, verging on sophistry.

~~~
bestnameever
No, whether the bias is reasonable or unreasonable does not really matter. How
one reaches a certain conclusion is what matters.

------
abhiyerra
This law hurts freelancers so much especially those that want to be
freelancers. If you decide you want to go down the route of LLC in California
then you have to pay the yearly $800 dollar tax.

To be honest I wonder if there should be three designations for modern
employment: full time, contractor and gig worker.

~~~
microcolonel
Woah, you have to pay $800/yr to keep an LLC in California? What for?

~~~
manquer
Various fillings you need to do. While different states have different
requirements and fees . It will not cost zero anywhere .

While it looks high, if the biz cannot afford the $800 fees annually then
perhaps LLC is the not the structure for it ?

LLC come with many requirements for corporate governance and accounting this
typically means you need accountants and lawyers and they cost lot more than
$800 .

~~~
jccooper
It has nothing to do with filings. It costs the state next to nothing. It's a
very-slightly-disguised franchise tax, on top of their actual franchise tax if
you make any money.

There are 9 states with no annual LLC fees. And almost all of the rest are $50
or under.

LLCs have almost no requirements for corporate governance. That's why they're
attractive.

~~~
manquer
Compared to public company LLC have less requirements yes. Howver you still
need a board and resolutions and you have submit your LLC annual returns have
seperate bank accounts at the minimum. None of that is required for a sole
proprietor.

> costs the state next to nothing

How are you concluding this ?

Cost to the state is just not storing few bits somewhere . Even just
applications they have to build maintain those bits will cost the state a lot
of money.

The non tech part of the government which needs your data. every bank , credit
worthiness, every other biz which needs to work with you, every dept that
needs to regulate what you do , every small biz schemes you would like to
benefit from. Healthcare, employee taxes, courts etc ....

All of these reference your corporate entity "ID" the government needs to
maintain and service them. Heck even apple will ask your DUNS number when you
register non personal developer account.

It may or may not cost $800, but it certainly isnt next to nothing. other
states maybe absorbing the costs and are trying to attract new biz, doesn't
mean that california has to be cheap too.

Like I said there are other entity structures which are cheaper and designed
for businesses that cannot afford 800 dollars a year in filing fee.

~~~
adventured
> Howver you still need a board and resolutions and you have submit your LLC
> annual returns have seperate bank accounts at the minimum.

LLCs do not need to have boards. If you're going to operate a simple single
member LLC for example, there is typically no great reason to have a board.

[https://info.legalzoom.com/article/does-llc-have-board-
direc...](https://info.legalzoom.com/article/does-llc-have-board-directors)

[https://smallbusiness.chron.com/singlemember-llc-need-
board-...](https://smallbusiness.chron.com/singlemember-llc-need-board-
directors-55403.html)

------
supernova87a
It seems to me that although the law was claimed to be a win for all workers
(at least in its intention, and pitch to the public), its _effect_ is to favor
certain workers over others.

And what I see is that "old-line" workers in industries already familiar with
/ set up to have employees are the main beneficiaries. Newer industries that
have not yet figured out how to cost-efficiently have employees are the
losers. Hotel cleaning staff versus part-time rideshare drivers. It seems to
be about protecting "old" labor versus new labor, within the truth of labor in
general being more unstable recently.

I don't think I like this approach. Particularly more so because I don't see
why in principle some specific contractors got callouts as exceptions, but not
others [1]:

\-- insurance agent

\-- physician and surgeon, dentist, podiatrist, psychologist, or veterinarian

\-- lawyer, architect, engineer, private investigator, or accountant

\-- securities broker-dealer or investment adviser

(^ clearly these contractors have been exploited long enough and need
assistance (/s) )

\-- direct sales salesperson

\-- commercial fisherman working on an American vessel

(^ if there was a group of workers working in more dangerous and low paying
and uncertain conditions, you would think they would be included)

\-- those providing professional services, such as: marketing, HR, travel
agents, graphic design, grant writer, fine artist

(^ Grant writer??)

\-- accountant, payment processor, photographer, freelance journalist, writer,
real estate agent, repossession agent

Why do all these industries get a pass? What about the dozens of jobs that
didn't make the list? And I can clearly imagine that with these definitions
locked in stone, it favors old over new that has no such title.

I take this as evidence that this is a heavy exercise in picking and choosing
_which_ workers.

[1]
[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5)

------
renewiltord
They clearly tried to have this spear-regulate the ride-sharing guys without
hitting anyone else but the policy is totally an "adding epicycles" style
approach which is why they had to add more epicycles to exempt all those
myriad occupations rather randomly.

~~~
dragonwriter
> They clearly tried to have this spear-regulate the ride-sharing guys without
> hitting anyone else

No, they didn't. It's true that a big point of AB5 was to _limit_ the reach of
the rule from the California Supreme Court decision in _Dynamex_ which it
codified by also adding a bunch of exceptions, but it was very (explicitly)
not intended to be limited to ride-sharing; codifying _Dynamex_ with
additional exceptions instead of legislatively reversing it was because the
legislature felt that classifying vulnerable workers as contractors was
leading to abuses in an expanding range of fields, not just ride-sharing (or
even just app-based gig-work.)

~~~
SamReidHughes
AB5 extended the applicability of the ABC test from wage orders to the full
labor code and unemployment insurance code.

~~~
dragonwriter
> AB5 extended the applicability of the ABC test from wage orders to the full
> labor code and unemployment insurance code.

That's true. A big point was limiting it's reach as to working arrangements.
Another was to harmonize the employee vs. contractor distinction indifferent
areas of employment law, since it's really inconvenient for business if it's
_different_ for each of those areas.

------
neonate
[https://archive.is/e8tAx](https://archive.is/e8tAx)

------
mixmastamyk
It's also risking a lucrative software contract I have now working remotely in
DC. I was very lucky to find it after being unemployed for quite a while.
Apparently California would rather see me homeless than gainfully employed in
exactly the way they'd like.

I can only cross my fingers and hope the referendum in November changes
things.

Not sure if the article mentions it but it also put live musicians out of work
as well, until they added an exception. Where is the software industry on
this?

~~~
musingsole
> Apparently California would rather see me homeless than gainfully employed
> in exactly the way they'd like.

Does that thought surprise you? I thought California making a nominally well
intentioned but horribly enacted policy and then creating all sorts of
loopholes for the things the _THEY_ like was the state's SOP.

------
FeeJai
The law of unintended consequences will always beat human made rules and
regulations.

Quote from Wikipedia: > More recently, the law of unintended consequences has
come to be used as an adage or idiomatic warning that an intervention in a
complex system tends to create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes.

~~~
graeme
What you saw is true, but this law isn’t that. The plain language of the law
banned most contractors. You can find some stuff in my comment history where I
talked about this months before it was enacted.

California’s behaviour is More equivalent to wanting to kill a fly on someone
using a hammer. I wouldn’t call it a typical unintended consequences
situation.

------
andrewfong
Independent of whether the law is a good idea generally speaking, there's a
pretty simple patch the legislature could make that keeps the intent alive.
Just exempt the first N contractors a business hires. Let's say, a thousand.
Most businesses won't hire 1000+ comedians, musicians, etc. But the massive
network effect of 1000s of drivers on a platform is core to how a gig app like
Uber works.

------
radley
Uhm, wasn't it fixed a week ago? Comedians (and others) can work independently
again...

[https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2020/09/05/governor-
sig...](https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2020/09/05/governor-signs-law-
exempting-more-occupations-from-controversial-assembly-bill-5/)

~~~
jessaustin
It isn't clear that stuffing lots of people into comedy clubs is the best
thing for us to do right now.

------
vwat
California barely has any foot left to shoot.

~~~
um_ya
Yet, they keep finding ways to shoot. Glad I got out.

------
liveoneggs
How do comedians fall in the ABC test? they can work multiple clubs, venues
are not exclusively doing a single thing, and the venue doesn't control the
jokes they tell.

Musicians are quite similar as far as I can tell.

------
viraptor
> If forced to reclassify their drivers as employees, the companies say their
> businesses—already unprofitable—would be completely upended.

Now this is comedy. "Not only are we unprofitable while abusing cheap labour,
we need extra state protection to preserve this state!" I'm for getting rid of
companies in that state. (Although uber could easily run more lean instead)
Maybe the lack of transport would force commuting improvements in other ways.

~~~
dicomdan
What state protection is Uber asking for in this case?

~~~
nextaccountic
Protection from this judicial decision:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamex_Operations_West,_Inc._...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamex_Operations_West,_Inc._v._Superior_Court)

The AB5 is meant to codify it in the law.

> The Court then reached the principle holding of the case, interpreting the
> “suffer or permit” standard in the wage order context. The Court held that
> the hiring entity bears the burden of “establish[ing] that a worker is an
> independent contractor” and thus, “not intended to be included within the
> wage order’s coverage.”[46] The Court went on hold that in order for the
> entity to meet this burden, it must establish each of three factors, in what
> is called the “ABC test”:

> (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring
> entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the
> contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and (B) that the
> worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's
> business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently
> established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work
> performed.[47]

------
zalkota
Companies will simply leave California.

------
bbischof
I bet they’re not laughing now.

------
rogerkirkness
Government always fails to think in second order consequences, let alone
third-order consequences.

~~~
formercoder
So true. I cannot fathom how governments don’t think about how corporations,
which are rational actors with clear goals, will respond to regulations. This
Uber thing is simple and boils down to only one question: can Uber operate in
an npv positive fashion with drivers on w2s? If yes, they will, if no, they’ll
leave.

~~~
manquer
Politicians are no different, they also act rationally .

Who donates most to their election campaigns , what policies will get them
more votes pretty much drives every decision.

Voters do not necessarily vote for what is actually beneficial to them. They
vote for what they _think_ is beneficial.A fact exploited by republicans so
well to reduce taxes on the rich and still get popular support since atleast
Regan.

There is also the trianny of the majority in any democrarcy while a lot worse
in direct it also exists in representative versions.

California with all ballot propositions has more direct flavour than other
states. Interests of the minority are hard to proctect.

Ultimately it boils down to education and media. Democrarcy depends on these
two pillars heavily.

While the role of media is discussed often, the role of education is not
talked about enough. More educated the average voter is , it is harder to make
them vote against their interest.

There was a reason only landed gentry voted in Rome, while such restrictions
is not the right solution, the concerns on the ability to vote after being
well informed is still valid

You can easily draw a strong correlation between states( and countries) which
are not people friendly (low tax/ lax labour , environment regulations) to
their education level.

~~~
formercoder
Great point thanks for articulating.

------
RandoHolmes
> Why would I pay an uneducated, inexperienced person to sweep floors $20 per
> hour? I’ll do it myself first.

Because you don't want to do it or you don't have the time.

If I could pay someone 1 cent per hour to wipe my ass crack I would do it, is
it a problem that I must instead wipe my own ass crack?

The answer is literally there in your post, these jobs aren't worth having.
Imagine posting this yelling "think of the people who will no longer be able
to wipe others' ass cracks!".

Ok....

~~~
ColanR
> these jobs aren't worth having

Are you making that decision for yourself, or for others? Offer the job, and
see if there's takers. If there aren't, then you'll actually know that the job
isn't worth having.

~~~
RandoHolmes
I guess slavery is worth having since someone, somewhere, "chose" to do it...

Wait, what's that!?!? Are you saying it's acceptable for society to make
decisions for those who don't have the leverage to protect themselves?!?!
WHAT?!?!? Say it aint so Mr Magoo, say it aint so...

Cause I hurd if you ever make a decision for another human being you're
immoral, making all parents immoral. That's just how this shit wurks my
brutha!

~~~
ColanR
> I guess slavery is worth having since someone, somewhere, "chose" to do
> it...

Are you suggesting that "someone, somewhere" chose to do something that
intentionally made them worse off than they were before?

~~~
RandoHolmes
I'd like to buy "what is stockholm's syndrome for 500 alex!".

[https://www.britannica.com/science/Stockholm-
syndrome](https://www.britannica.com/science/Stockholm-syndrome)

The better question. Are you implying this doesn't exist and therefore the
woman in question is guilty?

I mean, not that this has anything to do with the overarching point, but....
you're so wrong that you're wrong even when you're wrong.

enter: BUT I'M GOING TO DEFINE FREEWILL SO IT DOESN'T INCLUDE STOCKHOLME
SYNDROME...

yeah ok.... That certainly makes you ... biased.

~~~
ColanR
You seem incoherent. Apparently you're implying I have stockholm syndrome,
which is at best an _ad homenim_. Then you mention some woman I've never heard
of, and conclude by asserting that I'm super duper wrong...which isn't
particularly informative, useful or even appropriate in a discussion.

To top it off, your grammar is atrocious.

EDIT: I'll ask my question again, with better wording, just for good measure.
Are you suggesting that when people look for work, they accept jobs that leave
them worse off than they were before?

~~~
dang
" _Don 't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead._"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
redis_mlc
FYI: when the $600 mandatory filing for 1099-MISC's is reduced to $0, a
similar effect will hammer the small business and freelance market nationwide
since a lot of clients limit the total number of vendors they will do
paperwork for.

There have been proposals to do so, but none have advanced yet.

One milestone is 250 1099-MISC filings, which triggers electronic filing.

The unexpected consequence of law and rule changes like these are to create
massive monopolies, with no small business market, becoming more European-
like.

[https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/307779](https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/307779)

[https://sovos.com/blog/2019/02/12/irs-forms-1099-misc-
vs-109...](https://sovos.com/blog/2019/02/12/irs-forms-1099-misc-
vs-1099-k-states-close-tax-reporting-gap/)

------
RandoHolmes
> Safety standards could be addressed by insurability, and this is really a
> very separate concept from wage.

Sorry, but no. And I'm going to judge you for having that opinion.

The idea that it's acceptable for a human being to lose their sight (or legs
or arms or ...) and suffer the quality of life problems that result from it as
long as they're covered by insurance is horrendous and I judge you for it.

I don't even care if you come back and tell me you've changed your mind based
upon this post. The fact that you needed your mind changed makes you a
monster.

~~~
whiddershins
You literally misunderstand fundamentally what I wrote. Unsafe workplaces
would not be able to get insurance, therefore wouldn’t exist, hence very safe
workplaces.

Again, my example is UL ratings of building materials.

Your response is over the top, and I am quite worried about you talking to me
this way, it feels like a threat.

~~~
callmeal
>You literally misunderstand fundamentally what I wrote. Unsafe workplaces
would not be able to get insurance, therefore wouldn’t exist, hence very safe
workplaces.

That is just not true. I think it's convenient how everyone forgets the kinds
of calculations US corporations make: breaking the law/killing people/not
having insurance is cheaper and more profitable than the alternative. Remember
the Ford Pinto? Ok, that was probably too long ago. How about Firestone?

Firestone:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_contro...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_controversy)

~~~
whiddershins
Well, that’s a good point. But what if the government merely said ‘without
insurance, you can’t operate.’

This would be a modest intervention, but would allow a market of insurers to
determine what is safe, so as to reduce cruft.

Maybe it’s flawed, but it works for UL rating and building materials ... no UL
certification no insurance, therefore no materials are sold without the
certification, even though it is technically legal to sell them. This results
in a private market for, say, awesome cherry wood coffee table tops that
aren’t regulated, but Sheetrock and structural steel clearly is.

Maybe it wouldn’t work, I’m just saying OSHA and state regulations aren’t the
only conceivable way to imagine workplace safety being enforced.

------
brian_cunnie
I can't read the article (paywall), but I can say that two of my friends who
drove for Uber don't anymore, and they say it's because it's too hard to make
money.

I'd like every job to have a living wage.

~~~
el_don_almighty
And I want a drinking fountain that shoots out Johnny Walker blue...

~~~
jethro_tell
Why does a living wage for anyone that wants to work seem like a selfish
pipedream to you?

~~~
tasubotadas
Is that a rhetorical question or can't you really see that not every
occupation can earn a living wage?

~~~
jethro_tell
Why should some occupations not be eligible for a living wage? There is a
demand for cab drivers, why should they spend 40-50 hours a week meeting that
demand and then be denied a living wage? As long as we need someone to do that
job, we should compensate them for putting in the effort.

~~~
tasubotadas
>Why should some occupations not be eligible for a living wage?

Because they do not create enough economic value to earn that?

------
Lammy
My first thought when reading this article was "I wonder how much Uber paid
for this?"

------
33MHz-i486
Youtube should be forced to pay people minimum wage for their videos

Etsy should be forced to pay minimum wage to their makers

~~~
kittiepryde
I think in that situation, YouTube would take adshare to 0%. YouTube then is
just a place to upload videos and make them public. No expectation of turning
a profit. For a premium fee you pay YouTube, you could get some of that
adshare, and now they're a paid service.

------
torstenvl
The immense second- and third- order consequences of legislation are why I
oppose term limits.

Legislation should be crafted by experienced experts.

~~~
33MHz-i486
ok but make them retire at 65. before mental decline really kicks in

~~~
hodgesrm
Please cite evidence showing how this is actually a problem. Thanks.

~~~
novok
google: age statistics of dementia

------
bpodgursky
The CA law was to get Uber drivers into the Teamsters. Anything else was
collateral damage.

