|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland26450 Posts
On April 12 2024 05:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2024 20:13 WombaT wrote:
Isn’t part of the disruptive impact of an Uber/Lyft that venture capital pumps so much money into them that they’re effectively just loss-leading exercises?
Part of the reason certain services had less penetration over this side of the Atlantic were attempts to regulate them as businesses with employees, and not as a loose collective of self-employed workers who you don’t need to extend certain rights to.
I.e uber is a taxi/delivery company and thus playing by the same rules as others in the sector.
In a similar vein most calls to regulate an AirBnB is as a commercial/residential property rental company. Which I’m big in favour of but is taking its sweet time
I’m not particularly familiar with this instance, was it an attempt to regulate in a similar fashion or some kind of arbitrary ‘you must pay x’? thing or what? Over here in Spain the government passed a rider law, regulating that Glovo, Deliveroo, Uber Eats and whatever else have to employ their "autonomous riders". Glovo complained a LOT, Deliveroo pulled out of Spain, but at the end of the day, it worked. We can still get deliveries. And the riders now get covered by social security, have union protection, etc. Unsurprisingly, the sky hasn't fallen. Uber already went out of business here when the government told them they needed to operate as a taxi service following taxi laws, or gtfo. Instead we have cabify and it seems to be doing fine.
Thanks for the info, swapping a few companies around that seems vaguely to be the British experience too
|
Northern Ireland26450 Posts
On April 12 2024 08:06 Introvert wrote:
Yes, I am aware the left doesn't have a problem with subsidy, just who gets it. That's part of my point. Now no one gets anything. But of course a minimum wage is not, strictly speaking, "free market operations" either. Perhaps without either the min wage or the welfare benefits the actual cost of operation would be somewhere between the offered wage and the mandated minimum. But we won't know, because there is no "simple free market" in operation to begin with.
Well there isn’t, but this doesn’t exclusively involve state involvement either.
If you’ve got fuck you money behind you, aren’t regulated and aren’t under immediate pressure to turn an actual profit you can undercut all the competition around you, underpay employees until the day you get a stranglehold and can do what you want with pricing.
A subsidy is a subsidy whether it’s from the government or investment capital.
Given the outright pullouts, or lobbying efforts in many countries any time the state wants to regulate a nascent industry via the standards of said industry, I’m not seeing a huge commitment to free market competition from these companies.
Perhaps Blackjack has picked a good example of some of the pitfalls in how to balance these things sure, but I don’t think overall it’s a particularly egregious thing to attempt to do.
|
On April 12 2024 08:39 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2024 08:06 Introvert wrote:
Yes, I am aware the left doesn't have a problem with subsidy, just who gets it. That's part of my point. Now no one gets anything. But of course a minimum wage is not, strictly speaking, "free market operations" either. Perhaps without either the min wage or the welfare benefits the actual cost of operation would be somewhere between the offered wage and the mandated minimum. But we won't know, because there is no "simple free market" in operation to begin with. Well there isn’t, but this doesn’t exclusively involve state involvement either. If you’ve got fuck you money behind you, aren’t regulated and aren’t under immediate pressure to turn an actual profit you can undercut all the competition around you, underpay employees until the day you get a stranglehold and can do what you want with pricing. A subsidy is a subsidy whether it’s from the government or investment capital. Given the outright pullouts, or lobbying efforts in many countries any time the state wants to regulate a nascent industry via the standards of said industry, I’m not seeing a huge commitment to free market competition from these companies. Perhaps Blackjack has picked a good example of some of the pitfalls in how to balance these things sure, but I don’t think overall it’s a particularly egregious thing to attempt to do.
As I said, if the business A) doesn't turn a profit and B) isn't of vital importance for national security, I'm ok with letting it fail. There are clearly investors who think one day it will make money, how would that calculus change if the laws changed? I don't know, but I do know that the motive for the action wasn't some abstract commitment to good government but an attempt make these companies pay a "living wage." Instead what they got was almost no wage. They tried to balance one market intervention against another and then found out it doesn't work. So why pick the minimum wage to increase, maybe they should have changed, or at least accounted for, the welfare laws instead  Classic unintended but totally predictable consequences.
|
United States43746 Posts
It’s intended consequences. Everyone is familiar with demand vs price charts and that by establishing a floor price for labour they will reduce the demand that exists only below that price floor. They’re not surprised by this.
There’s all sorts of weird demand you could create if you got rid of regulations. Legalize child labour and the demand for child workers will increase which will presumably increase the economic freedom of the children and therefore help them. Legalize illegal workers and the demand for them will skyrocket. There’s plenty of options there.
But there are floor criteria that need to be met for a job to exist in our society. Below those we judge the exchange to either be too exploitative to be just or just bad policy due to externalities. California is not surprised by the impact of the floor, it is working as intended. People who want to pay a real delivery driver’s fee for the service they require can still do so, just as we all had to do back when restaurants had delivery drivers on staff.
|
What’s the message for the upset delivery drivers earning less money now? “We’ve freed you from your exploitation so stop bitching and be grateful.”
|
On April 12 2024 12:42 BlackJack wrote:
What’s the message for the upset delivery drivers earning less money now? “We’ve freed you from your exploitation so stop bitching and be grateful.”
No, it's "it sucks that your employer was lying to you in the first place. The job you had never existed, forany of the same reasons your 12-year-old son isn't allowed to work: it's exploitative. If we allow companies to exploit their labor, it leads to a race to the bottom with more and more of the workforce getting paid less and less. I know it sucks that it's you losing your job, but if your employer cannot pay you a living wage for your time, they don't have any right to employ you. Same as they aren't allowed to employ your son, or an illegal immigrant."
Of course, those of us on the left also favor a decent safety net for the unemployed, so if they aren't working they still get the money they need to pay the rent, food, healthcare, school and other necessities. So if people have those basics, they are also less likely to enter into exploitative deals with unscrupulous delivery companies.
|
On April 12 2024 08:06 Introvert wrote:
Yes, I am aware the left doesn't have a problem with subsidy, just who gets it. That's part of my point. Now no one gets anything. But of course a minimum wage is not, strictly speaking, "free market operations" either. Perhaps without either the min wage or the welfare benefits the actual cost of operation would be somewhere between the offered wage and the mandated minimum. But we won't know, because there is no "simple free market" in operation to begin with. Didn't we try no min wage and no welfare back in the 18/1900s? We know where it leads, abject poverty, worker exploitation and child labor. Those workers paid in blood to get us all min wage and labour laws.
The invisible hand of the free market will fix it. It never has, not in the past and not now. Is the free market fixing sweatshops in Bangladesh?
You say your ok with allowing unsustainable businesses to fail, is assume that means your also ok with their employees losing their jobs when said business fails, so why does it stop being ok when the government exposes such businesses as unsustainable? If a businesses cant pay a living wage it is not sustainable, can't we agree on that basic premise?
|
What's the definition of "living wage" that we are working off of here
|
United States43746 Posts
On April 12 2024 17:18 BlackJack wrote:
What's the definition of "living wage" that we are working off of here
Are you after a number? Because the number would change based on a variety of factors. Or are you just after a definition in which case may I submit “a wage you can live on”.
|
On April 12 2024 17:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2024 17:18 BlackJack wrote:
What's the definition of "living wage" that we are working off of here Are you after a number? Because the number would change based on a variety of factors. Or are you just after a definition in which case may I submit “a wage you can live on”.
Either/or. By your definition I reckon every wage is a living wage as I don't know any dead people drawing salaries. From the context of other people's posts I'm guessing that a large majority of jobs in the world are not considered a livable wage. Which means a vast majority of jobs in the world have no right to exist. At that point, why not just throw your hat in with GH.
|
United States43746 Posts
On April 12 2024 17:58 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2024 17:28 KwarK wrote:On April 12 2024 17:18 BlackJack wrote:
What's the definition of "living wage" that we are working off of here Are you after a number? Because the number would change based on a variety of factors. Or are you just after a definition in which case may I submit “a wage you can live on”. Either/or. By your definition I reckon every wage is a living wage as I don't know any dead people drawing salaries. From the context of other people's posts I'm guessing that a large majority of jobs in the world are not considered a livable wage. Which means a vast majority of jobs in the world have no right to exist. At that point, why not just throw your hat in with GH.
A lot of people get wages they can’t live on and count on additional inputs to make ends meet such as second jobs, side jobs, remittances from family, charity, government services, and so forth. If I work two jobs and am alive then that does not imply both jobs are paying me a living wage, it implies that neither are, that’s why I have two.
For a number we’re going to need to get into variable costs of living, family size, number of earners, age, health, and so forth. If we’re making it global then we’ll also need purchasing power parity. Basically a number isn’t going to be meaningful without the explanation contextualizing the number.
|
On April 12 2024 17:58 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2024 17:28 KwarK wrote:On April 12 2024 17:18 BlackJack wrote:
What's the definition of "living wage" that we are working off of here Are you after a number? Because the number would change based on a variety of factors. Or are you just after a definition in which case may I submit “a wage you can live on”. Either/or. By your definition I reckon every wage is a living wage as I don't know any dead people drawing salaries. From the context of other people's posts I'm guessing that a large majority of jobs in the world are not considered a livable wage. Which means a vast majority of jobs in the world have no right to exist. At that point, why not just throw your hat in with GH. being a pedantic idiot just stops everyone from even wanting to engage, because whats the point if your going to be pedantic about it?
a living wage is a wage that pays enough for an average person to reasonably live on with full time employment (lets call it around 36 hours a week), without requiring additional assistance.
meaning enough to pay for rent/mortgage, utilities, food, transportation, healthcare and additional expenses while having enough left over to spend on whatever.
|
On April 12 2024 16:47 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2024 08:06 Introvert wrote:
Yes, I am aware the left doesn't have a problem with subsidy, just who gets it. That's part of my point. Now no one gets anything. But of course a minimum wage is not, strictly speaking, "free market operations" either. Perhaps without either the min wage or the welfare benefits the actual cost of operation would be somewhere between the offered wage and the mandated minimum. But we won't know, because there is no "simple free market" in operation to begin with. Didn't we try no min wage and no welfare back in the 18/1900s? We know where it leads, abject poverty, worker exploitation and child labor. Those workers paid in blood to get us all min wage and labour laws. The invisible hand of the free market will fix it. It never has, not in the past and not now. Is the free market fixing sweatshops in Bangladesh? You say your ok with allowing unsustainable businesses to fail, is assume that means your also ok with their employees losing their jobs when said business fails, so why does it stop being ok when the government exposes such businesses as unsustainable? If a businesses cant pay a living wage it is not sustainable, can't we agree on that basic premise?
Point 1 is that no one can actually identify a winner here.
Point 2, which is related, is that we are only looking at this from one side and it's confusing things. It's kind of odd to complain that these companies only exist because of indirect subsidy when we can't even know of that's true. It's like we are subtracting from one side of the equation but not the other, the relationship doesn't hold.
As a particular, there's a reason so many places have these contractor designations in the fist place. It's simplistic to the point of being wrong to say a company like these that can't offer the min wage shouldn't exist. Presumably the people working these jobs aren't doing it at a loss. We are not in the gilded age, you aren't in a mine for 12 hours and forced to buy all your necessities from the company store. If people want to drive around either for extra income or in a pinch of need then they should be allowed to do that. I just don't think every job is supposed to provide a comfortable lifestyle, and it's silly to try and make that a reality. I'd rather open up new opportunities for people. But here I tread old and tired ground.
I think it's a more useful exercise to ask, from the left, who actually gained here? It's the question people are stubbornly refusing to answer. As I said before, at least the wage, hour, and safety laws that arose in the last century+ had some obvious upside!
|
United States43746 Posts
Many of them are making a loss. They get around it by committing insurance fraud on their vehicles, underpaying taxes, and not counting the depreciation as an offset to their cash. They treat their car as an expense, not an asset, and cannibalize it’s remaining life for cash today because you can’t spend remaining miles on your car’s life but you can pay rent with cash. They spend money today on essentials that just can’t wait (rent etc.) knowing they’ll be fucked by taxes in a year but hoping something will change between then and now.
|
That's not quite the scenario I meant and that's obviously also a problem with other aspects of law.
|
|
|
Presumably the people working these jobs aren't doing it at a loss. This presumption would be incorrect, but a key component in maintaining the scam. Nearly a third of Uber drivers are actually losing money
.
They just hire new people that don't realize they are getting scammed
In April of last year, The Information reported Uber was only retaining about 4% of drivers annually.
The following sort of elitism is also a key component in maintaining the scam:
I just don't think every job is supposed to provide a comfortable lifestyle
The overlap between jobs US society deemed "essential" and the same society treats as "undeserving of a comfortable life" is remarkable.
|
On April 12 2024 23:32 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2024 16:47 Gorsameth wrote:On April 12 2024 08:06 Introvert wrote:
Yes, I am aware the left doesn't have a problem with subsidy, just who gets it. That's part of my point. Now no one gets anything. But of course a minimum wage is not, strictly speaking, "free market operations" either. Perhaps without either the min wage or the welfare benefits the actual cost of operation would be somewhere between the offered wage and the mandated minimum. But we won't know, because there is no "simple free market" in operation to begin with. Didn't we try no min wage and no welfare back in the 18/1900s? We know where it leads, abject poverty, worker exploitation and child labor. Those workers paid in blood to get us all min wage and labour laws. The invisible hand of the free market will fix it. It never has, not in the past and not now. Is the free market fixing sweatshops in Bangladesh? You say your ok with allowing unsustainable businesses to fail, is assume that means your also ok with their employees losing their jobs when said business fails, so why does it stop being ok when the government exposes such businesses as unsustainable? If a businesses cant pay a living wage it is not sustainable, can't we agree on that basic premise? Point 1 is that no one can actually identify a winner here. Point 2, which is related, is that we are only looking at this from one side and it's confusing things. It's kind of odd to complain that these companies only exist because of indirect subsidy when we can't even know of that's true. It's like we are subtracting from one side of the equation but not the other, the relationship doesn't hold. As a particular, there's a reason so many places have these contractor designations in the fist place. It's simplistic to the point of being wrong to say a company like these that can't offer the min wage shouldn't exist. Presumably the people working these jobs aren't doing it at a loss. We are not in the gilded age, you aren't in a mine for 12 hours and forced to buy all your necessities from the company store. If people want to drive around either for extra income or in a pinch of need then they should be allowed to do that. I just don't think every job is supposed to provide a comfortable lifestyle, and it's silly to try and make that a reality. I'd rather open up new opportunities for people. But here I tread old and tired ground. I think it's a more useful exercise to ask, from the left, who actually gained here? It's the question people are stubbornly refusing to answer. As I said before, at least the wage, hour, and safety laws that arose in the last century+ had some obvious upside! Why do there need to be winner in everything? Who wins? Society as a whole wins because they are no longer paying for a CEO's 5th yacht? is that good enough?
These people are not just earning a bit of extra income, for most of them this is their full time job.
So because John Doe has trouble finding a job and America has a failed social security net I should be allowed to exploit his labour for below minimum wage (because the 'gig economy' gets around that dumb little law) and pay him so little he still lives off of government assistance?
"But if they pay him a fair wage he doesn't have a job". So what did people do for a living before Uber-eats existed? Why is exploitative slave labour the only option we have?
The notion that in with all the wealth in the modern world we can somehow not give everyone a comfortable life via their job does not make mathematical sense.
ps.
As for your gilded age, we still have that. its called Walmart employees living off of food stamps that they spend at Walmart.
|
United States43746 Posts
On April 12 2024 23:48 Introvert wrote:
That's not quite the scenario I meant and that's obviously also a problem with other aspects of law.
But it’s the scenario they meant when they legislated to fix it. Let’s say you legalize child labour so that kids can help out their sole proprietor parents and pick up weekend jobs pulling weeds or whatever. A scenario in which kids are pressured to drop out of school to help their disabled or addicted parents pay rent or to pay for medical care for a sibling isn’t what they envisioned. But it’s what was being envisioned when they banned it in the first place.
Nobody bans these things due to the cases where everything actually worked out fine. They ban them because frequently things don’t work well in a way that causes negative social externalities.
|
Northern Ireland26450 Posts
On April 13 2024 00:04 GreenHorizons wrote: This presumption would be incorrect, but a key component in maintaining the scam. Nearly a third of Uber drivers are actually losing money
. They just hire new people that don't realize they are getting scammed Show nested quote +In April of last year, The Information reported Uber was only retaining about 4% of drivers annually. The following sort of elitism is also a key component in maintaining the scam: The overlap between jobs US society deemed "essential" and the same society treats as "undeserving of a comfortable life" is remarkable.
I remember that brief, glorious time (minus a certain pesky virus) where I was elevated to ‘essential worker’ from ‘unskilled’ worker.
I predicted I’d be back to the latter almost as soon as normal service was resumed and lo and behold!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
