Hacker News Reader

Comment by fcsp | Hacker News Reader

Is it still voluntary if it happens out of economic desperation?

If Uber and Lyft weren't around, people in a state of economic desperation would have fewer options.

California is basically saying that if you can't provide a good job with benefits, you aren't allowed to provide a job at all. That will result in fewer jobs.

Well maybe the unemployed masses in that situation will vote for universal basic income or better distribution of wealth to fix that? Full employment as an economic goal or even a feasible tactic has been obsolete for a long time if I understand correctly

This seems to be the goal of these politicians.

Exactly, the situation would be more desperate without Uber/Lyft/etc, not less.

Would it though? How do you get to that conclusion? My understanding is that many drivers for those companies do it as supplemental income because their regular jobs seem to be unable to cover their living expenses. But doesn't that then lead to additional economic pressure for everyone else because i.e. now there's more renters willing to pay inflated prices, so more people get economically desperate and need to get supplemental income?

Uber/Lyft/etc create jobs that otherwise didn't exist, thus providing an additional option for potential workers. With the additional option, maybe that option is better than some people's alternative options. We can surmise that it probably is for a lot of them, as evidenced by their choice to be drivers for these companies. If they had a better option, they would presumably take that instead.

Your proposition that if one person makes more money then other people are worse off has an element of truth to it, since, sure, more demand for a given item (like housing) will tend to increase its price, all else equal. But I think that's the wrong way to think about the situation. Wealth creation is not zero sum.

> Uber/Lyft/etc create jobs that otherwise didn't exist

Uber/Lyft business model has just been deemed illegal. let's see if it now can be both legal and sustainable.

Uber/Lyft only existed up until now because they were violating employment laws.

Illegal in one state with a vendetta against them

This is effectively the same as enforcing a minimum wage. An argument for it would be, its collective bargaining at a national level, while avoiding the coordination problems associated with unionizing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com