Hacker News Reader

Comment by skybrian | Hacker News Reader

It seems to me that a big problem with the discussions surrounding Uber and Lyft is that so many people claim they know what drivers want, but it's usually based on little or no evidence.

Who should represent drivers' interests? Uber and Lyft? California lawmakers? California voters? Opinion writers? A union?

Even someone who is a driver doesn't necessarily know what other drivers want, since they might not be typical. Different drivers may want different things.

It gets even worse when we talk about potential drivers. Drivers aren't a fixed set of people. There are people who aren't driving now, but might, under the right conditions.

All of these have flaws. I'm pretty sure I don't know what drivers want, and the average person talking confidently about the issue on the Internet probably doesn't know either. As a result, very little commentary has any credibility.

View on HN

> It seems to me that a big problem with the discussions surrounding Uber and Lyft is that so many people claim they know what drivers want, but it's usually based on little or no evidence.

The thing is: The requirements that legislators are setting for employers are fundamental social security services.

Whether a worker gets paid sick leave and vacation, health insurance and unemployment insurance is therefore not up for the debate in most Western countries.

Some people may claim that they don’t need or want these services, but the reality is that everyone needs them as everyone needs vacation at some point, will get sick or fired.

And because of that it’s good that the law requires them to be mandatory. This is also why so many people from low-income households in the US have trouble to afford a visit to the doctor or vacation.

Those things aren’t a problem for most workers in European countries.

It's up for debate in the US, and I don't see why we shouldn't debate it. Is there no room for innovation in work relationships?

In particular, health insurance being tied to employment seems US-specific and has a lot of drawbacks.

The whole system is broken. You are not rewarded for living well and eating healthy or exercising, you're penalized for other people's preventable diseases, obesity being a primary preventable illness that causes other problems. Universal healthcare doesn't care about the causes of illness, it just cares about paying it's working for treating the illness. If there is no requirements for keeping health to receive health insurance, and everyone who destroys their body gets healthcare at the cost of those who don't use it because they're healthy, why would a healthy person with no illnesses want it?

I'd love to see prevention before it goes to healthcare, but try even mandating soda sizes in the US... The only way is to make it unpopular like supersize me (although he was shady and never showed the food logs).

Healthcare should be paternalistic by definition but American culture cares so much about freedoms they won't wear masks during a global pandemic so it's incompatible.

You failed to understand his point. As a worker I don't want any of that crap. It's good that it's mandatory because someone will need it? I choose to work at these places if I want because I don't want social security crap, and I don't have a schedule so I don't need vacation and I don't need to call in sick at Uber. You like many who don't understand are putting it in the mold of a traditional job and people like you are not wondering why people choose to work long hours with no benefits, so you say everyone has to have certain hours and benefits, and are legislating without representing drivers or asking what they want. It has something to do with getting money now, not some far away 401k or social security. If I wanted European style wages I'd go to Europe where the problem becomes lower wages with useless "benefits".

If your perspective is this short-sighted, then the benefits are for society, not for you.

We don't want to be stuck with the bill when you have an accident that you're clearly not anticipating and realize that you were wrong in thinking that you "don't need that crap."

If you're not going to act like an adult on your own, then society is going to ask your employer to act like your babysitter.

It isn't short sighted, you just don't like it and try to use a moral high ground on the equivalency of why you should unfairly force me to pay for HBO when I don't watch HBO. "For society you need HBO, for later when you need it". How about you leave what other people in their lives need or want and focus on yourself?

Society isn’t going to be forced to foot your bill if you get bored and decide the only cure is HBO. Was that analogy made in serious or are you just joking?

If you break your arm society will be forced to pick up the tab. If you pass out and someone calls 911 for the unconscious person, society will pick up the tab.

There is no reasonable circumstances where you’d accidentally use HBO an subscription without intending to and force your neighbors to pay for it.

Is that not the problems with a broken system? Who is forcing who to save people? Why SHOULD society pick up the tab for my broken arm, or his obesity?

When the same drug addict that can't pay his bills again goes to the same hospital and has no intetions of paying and the hospital is forced to take anyone what is the result? A healthcare system that is more focused on duration of life at any cost, versus that of quality. Preventable illnesses like drug abuse, obesity and smoking are everyone's issue when everyone else is paying for the purposefully sickly to squander all the money.

Your argument comes down to "why don't we just let them die?"

You broke your arm? Sorry, no insurance. Figure out yourself how you're going to fix that. You might not be able to ever use it again, but that's your choice.

Cancer breaking down your stomach, leaving you in agonizing pain every hour of every day? Sorry, no insurance. Please be quiet, your neigbors didn't sign up to hear your screams.

Truck plowed into your car, leaving you maimed beyond recognition? Sorry, no insurance. We can't help you get home either, but there's a nice big hole outside the exit you could crawl into instead. Also here's the bill for cleaning the bloodstains you left on our floor.

We don't just leave people to die because it's both an ethical problem, and because it causes problems for everyone else.

In America it is anti paternalistic. Why is this so different?

Nobody has replied or will touch how we preventable diseases such as cancer from smoking and obesity are paid for by healthy people and are completely preventable issues.

Every single example you use deviates from the original, more and more as unfortunate circumstances, but most problems are not cars crashing into you. It's mostly people killing themselves slowly though sloppy eating, poor impulse control and violence. Yes you stuck your hand in a grinder, now the government will take care of you forever. You were putting on hundreds of lb over decades of eating crap, you get free lipid medication, insulin paid for with taxes of other people. Thank you for gracing us with your presence, for existing you deserve the best. Please continue to live as long as possible, we don't want to lose an important person like that. This is the system you dearly love? It's going to implode, obesity rises and healthcare doesn't care, they simply treat them when they come, and if you don't have problem already the hospital cafeteria will put you in there soon anyway.

> unfairly force me to pay for HBO when I don't watch HBO

This bad-faith argument is so appalling that I hope this is a troll account.

The downvotes to your comments suggest that people here either don't agree with your argument, take issue with the way you're presenting it, or both.

I'm not claiming a moral high ground, I'm suggesting that there's a flaw in your reasoning. If something you do or want places an externality on other people, then you don't automatically get to claim that behavior as a right just because you wish to be left alone. The other people who are affected by the consequences of your actions have a right to a seat at the table, and they're going to tell you to grow up, because you don't live in a vacuum. That's not a moral high ground, that's just how life works when you live around other people.

In this case, one externality is that when you or others like you get sick or injured without insurance, society picks up the tab. Society would rather not pick up the tab if they can force your wealthy employer to pick it up instead.

If you want to make an effective counter-argument, you need to explain why your position doesn't actually place this cost on society, or suggest a different way for this cost to get paid.

"But muh freedom?" is not a good counter-argument. "Why has society chosen to pick up the tab?" is a valid question, but is not a counter-argument.

My issue is the unequal application of insurance. We don't care about the reasons for poor health and instead treat it. I never once said "muh freedom" was the issue, and in fact point out that people don't wear masks even today. The problem is the culture of freedoms and personal responsibility has completed deteriorated. Preventable illnesses like obesity, smoking are ignored as personal freedoms, and are allowed to run rampant while their preventable illnesses clog up the system.

Why is only helping the sick focused, at the middle of the story as if there is a predisposed amount of illness, and not on the circumstances that lead to it? People worry about single mothers but don't worry about them before they become single mothers. It's baffling.

Who should represent drivers' interests? […] A union?

Yes.

I think it's fair to assume that driver's want to be paid at least fair wages – or at least that they don't wish, all other things being equal, to be underpaid.

Now, whether or not Uber/Lyft can actually provide that to a degree that the CA legislature finds acceptable while still being a sustainable business is the question.

If drivers are required to comply with Uber's policies or choose not to drive for Uber, then it's not unexpected to require Uber comply with US / State labor laws or choose not to operate in the US / state. Legal specifics of what "comply" means in this case is up for debate, which is ultimately the court's jurisdiction – or in the case of Prop 22, the people at large – to decide on behalf on all parties, not Uber's and not even the drivers themselves.

> I think it's fair to assume that driver's want to be paid at least fair wages – or at least that they don't wish, all other things being equal, to be underpaid.

That is very subjective. Who’s to say what is a fair wage?

There are many people that are willing to drive for Uber/Lyft at current benefits.

And there are others who don’t drive for Uber/Lyft because they make more somewhere else.

Whose problem is it that some people want to drive for Uber and others don’t?

This gets brought up often, and the other comment said is that most drivers say they like their uber gig and the freedom it gives.

I too have asked the question often and similarly gotten positive responses most of the time. But I have also learned that when you question a person's career choice they will almost never belittle it, presumably because that's an affront to their decision making abilities - it's a tacit acknowledgment that they have done goof'd with their lives. I've noticed it in other places too, where arguably similar bad permanent career decisions are made, viz academia.

The only question is if the government needs to be involved here to protect the people from themselves or not; my gut says no. Arguably the porn industry is far more predatory towards women (if documentaries are to be believed) yet no one's vehemently protesting to ban that industry, so I see no reason the government should bother with excessive regulation here (though some basic rules might not hurt, even the porn industry has some rules).

It's even larger than that as the other types of jobs available to people who would potentially be gig drivers have gotten worse as technologically driven "improvements" in scheduling have more split shifts (work the lunch rush from 11-1, take 3 hours "off" and come back at 5-9 for dinner rush) and near term (find out the morning of) scheduling happening.

It's impossible to plan for childcare, education, or whatever else with those sorts of setups.

Newspapers could solicit writing from the drivers and let them speak for themselves.

What's a newspaper?

This could be said of most topics. At the end of the day, lawmakers need to weigh studies, polls and legal precedents, to build a vision of what kind of society we want.

Yes, you could say that representation in general is a problem with governance.

In corporate governance, this is talked about as the principle-agent problem - does management represent shareholder interests, or their own? Also, how should other stakeholder interests be represented, like customers and employees? Note that formal and informal power can be very different.

But it is also true of representative democracy, the courts, and every alternative you might think of. Governance is a tough problem and you should be suspicious of arguments that ignore the hard problem of representation.

I would like to see more arguments that at least talk about polls of drivers' interests, even though they are flawed too.

Yep, I agree. Drivers seem very unrepresented, except for a few lawsuits, which some could argue may not represent the majority (there is little data).

Sadly, politicians do use studies, polls and legal precedents, but they start with the vision of the kind of society they want and pick and choose which studies, polls and legal precedents give them cover for the policies they are pushing.

Partisanship has made this far worse since politicians aren't even forced to reckon with contradicting studies, polls and legal precedents because they can just dismiss those that contradict their vision as the work of competing partisans.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com