Hillary Clinton Takes Aim At 'Gig Economy'

SonicSpike writes with an excerpt from Marketwatch that says at least one major candidate in the 2016 electoral fight has made the "sharing economy" epitomized by Uber and Airbnb a campaign issue. In a major campaign speech in New York City, the former secretary of state didn't mention the ride-sharing service by name. But it was pretty clear what sort of companies she was talking about when she got to how some Americans earn money. "Many Americans are making extra money renting out a spare room, designing websites, selling products they design themselves at home, or even driving their own car," she said at the New School. But that sort of work comes with its own problems, she said. "This 'on demand' or so-called 'gig economy' ... is raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future," Clinton added.

Comments

Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[bigsexyjoe]

Uber is an illegal cab company and should just be shut down. If Uber puts the cab companies out of business it most certainly take away a lot of "real" jobs. Furthermore, we'll all be slaves to "surge pricing". And make no mistake, surge pricing is going to increase drunk driving fatalities.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Archangel Michael]

Uber is an illegal cab company

What makes it intrinsically illegal? Just because there is a law? I wonder how you feel about Illegal Aliens (er Undocumented residents). Gay Marriage was illegal just a few months ago in a wide number of places in the US.

So you believe that business models deserve protection from competition by creating legal loops that do not do anything except protect economic interests?

Strange world view.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[FranTaylor]

that do not do anything except protect economic interests?

Strange world view.

yes, what a strange world view it is, to avoid racing to the bottom.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly Uber is illegal because they do not follow the laws that taxi drivers must and they are a taxi service. Their pricing is cheaper only because they don't follow the rules. While it's good for the consumer is bad for the economy in general.

Just wait until McDonald's replaces you with a robot and then you'll understand the problem.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how you feel about Illegal Aliens (er Undocumented residents).

I feel they are victims of a system that exploits them by creating a marginalized class unable to seek protection through a system created under questionable terms. We should work on revising and improve the system, instead of perpetuating it blindly.

Gay Marriage was illegal just a few months ago in a wide number of places in the US.

And those who made it illegal were engaging in an illegal act. We should probably question whether or not those persons should continue to be in positions of responsibilities.

So you believe that business models deserve protection from competition by creating legal loops that do not do anything except protect economic interests?

How are you defining your concepts? Do you have a particular methodology that can certify the accuracy of your expression?

Well, you haven't presented it here.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[magarity]

What makes it intrinsically illegal? Just because there is a law?

Well, yes, that is the definition of illegal; because a law says so. Perhaps you are confusing morality/immorality with legality/illegality?

So you believe that business models deserve protection from competition by creating legal loops that do not do anything except protect economic interests? Strange world view.

Where have you been since the 1890's? Millions of people in employee unions believe this quite firmly, to the point of violence and beyond.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

Regulated monopolies are not good for any economy. Now throw out your copy of The General Theory before it rots your brain further.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[FranTaylor]

Regulated monopolies are not good for any economy.

the us economy flourished in the 1950s with regulated telephones and regulated taxicabs and regulated airfares

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber is an illegal cab company and should just be shut down. If Uber puts the cab companies out of business it most certainly take away a lot of "real" jobs. Furthermore, we'll all be slaves to "surge pricing". And make no mistake, surge pricing is going to increase drunk driving fatalities.

Perhaps instead of blaming a company rising out of the corrupt shadow of the cab companies for an increase in drunk driving fatalities, perhaps we instead focus on the goddamn root cause of that problem; not punishing those that kill others with a fucking bottle of alcohol.

If offenders were properly rehabilitated while behind bars serving a real sentence, we wouldn't have such a fucking problem with repeat offenders that eventually kill someone.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[MightyYar]

Uber isn't always cheaper. Their original "black" service was more expensive, and yet still was cleaning up. They have a nice dispatch system and their cars are clean.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[MightyYar]

And this has nothing to do with the rest of the world's industrial base being completely destroyed 10 years earlier.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the issue is "regulated monopolies" via cab-companies...

The issue is quasi-contractors - without overhead like Health Insurance, car insurance, retirement plans - vs actual employees. Of course other "companies" can't compete.

Run a McDonalds with all part time employees and Kiosks... against a fully staffed McDonalds with all full-time employee's. Both will provide the same "service", but the full staffed restaurant will be at a disadvantage vs the one that can cut corners by excluding full time employee benefits AND replace workers with robots/kiosks.

Now.... do that with Cab companies. Replace full time employees with "at will" employees. Remove the need for "crap" like 401ks, health and stupid stuff like training and licensing that a "real" cab driver needs. Gee... I wonder why "real" companies can't compete. "real" jobs are replaced by part time employees with a net loss of benefits and safety.

Do traditional companies have issues? Sure... like the music companies of old running head long into internet+MP3s, most won't innovate unless forced... but that doesn't mean they deserve to be destroyed.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Virtucon]

Taxi drivers are mostly independent workers, leasing a cab and pay a percentage back to the company that owns the cab or the medallion they're driving under. The only difference between them an an Uber or Lyft driver is that there are more people and local governments sucking on the bottle. These people aren't being paid under the table, they take pride in what they do and they're entrepreneurial, choosing when they want to work, just like regular cab drivers.

So from the standpoint of "illegal" the only thing that's threatened with Uber and Lyft are Cab companies, medallion holders and city governments who look to the licensing and regulation of the taxi industry as a revenue generation.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes it intrinsically illegal? Just because there is a law?

Umm. That's, you know, kind of the definition of "illegal", if it's contravening a law.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[FranTaylor]

"no true scotsman" strikes again

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Qzukk]

What makes it intrinsically illegal?

What makes defeating Macrovision Copy Protection to copy your wedding tape from VHS to DVD intrinsically illegal?

Just because there is a law?

"Our great Republic is a government of laws, and not of men"

Strange world view.

So's anarchy.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, we'll all be slaves to "surge pricing".

It's a shame Uber is the only ride sharing service there will ever be, making it impossible to hire someone cheaper.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[FranTaylor]

The only difference between them an an Uber or Lyft driver is that there are more people and local governments sucking on the bottle.

your choice of metaphor says wonders about you

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[njnnja]

I'm not sure I understand how "surge pricing" will increase drunk driving fatalities. I guess you are thinking that someone gets out of a bar to go home, and because surge pricing is too expensive, they drive home themselves instead of calling a cab/Uber (or instead of someone else setting one up for them). But the limitation on the availability of cabs is because there are more people looking for cabs than there are cabs on the street. Surge pricing brings more cabs out on the street, since supply curves slope upwards. With more cabs on the street, there are more drunk people getting rides home. You can't have a scenario where surge pricing is in effect because there is a lot of demand for cabs, and at the same time, having less people using cabs.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[superdave80]

What makes it intrinsically illegal? Just because there is a law?

Uh, yeah. That's kind of how that works.

I wonder how you feel about Illegal Aliens (er Undocumented residents).

I feel that they are here... illegally?

Gay Marriage was illegal just a few months ago in a wide number of places in the US.

Yeah, there were laws against it, so it was illegal. Those laws were ruled unconstitutional, so those laws are void. Now gay marriage is legal.

So you believe that business models deserve protection from competition by creating legal loops that do not do anything except protect economic interests?

No, just that all businesses operate under the same set of rules and laws.

Is there some part of this that is confusing to you?

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

Where have you been since the 1890's? Millions of people in employee unions believe this quite firmly, to the point of violence and beyond.

Before the 1890's. It's only that in the 1890's that it reached a head with Pinkerton's massive number of agents (claims of more than the number of member's in the US standing army) and their long list of known behavior of infiltrating and gooning against unions. That is not to say the unions were any sort of angels. But the whole situation was brought about heavily by both sides--corporate and unions--to dealing with a situation precisely *BECAUSE* there was no legal framework in place to deal with negotiating between corporations and workers and neither side was willing to tolerate the other's position, no matter how reasonable it might have been. Little wonder it escalated to the point of violence (not sure what "and beyond" would be, unless you're suggesting after-life carnage).

In any case, as much as the worker-employer relationship is technically a business model with workers as the supplier, the reality is that as Hillary Clinton hints at there is a near necessary recognition that it behaves under more regulated conditions (even if they're de facto and not legal). Honestly, the vast majority of people in the US, Europe, etc don't work under the notion of widely varying hours and the changing of employers on a weekly if not daily basis. That level of uncertainty would necessitate much larger pay to compensate for underpaid periods (because of varying hours and pay rate), much more contractor work as a result, and the requirement of regular contract negotiations. It only makes sense to try to instead have a legal framework (since individual contracts can't otherwise effect multiple parties) to reduce the uncertainty, establish more consistent results, and generally prevent infighting that will lead to violence.

I mean, this is the same reason we have things like marriage licenses. It's not merely to enforce certain rules on third parties but to establish a well-understood institution upon which people can enter and others can interact with without having to on a per-contract basis try to ascertain what actually is what. I mean, imagine how clogged small-claims court would be if every possible employee grievance had to be handled on that basis. And finally, look no further than things like the GPL and the difficulty most people have at understanding it, yet people get a vague notion of it and instead of having 1001 variants, we only have 10s or 100s of variants precisely because of standardization (it's invariably legally backed by copyright, so imagine what it'd be like if we had a system based upon NDAs and reciprocating contractual obligations).

In any case, the point at the end is that businesses are by their very nature a legal loophole of sorts (people come in, use other peoples property (as a collection, since it's rarely a single person who owns everything) to make/alter/whatever things for a fee, and the whole thing is handled under a lot of legal considerations of theft, conversion, etc). It's only fitting to grant some sort of equity of power that the employees have some degree of negotiating power as a whole. I mean, things would be radically different if, oh, by owning a share of MS stock I had a proportional say in each employees salary or direct say over some percentage of employees. At some level, we've already set up a legal framework that is no longer one-on-one contracts and is most legal code, often more in the form of court decisions than anything.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

Also the US had 90% top tax rate. Remember, taxes kill the economy!

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[zerosomething]

LOL. do you really not understand how much all of those things cost before deregulation. Every single one of this is cheeper now than it was then when adjusted for inflation.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[king neckbeard]

I WANT most jobs to be replaced by robots. Imagine what we could do if we weren't so bogged down with petty shit.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[un1nsp1red]

Now.... do that with Cab companies. Replace full time employees with "at will" employees. Remove the need for "crap" like 401ks, health and stupid stuff like training and licensing that a "real" cab driver needs. Gee... I wonder why "real" companies can't compete. "real" jobs are replaced by part time employees with a net loss of benefits and safety.

I think you're overestimating the benefits given to traditional cab drivers by taxi companies. Next time you take a taxi, ask the driver how awesome their 401k and health insurance are. And 'training'? Give me a fucking break.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes it intrinsically illegal? Just because there is a law? I wonder how you feel about Illegal Aliens (er Undocumented residents).

Um, yeah, that is generally the definition of "illegal" - contrary to law. Just because you don't like the law, doesn't mean you get to ignore it.

How do I feel about ILLEGAL aliens? I feel that they should go through the same process I did, spending years on a waiting list and tens of thousands of dollars in legal and immigration fees, so that they can enter the country LEGALLY and become a productive member of society, like I did. Why do ILLEGALS get to jump the line that cost me so much of my life, both in time and in money? Just because they don't like the law?

Arrest them, deport them, let them apply through the same LEGAL process that all of the rest of us have to go through.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[GameboyRMH]

Hand over even more of our civilization's resources to an even smaller handful of people?

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[MightyYar]

More like "oversimplification strikes again". You have to admit that it was a pretty unique circumstance, and one where the structural problems were laid bare in the 60s and 70s. Also, regarding regulation, you have to compare it to your competition. You only need to be as regulated or less regulated than your competition - there weren't many countries with a competitive telecommunications market in 1950. I think taxis are not quite as vital to the economy, but I see no reason that Uber's superior dispatching and fleet could not operate with worker protections in place.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[BlueStrat]

Also the US had 90% top tax rate.

Which is deceptive and a half-truth as almost nobody actually paid those insane rates because of tax loopholes.

Remember, taxes kill the economy!

This, you got right.

Here, take a listen to one of the greatest Democratic US Presidents on the subject of taxation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Strat

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[TsuruchiBrian]

Was your whole family killed by an uber driver or something?

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

as does your comment. you sound like a taker.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[king neckbeard]

No, the goal is ultimately to eliminate human material want. To get ourselves to a Star Trek type of economy where our efforts are focused on achievement instead of domination. Now, automation alone will not get us there, but it's an essential part.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[GameboyRMH]

Automation alone will get you further from there. To get closer, first you need a more Star Trek-like economic system, and then automation.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Amouth]

So i have mod points for once, went to used them and realized we need to add an option for "stupid".

Sorry but your first line

What makes it intrinsically illegal? Just because there is a law?

really? Why yes it is illegal because there is a law, that is kind of how laws work.

If you don't think it should be illegal then you go and get the law changed. Very much exactly what the Gay rights movement has been doing to get Gay Marriage legalized.

You don't just look at the laws, proclaim your self better than everyone else and ignore them. If you don't like how the laws work, or the world they build then go get them changed.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[ArhcAngel]

If you're going to comment at least understand the arguments before throwing accusations out there. The majority of cab drivers are already independent contractors who lease the right to operate a cab from the medallion owner who in most cases is a large corporation or a billionaire who has never set foot in the front seat of a cab. The jobs aren't being lost they are simply transitioning from Yellow Cab to Uber where they can make up to 200% more annually. And if you think a drunk pays attention to the cost of a cab ride rather than say...just telling himself I'm sober enough to drive your loony. This is all about control. Uber is disrupting the monopoly city governments have set up with a select group of individuals. Medallions are more precious than gold or real estate but if drivers continue to defect the medallions become worthless. Hilary wants to keep her contributors who own medallions happy.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[peragrin]

Then why do companies and republicans fight tooth and nail to force companies to provide health care and 401ks.

Let the companies cut you an additional check for the services each year if they want to hep you pay for that stuff but other wise make both a single payer system.

But that won't happen because on average companies with more than 500 employees make profit on providing health care services. It isn't much but on average a company doesn't have to pay out any additional money beyond what the employee contributions for the entire company.

401ks are the same way. The actual cost to companies is far less than you would believe.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[pr0fessor]

I live in one of the least regulated states and Uber left because they couldn't convince the state to allow them to operate without commercial minimum liability insurance. Which is silly because any insurance company would drop them if they were in an accident while driving for Uber on a personal liability policy.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Archangel Michael]

Yes, because the choice is between Government enslavement and anarchy. There is no reasonable middle ground that we can debate over.

Because if it is between the extremes of Government Laws over every last aspect of my life, and anarchy, I'll happily choose anarchy and be free. You can choose enslavement if you want, just don't expect me to join you.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Archangel Michael]

So, gay marriage was ALWAYS legal (constitutionally) and just now found out? Interesting viewpoint. So, believe everything said by 9 people in black robes about law is correct? Even when the overturn previous rulings made by the same court?

The problem here, isn't what is "legal" vs what is "illegal". Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.

"Is there some part of this that is confusing to you?"

I am quite clear that not all things that are "illegal" are "wrong". I'm wondering why that is so hard for people to grasp.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

and those millions of people in employee unions are wrong, and the fact that they enforce it through violence is truly disgusting.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Qzukk]

because the choice is between Government enslavement and anarchy.

You seem to believe the choice is between ignoring laws because it suits you and ignoring laws because it suits me. The third option, which respects the rule of law: working within the framework of government to change the laws.

As you pick and choose what laws you think you should bother to follow, keep in mind that whatever moral high ground you claim to possess that gives you this power will also be claimed by others.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

umm.....I know a lot of cabbies. None of them have 401ks or health insurance.

Training? Are you drunk?

Cab companies don't hire 'full time' employees with benefits etc. Go talk to a cabby and stop making shit up.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, no Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, food stamps, Homeland Security, HUD, Civil Rights Act, ADA, EPA, Department of Education, NASA, affirmative action, sales taxes, etc. etc.

I'll trade abolishing all government programs and departments, state and federal, established since 1950, for your 90% inflation-adjusted top rate.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes it intrinsically illegal? Just because there is a law?

The very definition of illegal is against the law. That is not to say that the law can't be changed.

I wonder how you feel about Illegal Aliens (er Undocumented residents).

I am pro-immigration, but vehemently against illegal immigration. It took me eleven months and thousands of dollars to legally bring my fiancée to the United States. Most illegals are only guilty of two crimes: entering the US illegally, stealing someone's identity (eg. they need to provide a SSN in order to work). I am up in arms about laws which state that people don't need to show identification before voting, or make it illegal for police to ask someone (who was stopped for other reasons) their residency status. If I had my way, any illegal immigrant who is convicted of a felony would be departed after serving appropriate time here.

Gay Marriage was illegal just a few months ago in a wide number of places in the US.

This shows the difference between legality and morality. Just because some judges made same sex marriage legal doesn't mean that such unions are moral. And in many places the LGBT group is trying to destroy opponents' religious rights. Look at that baker in Oregon who refused to sell a wedding cake to a lesbian couple. Look at the uproar that churches most likely will lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to recognize and perform same sex marriages. Look at the gay couple suing a Bible publishing company because the Bible has verses calling homosexuality a sin. Your rights end when they start to infringe on my rights. My rights end when they infringe on yours.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[khellendros1984]

It's not clear to me how that would be a "no true Scotsman" argument. You made a statement that says (paraphrased) "the U.S. economy flourished under regulation". TheMightyYar stated (again, paraphrased) "Yes, but in spite of the reason that you stated, not because of it". You would be right if they said something more like "That's not real flourishing, [example] is real flourishing!"

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[ShanghaiBill]

Was your whole family killed by an uber driver or something?

No, but his neighbors drive for Uber, and they let their dogs poop in his yard.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[ShanghaiBill]

the us economy flourished in the 1950s with regulated telephones and regulated taxicabs and regulated airfares

In the 1950s, China also had regulated telephones, regulated taxicabs, and regulated airfares. Their economy collapsed, and 30 million people starved to death.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[khellendros1984]

Just wait until McDonald's replaces you with a robot and then you'll understand the problem.

It'll be just one more step toward, "People don't need to work, because everything that's necessary for human survival can be done by something that isn't a person". I think that we'll end up getting to that point eventually, whether or not we want it. It'll either be an opportunity for a post-scarcity economy or for the ultimate artificial-scarcity economy.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[troll -1]

Uber is exposing a problem with how city agencies work. Dwight Waldo published a book called "The Administrative State" in 1948 that describes how this happens at the Federal level. But at the local level the legislature (town/city council) delegates making laws to the Taxi and Limousine commissions in these municipalities. These commissions, quite naturally, will tend make rules that keep out the competition. By creating rules that say things like Uber cannot stop for hails, they ensure medallion prices stay high. These rules are really laws that should be debated and enacted by the legislature with public input, not the taxi commission. The taxi commission has a conflict of interest.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

are you willing to then to damage / try to damage that robot so you can go to jail to get room and board + a doctor? As they do cover stuff that the ER does not.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[cayenne8]

What makes it intrinsically illegal? Just because there is a law? I wonder how you feel about Illegal Aliens (er Undocumented residents). Gay Marriage was illegal just a few months ago in a wide number of places in the US.

I think you answered your own question with your answer. What makes it intrinsically illegal, is that it was against the law.

Pretty simple, no?

If you don't want gay marriage to be illegal, then you change the laws, plain and simple.

With illegal immigrants, they are criminal and have broken the law. Pretty cut and dried.

If you don't like it...apply to come in the LEGAL way. If that is too hard, then get your representatives to change the laws to make legal immigration easier....or to have guest worker programs.

Until then, it is the law and has to be observed and obeyed.

How hard is that?

If you only obey laws you like, that leads to anarchy and no society works well with that. There are laws and there are ways to change them or make new ones.

Simple.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[superdave80]

So, gay marriage was ALWAYS legal (constitutionally) and just now found out?

No. There was no constitutional protection of gay marriage until the SCOTUS ruled on it. It WAS illegal (in states banning) but now it is not. Slavery was legal at one point to. Lots of things that we consider bad now were perfectly legal. Times and minds change.

Interesting viewpoint.

Your viewpoint, not mine.

So, believe everything said by 9 people in black robes about law is correct? Even when the overturn previous rulings made by the same court?

Belief in a ruling isn't required for it to be in force. I disagree with lots of legal rulings, but I still must abide by them. And courts overturn rulings as arguments, times, and minds of the general population change over time.

I am quite clear that not all things that are "illegal" are "wrong". I'm wondering why that is so hard for people to grasp.

Where did 'wrong' come up in this thread? The OP only mentioned Uber being illegal (in his opinion). I feel that you are trying to make arguments that no one else is making.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[hairyfeet]

Uhhh cabbies have to have decent insurance, pass tests, and frankly are on average a hell of a lot more experienced than "Bob in his Malibu".

I don't know about everybody else but I'm personally sick of these libertarian "Hey we'll make an app and bypass consumer protection laws, we can make money just proves how bad the ebil gubment is" bullshit. So far I have yet to see any of this "sharing/disrupting" businesses that doesn't boil down to "Bypass consumer protection laws, fuck the workers, profit" douchebaggery. In every case, be it bypassing consumer protections or fucking over the workers by ignoring minimum wage or overtime laws all these new startups do is the same kind of Gordon Gecko "fuck everybody but those at the top" horseshit that has frankly run this country into the ground.

I personally hope the lot of these "new way" douchebags get shut down and hopefully some of them do time, as all they are doing is giving the finger to the last century of consumer and worker protections so they can stuff that money in their pockets.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice arrives in the mail:

Congratulations King neckbeard! You have been replaced by a robot. It will be doing the petty shit for you now.
Please be aware that your final paycheck will arrive in two weeks time. Good luck in finding new employment.
Sincerely,
The job force.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a law governing the operation of companies that provide paid transportation services. Uber doesn't follow it. That makes it, by definition, an illegal company.

How do I feel about illegal aliens? I say send 'em back where they came from. Let them come in the legal way.

Gay marriage - I'm happy for them, but I'm not happy about how it became legalized. I don't think it should be a federal issue. That power is not enumerated by the constitution, therefore it should be reserved for the states.

I think that if you don't like the laws, work to get them changed. Simply ignoring them and doing as you please makes you a criminal.

The fact that my world view differs from yours does not automatically make my world view "strange".

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber is an illegal cab company

What makes it intrinsically illegal? Just because there is a law?

Well... yes. Because there is a law, it is illegal.

You seem to be conflating illegal with immoral... and building a straw man argument:

I wonder how you feel about Illegal Aliens (er Undocumented residents). Gay Marriage was illegal just a few months ago in a wide number of places in the US.

So you believe that business models deserve protection from competition by creating legal loops that do not do anything except protect economic interests?

Strange world view.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to make that argument until I realized it was a dumb one.

See, after WW2, we did in fact pay for other economies to rebuild, but what we did was we paid Germans to rebuild Germany, Japanese to rebuild Japan, etc. The money stayed local. They used that jump start of money to get their economies and industry going. They built stuff for themselves.

Contrast that with our neocon right wing screw up in Iraq, where we overpaid international corporations to do work and not people who live there. The results were predictable and another free trade international fail.

I bring that up because art the same time, as you pointed out, when the US needed something back then we had to make it because we had the industrial base. Our economy started going to hell when we started importing things we didn't have to import, just to pump up corporate profits.

Trade is normally good. I have stuff you need, you have stuff I need. But if I have stuff you already have, the only thing I can do is try to undercut your costs.

That's ok except that the economies of developed nations are simply incompatible with developing ones. The undercutting is the result of that and not of actual business innovation. The founders knew how to deal with this: It's called tariffs. They bring the cost of foreign goods up to the cost of domestic ones. So you can't profit of of low cost labor offshore. It worked for a very, very long time. Specifically until Nixon and Carter started in with multinational trade deals, and Reagan and every president since did everything possible to screw up our manufacturing and our jobs in the name of multinational profits.

Local works. Protectionism works. Tariffs work. That's what built this country into a powerhouse, and it's what built the largest middle class the world ever saw. The lack of those things is what's killing us now, exactly as predicted, because free trade and unfettered capitalism always result in the same thing: a small group of insanely rich people and a huge group of poor people who barely get by. There is no mobility, there is no advancing, there is only subsistence living, if one can call it that. I just call it the US becoming a third world economy, all by design.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

Your lying about imaginary 50% gasoline subsidies says more than just wonders about you. It says that you lack all manner of integrity. Funny that while provably lacking in all manner of integrity you try to frame yourself as someone that stands above others in the integrity department.

You people are becoming more and more a joke. Laughable and easily seen through.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[MightyYar]

You can't really compare Iraq to Germany or Japan. Germany and Japan are both racially and culturally homogenous (or nearly so). Iraq is a bunch of separate clans and was artificially stuck together. Japan and Germany were never in any danger of a civil war after the war.

Tariffs do help prop up the wages of the factory workers, but they do so at the expense of literally everyone else in the country. Japanese cars were a godsend to the American consumer. Cheaper and more reliable, they certainly did NOT make corporate America very happy and they did not make our factory workers happy, either. But we got good cars for our money, and eventually the superior imports forced the US automakers to improve. This happened in other industries as well, and now we still produce a massive amount of stuff with a huge industrial base, but we do so much more efficiently. That means lower costs for all consumers.

I do worry about labor, though. The problem is that free trade requires (a) free movement of capital, (b) free movement of goods, and (c) free movement of labor. While we have 'a' and 'b', we most certainly do not have 'c'. This is a major imbalance that is not addressed sufficiently in NAFTA (and I suspect the PTT). I think that labor needs more emphasis in these trade agreements.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[sexconker]

So, gay marriage was ALWAYS legal (constitutionally) and just now found out?

Of course it was always legal. What was just "found out" (decided, way too late) is how fucking unconstitutional laws against it were.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

Anarchy doesn't stay that way long. The control held by the government does not simply evaporate upon its dissolution, it is seized and reclaimed by ambitious individuals with the power (or armaments) to enforce their will on others.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[rossz]

A star trek economy only works when you have "anything on demand" (replicators). Money becomes obsolete when there is no need to buy anything. Automation and no money would put all the power into very few hands. Basically, communism take to an unimaginable extreme. That isn't a good thing.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

But, latency. "Surge pricing brings more cabs out on the street" EVENTUALLY, and drunk people aren't known for patience or rational thought.

If (1) there's a surge of drunk people at midnight when bars A B and C close after a special event that none of the drivers knew about, and (2) prices go up because lots of people are looking for rides, and (3) it takes half an hour for more drivers to get on the street, (4) some of those drunk people are going to choose not to pay extra, decide to drive themselves, and some small percentage of them are going to cause fatalities. I have no idea where you get "having less people using cabs" unless you're assuming that prices only go up on the basis of people actually getting rides? There has to be latency at every step in the process, which means that the mismatch between supply and demand will first have demand outstripping supply and then have supply outstripping demand. You absolutely can have both surge pricing in effect and less people using cabs if there's a delay between decreased ridership and ratcheting down the surge pricing.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[siliconsmiley]

How is people driving a car for other people putting people out of work? Uber is competition killing an outdated, corruption riddled industry.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[NoOneInParticular]

Interesting to hear that the US economy was fueled by telephones, cab-rides and airfares. Quite an accomplishment. There was no other economic activity?

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Raannndy]

Where I'm from, there is no competition among the Cab companies. Each of them charges the maximum amount allowed by city law. All of the taxis are dirty, they (usually) drive like assholes, and if you want to catch a ride on a busy night you will be lucky to have one ever arrive. If they do arrive, it can take upwards of an hour. Taxi companies can complain all day long about how unfair ride-sharing is, but they've forgotten how to compete. All the sudden a new company isn't taking part of the price-fixing scheme and they're upset because the customers prefer clean, on-time, reasonably priced rides. If taxi companies could provide the same level of service, we wouldn't be having this debate. It's anti-capitalist. Let the market decide. Why do we need all these rules in place to help support a broken (taxi) system? Edit: I'm from Tennessee, and have experienced this problem in both Knoxville and Nashville.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[lsatenstein]

Uber is an illegal cab company and should just be shut down. If Uber puts the cab companies out of business it most certainly take away a lot of "real" jobs. Furthermore, we'll all be slaves to "surge pricing". And make no mistake, surge pricing is going to increase drunk driving fatalities.

Where I live, we have a provincial and municipal body that insures that cabs and cabbies meet certain standards.
The cabs have to be above a minimal size, clean, safe, (non-smoking driver or passenger) and are randomly spot-checked for brakes, door latches, odometer settings, etc.

The cabbies have health checks against contagious diseases, have passed a rigorous driving test, and are not on parole. A sex related or physical violence criminal records would disallow the cabby from having a license. The cab license includes insurance and proof of insurance.

Like other big cities, the cab license is in the one to two hundred thousand dollar range. The idea being to induce owner/operator cabbies versus leased for the day or month taxis.
Certain taxis are equipped for disabled client transportation (wheel chair) or other. Some drivers are working split shifts --- 5:30am to 10am, 4pm to 11pm to make ends meet.

Uber has to play by the same rules or they are going to be out. The province is considering a Taxi Organization of which drivers must be members, in order to work as cabbies and chauffeurs. This is a licensing organization would be similar to home-renovation, plumbers, electricians, building contractors, etc.

       

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! You are so right. You know this race to the bottom with cellphones, computers, refrigerators and just technology in general is bad. We need to institute price controls and ensure the manufacturers of these vital economic products, which are a right to all persons, are 'fair'. Frozen foods are way more important than taxis, so we should get on this asap!

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[chris summers]

Uber is your typical internet outfit hyped and praised by slimeballs like yourself and others. Wait till they are held libable for a crash that that gets a number of bystanders killed and see how fast this company vanishes.

Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

umm.....I know a lot of cabbies. None of them have 401ks or health insurance.

Cab companies don't hire 'full time' employees with benefits etc. Go talk to a cabby and stop making shit up.

That was the point.

Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Some drunk people may choose not to take an Uber/Lyft because of surge pricing, but there's also traditional cabs. I don't think Uber or Lyft is going to increase the number of drunk drivers compared to what the situation is without them.

In Other Words...

[KermodeBear]

...We need to figure out how to kill it with regulations so that my big corporate donors can sleep soundly at night.

Re:In Other Words...

[PopeRatzo]

.We need to figure out how to kill it with regulations so that my big corporate donors can sleep soundly at night.

Think. Are big cab companies among Hillary Clinton's big corporate donors? I'd say she's a lot more likely to get money from Uber than from non-existent multi-national cab companies.

I have no love for Hillary Clinton and will not vote for her, but it's reasonable to talk about what the American workplace is going to look like if the corporations have their way. Maybe you're OK with taking in peoples' wash and sewing for low pay, no benefits or sick days, and a friendly "fuck you" when you're too old to work, but most people are not.

Re:In Other Words...

[mitzampt]

Just tell me one thing: what unregulated activity works well as is? No exploits, no abuse and no scamming...

While I agree with your freedom reflexes, instead of whining about any attempt to tackle a problem please be the one to say the sane solution(s). Because there are simple solutions. Not solving correctly our problems is what gives them the task of screwing it up. So it's our fault, not theirs.

Re:In Other Words...

[KermodeBear]

All you are thinking about is Uber - and that is where you are making your mistake.

Re:In Other Words...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no love for Hillary Clinton and will not vote for her...

So; it's Donald Trump, eh! The only man uglier than Rob Ford!

Re:In Other Words...

[istartedi]

I'd say she's a lot more likely to get money from Uber than from non-existent multi-national cab companies.

Apparently, she didn't get enough. Let's see if she says anything about the "gig economy" a few months from now, and cross-reference that with the updated list of donors.

Re:In Other Words...

[AmiMoJo]

Big companies love this idea anyway. Employment without all the annoying responsibilities that normally come with it. If your "employees" are actually self employed, merely using your "service" to get their gigs and take payment, then you don't need to pay many employment taxes, don't need to provide benefits or guarantees of work, and they are totally disposable.

Re:In Other Words...

[KermodeBear]

What regulated activity is without exploits, abuse, and scamming?

If you're trying to make a point, that's a poor way to do it.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a service like (the ever-so-popular example) Uber, or renting our a room, or renting out time on something you own, or providing a service on an on-demand basis. Is some regulation necessary? Probably. I imagine that some kind of insurance coverage would be a good idea, for example.

I just happen to know where Hillary comes from politically: Heavy handed government control and cronyism. I don't trust her, and I don't understand how anyone else can (except the insane who support her only because of her genitalia).

Re:In Other Words...

[argStyopa]

Funny, I was going to say "....we need to figure out how we can tax the shit out of it" but yours works too.

Re:In Other Words...

[Attila Dimedici]

I just happen to know where Hillary comes from politically: Heavy handed government control and cronyism. I don't trust her, and I don't understand how anyone else can (except the insane who support her only because of her genitalia).

Don't forget those who support her because they profit from her brand of heavy handed government control and cronyism.

Re:In Other Words...

[NiallMcHendrik]

I think it's more accurate to say it's labour unions telling her this is a major talking point for this campaign. A further rise in workers willing to take personal responsibility for delivering value to customers for money will further weaken unions. Many workers reject having another layer of politicians acting as their "representatives" in negotiating with their employers or corporate customers (W-2 or 1099). I'm quite capable of selling my human capital without another apparatchik parasite taking their cut, TYVM. Of course... for those of us that take responsibility for producing value and earning good salaries for doing so we face the joy of being hated as the 1%...

Re:In Other Words...

[FranTaylor]

Don't forget those who support her because they profit from her brand of heavy handed government control and cronyism.

as opposed to the republicans, who want to regulate women's wombs and give our schools to private corporations

Re:In Other Words...

[Anonymous Coward]

I just happen to know where Hillary comes from politically:

The cute thing is that you probably think that somebody else with a legitimate chance is somehow different.

Re:In Other Words...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think the Union donors do not like uber/gig economy. Unions do not like to see companies employee this many people as contractors. Fedex drivers have been deemed by the courts to employees and not contractors. If Uber is not already being sued for the same reason they will be and they will lose.

Re:In Other Words...

[Attila Dimedici]

Right, it is much better to hand over control to Democrats who want to regulate ALL aspects of our lives, including women's wombs, and have already turned over our schools to the private corporations called Teachers' Unions.

Re:In Other Words...

[Loopy]

Think. Are big cab companies among Hillary Clinton's big corporate donors? I'd say she's a lot more likely to get money from Uber than from non-existent multi-national cab companies.

Are you suggesting that cab companies are disqualified because they're not multi-national or that they have not been acting in collusive and predatory ways?

I have no love for Hillary Clinton and will not vote for her, but it's reasonable to talk about what the American workplace is going to look like if the corporations have their way. Maybe you're OK with taking in peoples' wash and sewing for low pay, no benefits or sick days, and a friendly "fuck you" when you're too old to work, but most people are not.

What would your opinion of Hillary have to do with whether she receives donations from ? Regarding what looks like a "not a living wage" argument about Uber/etc., do you envision any job anywhere that doesn't pay enough to live on by itself including benefits, sick days, and no pension/retirement? If all jobs are forced to pay above what would be considered the poverty line salary, what might you imagine would happen to prices of goods overall? Regarding low pay, no benefits/sick days, and no retirement, how do you suppose being a small business owner fits into that equation?

Re:In Other Words...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It's really a very old idea, just with cellphones and GPS for ever finer granularity. Historically the granularity was more or less limited to 'day laborer', or paid by the piece, since more accurate timekeeping and information processing weren't available; but the basic concept of having a pool of disposable peons waiting to be temporarily employed as you need them is not new. Or particularly pleasant.

Re:In Other Words...

[FranTaylor]

including women's wombs

citation required

Re:In Other Words...

[Anonymous Coward]

want to regulate women's wombs

False. Completely and utterly false and bullshit, and you know it. I don't need anybody else to subsidize my choice to use the pill.

In fact, thanks to this hysteria on both sides about Obamacare, I now have no choice but to pay cash, because the local hospitals and associated medical groups have now chosen to religiously object to even seeing a woman with an M on her id! Even for something like trouble sleeping or hypertension!

I am so, so sick of this "woe is me! I'm a woman and so weak and helpless!" bullshit.

But oh well. I only come here anymore to get trolled anyway. Cheers!

-- kurenai.tsubasa

Re:In Other Words...

[PopeRatzo]

Are you suggesting that cab companies are disqualified because they're not multi-national or that they have not been acting in collusive and predatory ways?

No. I'm stating that there is no cab company that is anywhere near big enough to be considered one of Hillary Clinton's "big corporate donors".

Do you disagree?

Re:In Other Words...

[tompaulco]

...We need to figure out how to kill it with regulations so that my big corporate donors can sleep soundly at night.

Good news! We don't have to figure out how to kill it with regulations, because the regulations are already there which clearly state that they cannot do what they are doing. If they want to go ahead and buy medallions or whatever, then they are welcome to operate. The cab companies had to buy medallions. Why should Lyft and Uber be able to perform the same service and then not have to play by the same rules?

Re:In Other Words...

[suutar]

sounded to me like he was thinking about the side work done by factory workers' families back in the early part of the industrial revolution when the factories were unregulated and the workers had to just suck it up.

Re:In Other Words...

[TsuruchiBrian]

And because they don't provide any of the traditional benefits that employers pay, they need to pay more total money to compensate to entice people to be an uber driver over some other line of work where they would otherwise get those benefits.

Re:In Other Words...

[Jason Levine]

To be fair, the Republicans and Democrats BOTH want to turn over our schools to private corporations whether via charter schools or by giving tons of public school money to companies like Pearson. - The parent of two boys one of whose school might be turned over to a private corporation thanks to a Democratic governor (Andrew Cuomo).

Re:In Other Words...

[Anonymous Coward]

People are OK with these unprotected jobs because:

1) They can't find jobs. There aren't enough of the protected ones available.
2) the protected job they do have doesn't pay them enough to survive.
3) they have the time and resources and would like to utilize them to make more money, and the demand is clearly there.

If you just make work-sharing like this illegal, in the name of workplace protections, you actually wind up cutting a lot of people off form income that they need, with the result being higher crime rates and more of your tax money spent on prisons.

Re:In Other Words...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I know. You want MY money to go to THOSE needy people. Here's a bit of advice, open your wallet and shut your pie hole.

Re:In Other Words...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm failing to make the connection between being a non-union for-hire uber/airbnb/et al person and becoming the 1%. No one is going to build their wealth to that degree on the backs of these little endeavors.

In terms of the fight between taxi companies and uber, it's hard to exactly root for either. They both have a lot of self serving BS going on.

In general, these 'sharing economy' things address some valid inefficiencies in how things are traditionally done, but there's a lot of baby that goes out with the bathwater, much of it in the area of health and safety. It's nice to get some efficiency out of things like getting a ride with a car already headed in the same direction or getting some use out of a spare bedroom, but the framework to try to assure health and safety doesn't scale so nicely to those situations.

Re:In Other Words...

[Anonymous Coward]

But Big Companies absolutely don't like the sharing economy. They don't want you borrowing something from somebody else, they want you buying your own. This applies to physical items, digital, and services.

Another thing they don't like is new competition disrupting their cartels. Inasmuch as gig-related activity represents such competition, they will attempt to shut it down using whatever means available. The actual words they use in their arguments are just there to win hearts and minds....not so much to reflect reality in any way.

Re:In Other Words...

[KGIII]

I am at a loss. The "M on the id" bit threw me. Are you saying you are transsexual? If so, you know, you do not need to actually take the pill to avoid pregnancy unless I am missing some new technology. They just rearrange the playground, they do not install a new factory.

Re:In Other Words...

[XxtraLarGe]

Maybe you're OK with taking in peoples' wash and sewing for low pay, no benefits or sick days...

Why are you against voluntary exchange? If I want a person to drive me from point A to point B at a particular time, and we agree on the amount of compensation, what business is that of yours?

Re:In Other Words...

[mitzampt]

So I'm going to explain myself as I see you are meeting my point:
Why do we have to complain about regulations instead of implementing them, proactively, as you have noticed that some areas in these activities needs some ground rules? Basic, simple, sane rules.
I agree with you on Hillary's approach on this, and I'll add to that that most politicians taking on the task to solve this problem will only serve some limited group or perspective. They will almost always lack the insight concerning exploits, abuse, scams or difficulties caused by either unregulated or poorly regulated activities, and yet they will dictate the policies.

I took a gig once

[operagost]

It was setting up a Secretary of State of a very powerful nation with her own private email server so that she could get around the government's pesky email archiving.

Re:I took a gig once

[Anonymous Coward]

It was setting up a Secretary of State of a very powerful nation with her own private email server so that she could get around the government's pesky email archiving.

Well played, Sir!

Hillary is a monster!

[Anonymous Coward]

While the house beast probably knows a thing or two about Benghazi. She has no clue about economics or WORK!

Re:Hillary is a monster!

[KGIII]

I dunno... I'd sex her. I think it is a matter or principle and not a matter of physical attraction. Kind of like how I would so sex Martha Stewart. Afterwards she could knit me a condom, cook me a dinner, and then make a walkway out of credit cards all chopped up. (Why she had that many credit cards is beyond me.) Either way, I would sex them both AND I would sex them both at the same time - on the fucking table at Thanksgiving Dinner. I am an honorable man who adheres to the orders cast down by General Principle.

Whatever the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

You can rest assured that the solution requires more laws, more government, more money, and less freedom.

What she wants

[Anonymous Coward]

She is worried about the damage this can cause to the tax base. After all, the little guy needs to pay deep taxes so she can keep bribing her voters-for-hire with monthly welfare checks.

Sefdom is only a generation away

[fluffernutter]

Once corporations have been allowed to erode almost every labor law put into place, watch people become hopelessly dependent on them on a meal by meal basis. We will be exactly like Chinese workers at Foxconn, who consider it to be a wonderful opportunity because the alternative is starvation.

Re:Sefdom is only a generation away

[DNS-and-BIND]

That's so ignorant it hurts. Workers work at Foxconn because it's a good job and they make more money there than at some crappy family-owned factory. Let me guess, you were influenced by Mike Daisey's story on "This American Life" about horrid conditions at Foxconn? Turns out that was a total lie. Evidently he had the story written before he ever visited, and simply wrote what he wished was true. For example, he said armed guards patrolled the Foxconn perimeter looking for escaping workers, while in China only police and military can have firearms. His fraud dissolved easily with a simple Google search.

Let me guess: 1) you never heard about this, or 2) you considered it fake but accurate. The narrative was right but the facts were wrong. Those pesky facts, always getting in the way of a good story that agrees with our pre-existing political biases.

Re:Sefdom is only a generation away

[Tablizer]

It's interesting how China has mixed communism and capitalism to create de-facto slavery. Workers have almost no political say and are thus stuck being corporate slaves.

One can argue that "at least they are not starving", but is that the best they can do, and should we try to compete with such a system by emulating the ugly side of it, or tariff their exports to encourage them to create a middle class of consumers?

Re:Sefdom is only a generation away

[micahraleigh]

Dependency on a meal by meal basis?

Like food stamps?

Re:Sefdom is only a generation away

[fluffernutter]

Suuuure. In fact I hope Foxconn sets up here so I can get me one of those quality jobs! I'll take Uber every day because that is all I will be able to afford.

Economic Rapist

[Anonymous Coward]

How can they possibly hope to steal your money when you aren't going through the traditional red tape and entrenched special interests? It just won't do.

Re:Economic Rapist

[FranTaylor]

pay your taxes to uber instead, will they fix the roads?

Re:Economic Rapist

[Chris Johnson]

Nope. They will preferentially hire drivers using Jeeps and Humvees that can drive across post-apocalyptic terrain (or that six-wheeled Mercedes thing?).

Then, everybody else finds using private vehicles is even more difficult and expensive, making hiring an Uber Humvee more advantageous.

That's the obvious market answer. Why would they want to fix roads if that helps people not use their service?

Re:Economic Rapist

[fahrbot-bot]

Nope. They will preferentially hire drivers using Jeeps and Humvees that can drive across post-apocalyptic terrain (or that six-wheeled Mercedes thing?).

So you're saying there will be WiFi and cell service in the post-apocalypse to summon Uber rides? Sweet.

Re:Economic Rapist

[KGIII]

I did not realize it was possible to buy an HMMWV (not the commercial Hummer) but it now appears that they have made it to surplus status and are available at auction or at a set price. I will be buying one so thank you for making me look. I was one of the earliest drivers of the modern incarnation of the Highly Mobile Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle in the Marines as my MOS was 3505 (motor pool, driver, as mentioned above). This would have been in the mid-late 1980s. They are incredible vehicles, capable of almost unbelievable feats.

If you affix the deep water fording kit and sit on the top of the seat while steering with your feet and using the granny gear you can go through some deep water. If you get stuck you can almost always get the vehicle unstuck if you understand physics even a little bit. You can almost certainly get it unstuck with another Humvee. You could even run it on high proof vodka if you wanted though I have never actually heard anything about doing so.

I looked around to buy one after the Gulf War as I expect there to be a surplus. They were not selling them at the time and the civilian version was not something I wanted as it is an inferior copy of the original. For what they are, and that is not really something that should be used as a combat vehicle and was not designed for RPG or IED strikes, they are very good vehicles. They are a blast to drive and about as sure-footed as a mountain goat. The military does not do everything well but this is an excellent example of something done right. (Of course it is being used in roles it was not intended to fulfill but that is another topic entirely.)

Re:Economic Rapist

[rossz]

The tax on every gallon of fuel I purchase is supposed to pay for the roads. Somehow the majority of that money gets funneled to other things and the roads still have pot holes. Since the tax money isn't being spent for its intended purpose, why pay the tax?

Uber is a big corporate donor

[bigsexyjoe]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com...

And the regulations already exist. Uber is completely illegal.

Re:Uber is a big corporate donor

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends upon the location, but thank you for mentioning that.

I would make a couple changes.
1. If an "Uber"-type employee earns less than $2000/year, then it wouldn't cross over into "commercial" territory and would be legal.
2. Require auto-insurance companies to cover people in the situation above when it comes to non-commercial insurance.

Clinton foundation got some PAC money from Uber...

[nopenopenope]

When did Slashdot become a proxy for shill political endorsements? So what if a candidate makes a talking point about this. Uber has lobbyists and now is winning over candidates. Sorry, this is not news.

Rand Paul says More to disruptive technologies

[bhlowe]

Rand Paul Posted:

"It's ironic someone who has been driven around in a limo for the past 30 years is giving ride sharing advice.

Hillary Clinton just chided the sharing-economy which is boosted by services such as Lyft, Uber, and Airbnb. We must advocate for innovation and disruption and need to support increased choice which leads to lower prices for all Americans."

Re: Rand Paul says More to disruptive technologies

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, how did people trade services and and money through means that we're not directly government sanctioned by approved employers which would have filled out a convenient W-2 for the government to track you with.

How else is the government supposed to know what everybody's skills are, and how much each of its citizens are worth if they're engaging in commerce without the governments permission. This type of economy also has the tendency to breed entrepreneurship which can end in the generation of unauthorized wealth.

  Sadly this story was only posted because it had the word Uber in it, and some editors feel that Uber is related to the interest of hackers and developers because the large companies behind it use an app to make it all happen. That makes them so trendy and cool.

Piece work

[Oligonicella]

If I want to do piece work, whether web sites or chauffeuring someone around, it's none of her friggin' business.

Re:Piece work

[FranTaylor]

If I want to do piece work, whether web sites or chauffeuring someone around, it's none of her friggin' business.

Have you read the constitution? It says the government can regulate your commercial activities.

Re: Piece work

[dave3548]

Somehow, when you want to kill children in the womb, there a right to privacy in the Constitution, and the government can't regulate that. But they can regulate your "commerce" because that's a word somewhere in the Constitution.

Re:Piece work

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll keep the Commerce Clause in mind when I take an Uber or Lyft ride across a State or National boundary.

Re:Piece work

[swell]

That's an interesting reply to my original '1%' post. You've taken the employer perspective as many other employers would.

But you say: " I'm guessing you've never run a company. I do run a manufacturing company. Paying people to do nothing (read work inefficiently) is pretty much the best way I know of to put a company into bankruptcy." - and that's quite wrong.

I ran my own construction company and helped run another. There is plenty of room in construction work for people to drag their feet, to slack off and take advantage of their employer. In our companies, we took a personal interest in our employees (typically around 30) and their families. During the inevitable slow periods we tried everything imaginable to keep everyone on payroll. We bid jobs below cost at times just to keep them active. The benefit was (as you suggested) quality work, but even more we learned that their loyalty paid of in monetary and other ways.

There have been companies that cared about employees, and employees who respond with loyalty. There was an entire nation (Japan) with this attitude. This is out of fashion lately but can be found to some extent at companies like Starbucks and Costco and many smaller companies. OTOH there are profitable companies like Walmart whose employees depend on welfare to survive.

You may choose how to run your company. I'd prefer to make slightly fewer millions knowing that my employees can thrive.

Re:Piece work

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting that you mention smaller companies. On average, "mom 'n pop shops" pay less than their corporate equivalents.

Re:Piece work

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony is dripping there. You work in what is inherently a piece work economy, and claim that piece work is bad, but it's your employees who are reaping the benefit of the piece work economy, because you have to treat them better to keep them from bailing. I'd call that a piecework win for your employees. But what do I know, I'm one of those evil democrats in Pipeliners 798

Re:Piece work

[DerekLyons]

A reliable income can be assured through having valuable skills and working hard.

So sayeth Faux news and scattered anecdata. (And the rest of your comment is just the same - rightwingnut talking points.)

Re:Piece work

[GlennC]

I'd prefer to make slightly fewer millions knowing that my employees can thrive.

Sadly, that appears to put you in the minority of business owners.

Re:Piece work

[Anonymous Coward]

Such as the CEO and other executives who seem to be able to do the work of three hundred to a thousand 'average' workers in a single day? Why are they not then retained on the same per-piece basis? That would be an incredible savings for the company; Executives that are only on the job earning those gigantic salaries when they are actually needed rather than pointless meddling/banging secretaries/browsing facebook/playing WoW.

Your points sound great, if they are good for the gander.

Re: Piece work

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with a great deal of what you say, I think the thrust of the counterargument is that if you are engaged in piece work, no matter how hard you work, unless, e.g., you happen to be a doctor, if something awful and unavoidable happens (say that you are diagnosed with cancer), no amount of hard work will pay for that.

And then in America you are fucked.

Many people, I think, are horrified by this prospect, and as a result some of the issues are conflated.

Re:Piece work

[rossz]

Only if it's interstate commerce.

the path to success

[FranTaylor]

Apparently the path to wealth for the common man is to pay him less

Nit-picking the language

[Anonymous Coward]

Many Americans are earning additional money . . .

There, fixed that for you. Language matters. I'm not "making" money - I earn it. It's not "extra" either - I don't leave it lying about with no purpose - I use it maybe even to sustain my family because I would have insufficient otherwise.

Re:Nit-picking the language

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not "making" money - I earn it.

If someone is paying you in Bitcoins, it's with money he "made".

Re:Why

[PopeRatzo]

pantsuited power hag

Did someone mention Donald Trump?

And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

A substantial number of people offering services through these companies do so to make ends meet. The cab companies and hotels certainly were not do doing anything for them! I have driven for Lyft for fun and all of the passengers told me that they prefer Lyft and Uber because cabs are disgusting and the drivers are rude. For sure, my car was way nicer than any cab I have been in, which blows the "race to the bottom" claim out of the water.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[FranTaylor]

For sure, my car was way nicer than any cab I have been in, which blows the "race to the bottom" claim out of the water.

gosh, your clean car means that taxi drivers get paid more under uber?

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[Xiaran]

Race to the bottom refers to deflation of wages and working conditions due to deregulation.

Re: And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you're the economics genius around here!

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[Chris Johnson]

I think you're a little confused.

You got together a car way better than any taxi, 'for fun', caring nothing for the depreciation of your asset you bring to the table, in order to be a dilettante scab just on a whim.

It's not automatically a race to the bottom for passengers, so long as Uber can continue to get people like you who aren't actually committed, and as long as the passengers' luck holds out.

It's a race to the bottom for that entire employment sector because any driver, either taxi or uber, has to compete with YOU 'for fun' when you don't actually have to get paid because you don't really care. You don't have to care about wearing out your resources because you'll likely just drop out if something happens to your car, you don't have to care about getting paid since you're doing it 'for fun', and as long as Uber or Lyft can get hold of enough people like you, everybody has to compete on your terms.

And you're losing money. You're the sucker, you just get to opt out before you lose everything as it's just a gig, 'for fun'. You don't have to consider wear on your vehicle, your insurance, any of that. You're doing it for some other reason and as long as the company can find more like you

It's one thing when you 'pay to play' at some Sunset Strip nightclub, in order to get your music out there. Yeah, that's no business plan but it's an ego thing and performing on stage and it's easy to see how that type of 'work' ends up for dilettantes and trust-funders, generally unable to provide a living wage to your average musician.

It's VERY WEIRD if you have to be a superstar freakin' cab driver to earn a living because everybody else is losing money on the deal. Just saying. Your activity contributes to a situation where everybody else has to match your level of interaction/committment/cashflow. Cabdriving is not meant to be a hobby you spend some money on to have an interesting experience on weekends. (of course, Uber is liable to take it to 'cabdriving is not for humans' in the relatively near future)

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, deflation of wages means that those people who previously couldn't make ends meet, but can now make ends meet and are experiencing an increase in stanadard of living now have worse working conditions? Also, how does race to the bottmom apply to the consumers who experience better service at a lower price?

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[Chris Johnson]

Imagine a guy who gets off on driving for Uber Black in a Ferrari F40. They get crazy tips but what they're really doing it for is the awe of the passengers and to be treated like a freaky crazy rich dude for the people. What's that (or more luxurious angles: a Rolls-Royce guy) do to the job market?

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent ignoring of GP primary point:

A substantial number of people offering services through these companies do so to make ends meet.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to look at the entire cycle. What's the end game? Can licensed cab companies continue to exist if they continue to be undercut by unlicensed services like Uber? If not, then what happens when they've been driven out of business by Uber? You think the consumer will continue to have a better deal if Uber is the only game in town? And if Uber's competition in the future is from other Uber-like services, i.e. they're not the only game in town, then the consumer may continue to benefit, but the loser in that scenario will be the drivers; they can always be replaced by any other dude with a car willing to make a slightly more marginal profit. Long term, either consumers, or drivers, or both will lose out.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with Uber is obvious, but there are many more service like Uber and it doesn't have to be in the taxi sector. This is currently a problem, but it could be a sign of how we will work in the future.

This kind of ultra flexible workforce can only survive with some kind of basic income. But where will the income come from? Are we going to evolve to a 20 hour work week for example, where we fill up the rest of our time with flex work? Are we going to let people compete with each other for a full time job and let the losers do the law wage flex jobs? Are we going to just introduce a system with 'free money' on which people can survive but do flex work when they want some luxury?

I'm not a fan of this kind of flex jobs, but I think it will be the future. Just like industrialization put peasants in the factories, and automation put factory workers behind desks, the network society will put people in a 'flex job'. You can fight it, but you can also embrace and ease the pains for the 'victims' of this trend (regulations? deregulations? ...)

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, deflation of wages means that those people who previously couldn't make ends meet, but can now make ends meet and are experiencing an increase in stanadard of living now have worse working conditions?

Your argument assumes the conclusion. Why is it that you believe Uber and Lyft drivers experience a net increase in wealth, and why does your argument assume wealth is the only metric for standard of living?

Also, how does race to the bottmom apply to the consumers who experience better service at a lower price?

It doesn't apply to consumers in this case, unless those consumers need a lower price because they're now working at jobs that also provide services for a lower cost. Those lower costs come from somewhere, and it's usually from employees.

When people have less money to spend, they spend less money. You'd think that would be obvious, but people who believe that a race to the bottom of wages and benefits are a net positive seem unable to grasp the basic concept.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[OhPlz]

If coders contribute code in their free time to an open source project is that bad because it takes that opportunity away from corporate coders who make their living off that kind of work? Is the corporate coder disadvantaged by the open source contributors that are doing it for fun? They don't have to consider having an office, benefits, or any of that.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this any different than what journalists faced when blogging took off?

If your job is something that a lot of people would be willing to do 'for fun', then was it ever really a safe career to begin with?

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[meta-monkey]

I code for fun. Am I putting paid programmers out of a job?

Re: And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) A person who drives for Uber or Lyft may do so for good, or bad, reasons. But in a free society, it's their decision to make.
2) The above notwithstanding, autonomous vehicles will devastate cabbies, Uber & Lyft drivers, and truckers. Regardless of what effect Uber and Lyft have short term, those jobs will be gone soon, anyway.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is going to say, "yes," because we all love programming on the side too. Pose a slightly different question, though: "I am an H1B worker taking lower overall compensation. Am I putting better-paid programmers out of a job?" You'll get a resounding "yes."

There are some biases in those answers, but there's also a hidden truth: the for-fun coder usually isn't competing directly with the paid programmer. They usually work on different kinds of programs, or with different target markets, or with different "extras" like support and marketing. Paid programmers often build off the work of for-fun coders who put together important libraries, so it can even be a cooperation rather than competition. Even Microsoft makes money off Linux now, since Linux runs much of their Azure cloud. On the other hand, when you talk about H1B workers replacing regular labor, it's direct competition for the same jobs. The same goes in the taxi sector: there is nothing but direct competition.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[ShanghaiBill]

gosh, your clean car means that taxi drivers get paid more under uber?

Uber drivers don't have to pay for a medallion (which can cost over $1M), or pay to rent one. It is unlikely Uber drivers make much more than taxi drivers, since taxi drivers are not quitting to join Uber, but I don't see any reason why they would be making much less either, because the dispatchers would just raise their commissions to level the field. Both seem to be mostly recent immigrants, likely lacking green cards, that are the bottom of the economic ladder.

Disclaimer: I have never actually used Uber, because they do not allow pickups to be scheduled in advance. If I need a ride to SFO at 5am, I want to go to bed knowing my ride is going to arrive 15 minutes after I wake up. I can't do that with Uber.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[fluffernutter]

Yes it is bad. Do you work for $2 an hour?

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[Archangel Michael]

You have to look at the entire cycle

Yeah, right. This is something politicians never do when enacting new laws regarding economic conditions. See "Minimum Wage Laws" and the results of fewer jobs after increasing Min Wage.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[pipingguy]

Are you coding for a company that would otherwise be paying someone else a wage?

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[ShanghaiBill]

You think the consumer will continue to have a better deal if Uber is the only game in town?

Uber already has competition from Lyft, and other ride sharing services. New entrants can easily enter the market.

the loser in that scenario will be the drivers

With ride sharing, the drivers compete by providing quality and value to consumers. With taxis, the drivers compete by bidding up the price of medallions. There is no reason to believe that the latter will lead to higher wages. But there is good reason to believe that the former will lead to better service, and more people riding rather than driving and parking their own cars.

If government imposed artificial scarcity and price controls is such great idea for taxis, then why shouldn't the same model be good for other areas of the economy? Why shouldn't there be a "grocery store medallion" to limit the number of stores, jack up prices, and prevent them from having to compete? How about programmers? Should there be a "programmer medallion" to limit the number of people allowed to write code?

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[khellendros1984]

No, I work for $0 an hour on projects that interest me, but which don't seem to have potential as money-making products.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we going to let people ...

This way lies totalitarianism.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[khellendros1984]

If coders contribute code in their free time to an open source project is that bad because it takes that opportunity away from corporate coders who make their living off that kind of work?

In theory, those coders are increasing overall efficiency of software development (including commercial sw dev) by reducing duplication of effort among different companies. They do work on their pet project, and that work can benefit whoever wants to use it (barring difficulties with the code license). It's not clear to me that there's a comparable benefit in the situation with cab drivers. Pulling work from the pool of available clients decreases the amount of work that needs to be done at a given time. As far as I can tell in software, the pool of work that needs to be done is nearly infinite.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[meta-monkey]

No, I'm coding for users, who, if they didn't have my code, would either 1) purchase software from a company that employs coders or 2) go without.

I think that's the more apt analogy. Uber drivers are not working for the cab companies for free. They're servicing customers who would otherwise patronize the employers of cab drivers.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[meta-monkey]

Not the same thing, though. You're talking about taking a job, of which there is one, but this is about competing for customers, of which there are many.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[OhPlz]

If the open source projects were not available, then a business needing that functionality would have to employ resources in house to do it or contract the work to some other business. I think the analogy works just fine. There is a giant pool of work that needs to be done with regards to software, but it is certainly not infinite. For an individual business, that pool of work is not likely to be all that large.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[pnutjam]

Look no further then then the pending overtime regulation overhaul for a fix.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

See "Minimum Wage Laws" and the results of fewer jobs after increasing Min Wage.

Obviously, they should have gone straight for basic income.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[kaatochacha]

The real question is: How would you feel if , in whatever job you do for income, someone showed up to work for $0 hour for fun on the project, and they let you go?

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[KGIII]

That is funny. I just ordered a 640Li (~650hp BMW) and was thinking that it would be awesome to pick people up and drive them around in it as an Uber driver. Alas, I would drive too fast and there is not one single anything in my area for such. Of course it does not help that I am many miles from the nearest podunk town and even further from an actual town that has stuff in it. Neither of which is serviced by Uber (or any other taxi) by the way.

Re: And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it means that Lyft and Uber sucker people into paying capital expenses for them, plus wear and tear, etc.

The race to the button isn't measured in clean cars. It's measured in how many people get a lot less money doing things more than they did before, because the cost of things like food and housing sent teaching anywhere but up.

Nobody who's employed should have to 'make ends meet' with gigs like that. It's the whole point being made.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber drivers are licensed where I live. It's a cheap license, but it's a license. They are also required to remit 2% gross receipts and to carry commercial vehicle insurance. They can only legally be hailed via the app, and not in person or at a depot.

Houston, Texas -- vehicle for hire FAQs

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[jwdb]

I code for fun. Am I putting paid programmers out of a job?

Almost certainly. Of course, you may also be creating other jobs. The more relevant question is if it is moral and/or beneficial for you to code for fun.

Are you writing a piece of software that is needed and which otherwise would likely be written by a company established to fill that need? Then yes, you're putting programmers out of a job.

Are you writing a piece of software that would otherwise not be available, thereby enabling businesses to do new things that were otherwise not possible, creating new products and markets? Then you're probably creating new jobs, albeit not necessarily programmers.

Note that these two questions are not polar opposites, and neither makes any comment on the morality of your actions.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[mjwx]

You have to look at the entire cycle

Yeah, right. This is something politicians never do when enacting new laws regarding economic conditions. See "Minimum Wage Laws" and the results of fewer jobs after increasing Min Wage.

Had a look, found your claims are complete bollocks.

All arguments claiming minimum wages increase unemployment are full of "might", "maybe" and "possibly" whilst the ones disputing this claim use more definitive language. The worst they can say is that any change "was not statistically significant".

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[mjwx]

Imagine a guy who gets off on driving for Uber Black in a Ferrari F40. They get crazy tips but what they're really doing it for is the awe of the passengers and to be treated like a freaky crazy rich dude for the people. What's that (or more luxurious angles: a Rolls-Royce guy) do to the job market?

A Ferrari F40 won't be permitted on Uber as it's a 2 door car. The same reason a Toyota 86 or Pug 208CC wont be permitted on Uber. Uber requires all cars to be 4 door minimum.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[khellendros1984]

I think a more comparable situation would be another company paying a bunch of foreign coders from a cheap (but not free) labor market to write a clone of the product and sell it for cheaper than my employer does (due to flouting some kind of legal requirement). And in that situation, I'd probably feel about how the taxi drivers do right now.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[khellendros1984]

If the open source projects were not available, then a business needing that functionality would have to employ resources in house to do it or contract the work to some other business.

Well, yes, either we'd have spent the time to write something in-house or gotten it from other businesses that have those components as their products. We'd either lose the extra dev time or the extra money; either way, the business would function less efficiently, we'd have fewer resources to build the "real" functionality of the product, and we'd have a less-capable product. I see that as a net detriment.

but it is certainly not infinite

Someday, perhaps we'll have to come to the time where all necessary software has been written. We're a ways off from that. Just within the products that I'm involved in, we've got plans for thousands of people-years of development.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would suck if that happened. You know what though - there is no law that keeps that from happening to my job. Only certain jobs have the protection and that is unconstitutional. The constitution says that laws must apply to everyone equally (yes, I know the constitution is dead.)

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be okay with a negative income tax or "basic" income, like the one I outlined in http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7672649&cid=50084317

As for minimum wage, we should adjust the federal one for inflation. But I generally think it's better to leave it to the individual states since cost of living can change depending upon location.

I do want to see states implementing a two-tired minimum wage. The current one for small businesses and a new one for large businesses. Didn't the $15/hour thing start because of companies like Wal-Mart? Now it's being pushed upon all businesses--even small businesses, which seems counter-intuitive to me.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[Mandrel]

If government imposed artificial scarcity and price controls is such great idea for taxis, then why shouldn't the same model be good for other areas of the economy? Why shouldn't there be a "grocery store medallion" to limit the number of stores, jack up prices, and prevent them from having to compete? How about programmers? Should there be a "programmer medallion" to limit the number of people allowed to write code?

I suppose the difference is that taxi driving is relatively unskilled (especially if there's no route-knowledge test — less important now that there's sat nav). Supply constraints aim to give these unskilled people an adequate full-time job and wage, which may be more socially desirable than open-slather combined with welfare support. But the unintended consequences have concentrated the power and profits in pimp-like medallion owners, who sub-contract to the drivers. Perhaps the solution is an Uber-like system combined with quotas.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[bluegutang]

If government imposed artificial scarcity and price controls is such great idea for taxis, then why shouldn't the same model be good for other areas of the economy?

Because there is only space for a certain number of vehicles on the street, and if too many taxis are circulating, there will be massive congestion?

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

taxi medaillons are an example of regulatory capture, they shouldn't exist in the first place

Re: And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

If we used horse drawn carriages and buggies, their slow pace and limited capacity would result in a lot more people being employed driving carriages, plus the horse feeders and vets.

While we're at it we should go back to subsistence farming. You know the automation of farming has led to mass layoffs in the farming industry. The few thousand people John deer employ is nothing compared to the millions who would be employed if we went back to rakes and ploughshares

Re: And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

And there's only so much spectrum. The government should regulate how many users the carriers can have on each spectrum to ensure there's no congestion.

You know first amendment right to free speech and how cell phones are free speech.

Re: And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who owns,the parking space? At hotels and other private venues they sometimes discriminate for particular taxi services because of congestion and service. At government owned airports they do the same thing via licensing. I do not see the principled problem

Re: And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialism
Communism
Antiamerican .the,GPL.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[wildstoo]

You know what? I occasionally listen to the few low digit Slashdotters who bother to hang around. Sometimes they have something to offer, either through experience or through some strange osmotically gathered wisdom.

However, concerning this comment:

What. The. Actual. Fuck. Is nobody allowed to do what they do BECAUSE THEY SIMPLY ENJOY IT? Must everybody be forever beholden to the GOLDEN FUCKING DOLLAR? What kind of sad fucking world do you even live in? Must EVERYTHING be paid and even SUFFERED for?

"Do what you love and the money will follow" vs "do what this small protectionist market wants and fuck you" and you seem to actively choose the latter? You would actually PREFER to have people working as cab drivers because they have NO OTHER SKILLS than having experienced, happy and motivated "amateurs" who know their territory, know their clientele and, most importantly, understand their market?

If your country isn't bankrupt, it's a stroke of luck, because you and your ilk are completely and utterly redundant. Enjoy your bizarre take on protectionism while it lasts. I truly hope for your sake that your retirement isn't far off because I think you might have already lost your marbles.

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm things not always what they look like. The only limo & taxi service from Detroit Metro Airport is Metro Cars Only Metro Cars limos & taxis are allowed to pick up at the air port. Any other taxi picking up gets fined. Goes without saying the owner of Metro Cars is a billionaire. To qualify to bid on the contract to provide taxi and limo service at Detroit Metro you must own 100 limos. For the driver the money is bad, the hours are bad. This happened recently.... http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20090724/FREE/907249995/new-owners-buy-limousine-companies-retain-metro-cars-name but things still remain the same. Did Uber cause it?

Re:And who is at the bottom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wondering what the medallion system is - we don't have it here. Taxi drivers are responsible for their own gas & maintenance and work as independent contractors and they must have a commercial chauffeur license. The company provides cars and dispatch and monitors the drivers. Truth be told, I'm not real comfortable getting in a car with someone who says they are doing ride sharing with no license or logo or light on the car indicating that is the case. I had one driver come up to me in a parking lot at night and ask me if I wanted a ride. You say the quality of rides will improve. I took a look at the car she was driving - didn't see that it was much better than the clunker I drive. I didn't know anything about her driving skills. Also there was no indication, no logo anywhere that she was working with Uber. So I was extremely uncomfortable with the situation and declined her offer. Last I heard Uber provides no accommodation if you are in a wheel chair or blind or otherwise disabled with a service animal. It may be more expensive calling a cab, but at least I have some confidence that the driver is safe and that someone somewhere knows where the driver is when I'm being driven somewhere.

Vague as hell

[Anonymous Coward]

That's such a vague comment I wonder why she said it (or why she wasn't told not to say it). It could be interpreted as either being for or against the "gig economy" depending on how you look at it, so my guess will be that it will piss both sides off.

Are the "problems" that they don't include health insurance benefits? That people may be avoiding paying taxes? That they go against what might be considered the above-board way taxis are handled?

I dislike the way that politicians avoid commenting on such issues before elections and the entire "experience hurts" mentality as far as people holding their opinions against them, but this is no better.

we'll all be rich

[FranTaylor]

when we pay everyone the lowest amount possible

Re:we'll all be rich

[Anonymous Coward]

when we pay everyone the lowest amount possible

Make a list of all the things you cannot purchase with your dollars. You'd be surprised. Even silly things like prostitution and drug prohibitions makes your dollars worth less. Literally. Consider medications that you must have prescribed and can't generally import. Your dollars are worth less. Want to hire someone at $5/hr for a job that doesn't justify $5.01/hr (like a watch guard who can just read their book). Worth less.

Wanted to buy gold in the 1940s. Ooops worth less.

I'll be fine with people paying less because it is similar to increases in productivity. Fewer people griped because computers can costs tens of dollars instead of the thousands of dollars thirty years ago.

Someday you'll need a ride. Car shows up with or without a driver, with or without other passengers, with or without other stops along the way. All based on your ability to pay and the quality of service you demand. Unless of course your dollars somehow became worth less.

Re:we'll all be rich

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I was listening to an excerpt of a Bernie Sanders speech this morning, and he says that the US is the richest country in history, but that so much of the wealth is in very few hands. I wondered, if you subtracted the wealth of the 0.1%, would the US still be the richest? In other words, how rich is the country that 99.9% of us live in.

Government knows best...

[zerofoo]

Unfortunately it is not a strange world view to many, less liberty-minded, people.

As a society, we've gotten to the point where we tolerate zero risk in our daily lives. So much so that society wants government to decide what is good for us.

This is a terrible way to live. I want options in my life and I want the free market to create them. I don't want government restricting options available to me, or restricting those that would provide those options to me.

Re:Government knows best...

[FranTaylor]

I don't want government restricting options available to me, or restricting those that would provide those options to me.

we all want free money, and we don't want the government to stop us from getting it, surprise!

Re:Government knows best...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obvious you're part of the "shout all opposition" down crowd. Perhaps you should craft cogent arguments instead, or would that be too much work for you?

Re:Government knows best...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhgg, Do you realize that what your are saying basically means you are a thought criminal. Thought criminals are well known for supporting pedocphilia and terrorism. I understand there is a remote chance you do not like raping black babies or blowing up hospitals. But in the future I would suggest you refrain from making such sweeping pronouncements. The government know what is best for you. Now go watch sports center.

Re:Government knows best...

[GlennC]

Translation, "I want what I want as cheaply as possible, screw everyone else and damn the consequences."

Re:Government knows best...

[osu-neko]

I don't want government restricting options available to me, or restricting those that would provide those options to me.

As a more liberty-minded individual, I don't want anyone restricting me in that manner, be they governments, corporations, "market forces" or whatever, and I understand that regulations are necessary to insure freedom in the market (a truly free market is as free as any anarchy, which is to say, not free at all -- laws and regulations are what protect the freedom of individuals).

Re:Government knows best...

[andydread]

So you like the "market prices" for Comcast and the like?

Re:Government knows best...

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

you know what's a terrible way to live? Not being sure if you're going to die at work tomorrow because your boss, or your boss's boss decides to skimp on safety gear because it's cheaper.

It's not your decision to work an incredibly hazardous job that's on the line or not, it's the decision for your employer not to give you decent protection from mishaps.

Re:Government knows best...

[DRJlaw]

As a society, we've gotten to the point where we tolerate zero risk in our daily lives. So much so that society wants government to decide what is good for us.

This is a terrible way to live. I want options in my life and I want the free market to create them. I don't want government restricting options available to me, or restricting those that would provide those options to me.

Your premise is that society wants this and you do not. Fine. Your options are (1) live with it and attempt to convince society to make a different choice or (2) leave society.

Your options do not include (3) do you want within society because society should be different and you'll live as if it were whether the rest of society likes it or not. That is not living with the courage of your convictions, it's dodging the sacrifices of living with the existing social contract or going to/building a free market utopia somewhere else.

I want a pony. That doesn't mean that I'm going to board it in my reserved parking spot in my downtown condominium because MINE.

Re:Government knows best...

[operagost]

we all want free money

No, that "free money" comes from the government.

Re:Government knows best...

[GTRacer]

Because I'm bored... I think he would be fine if the market ConCast competed in was remotely fair. But with the usual municipality / utility contract exclusivity, they're often the only viable option in a given area. If the Utilities Commissions were forced to merely regulate the, you know, UTILITY of a service and the claims and promises behind a person's use of it, then we'd have two or three high-speed providers competing to offer good service at decent rates,

Though, as I hear it, such unrestricted competition would lead to boondocks areas being underserved because there's no tie-in incentive to serve them and far less potential return, for heavy infrastructure services at least.

Re:Government knows best...

[operagost]

Comcast seems to have a natural monopoly, as a utility. Most libertarians understand this, not being actual straw men.

Re:Government knows best...

[PeteJanda]

News Flash: central planning has failed and continues to fail wherever it's attempted. Really tough to suppress adoption of better mouse traps.

Re:Government knows best...

[suutar]

I want free markets, first.

Re:Government knows best...

[fluffernutter]

No.. I want the government to decide that narcotics are bad for the druggie that may mug my family on the street one day. The druggie that may otherwise not have started using drugs if they were harder to get. There are a lot of them out there, don't try to pull the 'if they want to get it they will get it' crap. People are being prevented from starting it because the government tells us it is bad.

Re:Government knows best...

[blue9steel]

Only because we foolishly allow the same company to own the cables and provide the service. Yes, the cabling is a natural monopoly, the service is not.

Re:Government knows best...

[fluffernutter]

I really think people like the OP don't understand how dangerous the world becomes without putting a reasonable cap on things.

Re:Government knows best...

[KermodeBear]

The funny thing is that what she calls a "Gig Economy" is what America has been doing since its founding.

You, a person, learn skills. You make things. You do things. You serve. People give you money, goods, or services in exchange. This country was built on the concept of the lone inventor making it on his own, the person who bought a horse and carriage to ferry people around, the family that built a boat to move cargo up and down the river as they pleased.

What she is calling "new" is what we have been doing all along.

Re:Government knows best...

[Anonymous Coward]

You live in a fantasy world.
No government gives that, even the most libertarian democracy. If you're willing to believe what you're preaching, then consider WHY a lot of limitations were imposed on corporations. Like locations for chemical dumps, workplace protection, product safety etc.

Read this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_industrial_disasters , and consider how much of the crap that happened then wouldn't be possible now because of those "limitations".

Just because Uber manages to ruin one life at a time, doesn't make it less dangerous.

Re:Government knows best...

[Archangel Michael]

Its better than the alternative, which is

"I want to tax and regulate everything to death, screw everyone and damn the consequences"

The difference is picking who is screwing you, the free will association you choose, or the government guns that enforce the other. I know which one I trust more ... and it isn't the government.

Re:Government knows best...

[GlennC]

I imagine that most of the people like the OP are under 30 and have never had any illness more serious than a cold. They've also probably rarely, if ever, missed a meal or slept outside other than by choice.

They also appear to not be able to imagine themselves as older, weaker, or otherwise unable to earn a living.

They've appeared to have read "Atlas Shrugged:, but missed the end of Ayn Rand's life, where she died penniless and dependent on government aid.

Re:Government knows best...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't want to get ripped off for this service by some dinosaurs refusing to adapt. Fuck them, their business model is antiquated and shitty and the service is terrible. Oh wait! I had better worry first about how my decision to not pay my hard earned money for shitty service will affect the provider of this shitty service! Oh wait, I can't be responsible for everyone else's economic choices. Some loom operators would like a word about smashing some equipment"

niches close

stfu and deal with it

Re:Government knows best...

[Cinnamon Beige]

you know what's a terrible way to live? Not being sure if you're going to die at work tomorrow because your boss, or your boss's boss decides to skimp on safety gear because it's cheaper.

It's not your decision to work an incredibly hazardous job that's on the line or not, it's the decision for your employer not to give you decent protection from mishaps.

Actually, if the government gets out of this, I'll start being OK with having the union because this seems like precisely what ought to be the union's and not the government's job--particularly since sometimes it's necessary to get the union to go yell at the OSHA guy because what the OSHA guy thinks is scrimping on safety equipment is using the right equipment. When you've got the OSHA guy complaining because you're not using metal ladders when what you're doing is working on a live electrical system...maybe you're better off having the people doing the work having a large say in what the safety regulations are.

Some of us don't want the government making the rules because, really, we'd prefer to be empowered to do so in a more worker-centered way--and getting rid of 'gigs' entirely isn't going to work well, because for some workers this is a desirable, if not necessary, style of employment. If I need to be able to have a strong say in my hours, for reasons like school or being a primary caregiver, my choices right now are 'take gigs' or 'no job at all.' Gigs also have some appeal if your primary employer does not like giving you full hours, meaning you need something to fill in the gaps, as well as for those who feel that their free time is valuable enough that they see no reason to put in more hours working than absolutely necessary--something that would get you fired from a traditional job.

Re:Government knows best...

[Anonymous Coward]

the concept of the lone inventor making it on his own

And as it turns out, that is pretty much a myth.

Re:Government knows best...

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism... is that you man?

Re:Government knows best...

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Complaining about some OSHA guy getting the details wrong doesn't make what OSHA itself is DOING wrong. By having uniform standards of safety set by experts in those fields, we ensure that it's not a race to the bottom where safety is concerned.

Hillary also didn't say she wanted the gig economy to go under, she just said that classifying them as contractors and all sorts of other shenanigans is wrong.

If you're Uber or Lyft or AirBNB, you have to cover people who are providing your service as if they're employees. Because they are the people providing the work, they should be treated like employees.

Re:Government knows best...

[KGIII]

You know, if you take the crime out of drugs they do not end up doing stuff like mugging your family. You end up with functional addicts who can work because they do not have criminal records. You have lower priced drugs because, you know, there is no incentive to smuggle them and raise the price. I could go on but you will only argue. Those that want drugs can get drugs, regardless of what you seem to think. If they could not get drugs then we would not have a "drug problem." The government saying that they are bad is not going to keep people from doing drugs - see the number of druggies for evidence of this.

Re:Government knows best...

[mr_mischief]

In Houston I have a choice of dozens of retail electric companies, but only one cable company (two if you count AT&T).

Re:Government knows best...

[mr_mischief]

Contractor vs. employee classification can be abused, but calling someone who chooses when to pick up a rider and at what rate a contractor is not a shenanigan. It would be a farce to call that driver an employee. Actually the taxi drivers who often are listed as contractors but work assigned schedules for specific rates set by the company are much closer to employees, and that's the "traditional" model.

Re:Government knows best...

[fluffernutter]

You're saying people will give drugs for free if they are legalized? Because if not free, someone who is hopelessly addicted will resort to crime to get it. Legal drugs are more expensive then illegal.

Re:Government knows best...

[david_thornley]

Petty crime is not a very profitable job. A lot of illegal drug users seem to be doing very well for themselves in legitimate jobs, and the ones who aren't are at least spending less. Treat the hopeless addicts as a medical problem. Crime rates go down, the authorities lose an excuse to be intrusive and draconian, and I'd bet that government costs go down, even before accounting for the new taxes on drugs.

Re:Government knows best...

[fluffernutter]

They try to treat all the addicts we have today and they can't. How does legal drugs translate into easily 10x number of addicts being able to find treatment? That is a very strange association you are making.

Re:Government knows best...

[KGIII]

Prison is not treatment.

No, legal drugs are less expensive. Anyone can make any of the drugs we consume for recreation. There is no incentive to raise the price. Anyone who wants drugs can get drugs. Nobody is going to decide to become a heroin junkie because it is now legal. Use the money saved from incarceration and enforcement to educate, rehabilitate, and work at resolving other social issues. Drugs do not make bad people, criminality due to the illegality of drugs makes people bad people.

No. I do not do drugs as a general rule other than smoking some weed once in a blue moon. However, I am a junkie and always will be. I spent the better part of 40 years using opiates up to an including Fentanyl extraction for IV use and heroin use. I have never been convicted for anything other than misdemeanor possession charges nor have I ever committed an offense while obtaining my drugs other than the act of obtaining them.

I quit not because of the illegality but because of the uncontrolled person that I had become. I chipped for years and decades thinking I was going to be able to control it forever. The fixation with a needle is probably the undoing in my case. That is irrelevant though.

Drugs are not bad. They do not generally make people do bad things either. The problems come from the fact that they are illegal and the social stigmas involved. I actually actively encourage you to try some of them for yourself before passing judgment. Go out and get a bag of rigs from the pharmacy and a couple of bags of dope. Start small, learn safe injection practices, and nod out for a while in the warm fuzzy blanket glow of the opiate high and you will understand that the problems from drugs are not the drugs themselves but from the way the users are often forced to live.

I do not regret my drug use one bit. Not one iota. It has never made me do something I would not have done otherwise all things being equal.

I did not want to take the time to type this out but I type quickly and it is worth the effort because you seem to be fairly logical in other areas of your expressed viewpoints and in a variety of threads. I am just going to assume that your biases are there due to inexperience or because of negative reenforcement. I was a functional addict and alcoholic for longer than you have been alive and, during that time, probably accomplished more than most people will ever be lucky enough to approach. In short, I have had a hell of a ride.

It is important to look at things like this with a crucial eye. If you have done so, or are unwilling to do so, and still hold the views you do then it is unreasonable for me to urge you to change those views. I do implore you to seek a different view and to be objective and to base your opinions on what you experience. Go out and spend a weekend tripping on high power blotter acid, eat some mushrooms, buy an eight-ball of coke and blab all night to some drunk at a bar or, better, smoke or shoot it while huddled over a coffee table in a darkened room.

I am not ashamed and am open about my addictions. I am an opiate and an alcohol addict. I am not a bad person. I have done enough drugs to make Keith Richards blush (and lived to tell the tale) and have, strangely, never robbed anyone or stolen anything to get my fix. I have been treated fairly and equitably by hundreds, nay thousands, of providers (dealers). I do not recommend my path, I have been a lucky man.

So yes. Go get wasted, try all the drugs at least once - you never know what you might like. Be careful about addiction and be honest with yourself when it does happen. Seek help if you let it get that far. Never let the drug change you for the worse. Remember, you can always put more drugs in but you can not take them out. Safe and happy times are best.

Re:Government knows best...

[Cinnamon Beige]

Complaining about some OSHA guy getting the details wrong doesn't make what OSHA itself is DOING wrong.

If you want to stick your hands in live wires with your feet on an OSHA-approved metal ladder, go right ahead. Just remember to make sure your funeral arrangements already made.

If you don't get it, this is a bit worse than getting details wrong, this is pretty much an adult failing Electricity for Preschoolers, and is an example of typical OSHA shenanigans. The rule of thumb I've learned from experience and from others in risky work is that, on the whole, OSHA is never there when you actually need them and often there when you don't--and don't expect them to be much help if your employer is violating OSHA regulations.

By having uniform standards of safety set by experts in those fields, we ensure that it's not a race to the bottom where safety is concerned.

Hillary also didn't say she wanted the gig economy to go under, she just said that classifying them as contractors and all sorts of other shenanigans is wrong.

If you're Uber or Lyft or AirBNB, you have to cover people who are providing your service as if they're employees. Because they are the people providing the work, they should be treated like employees.

Not necessarily--as mr_mischief notes, it's not a shenanigan for Uber, Lyft, or AirBNB to call them contractors--though it probably is a shenanigan for taxi drivers who work assigned schedules at company-fixed rates 'contractors.'

In fact, it might be best to push those businesses into functionally being brokering services that can be used by independent self-employed individuals to find customers & handle transactions for fee (flat or percentage)--if they're employees, the employer can expect them to work a given set of hours, and as I noted, part of the reasons gigs appeal to some is because the arrangement is flexible, right down to being able to call off work if necessary without penalty beyond those hours' potential earnings.

That said, I'm not really okay with how Uber, Lyft and traditional taxi services treat their drivers, but I'm not seeing any of this actually improving the situation for the drivers. As far as I can tell, the end result is going to benefit the established businesses, bureaucratic power-grabbing dreams, and any politicians they bring along.

Re:Government knows best...

[rossz]

Most libertarians aren't actually followers of Ayn Rand. She was a shitty writer and her books only used bits and pieces of libertarianism, usually incorrectly.

Re:Government knows best...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is rather nicely ignoring slavery and indentured servitude.

And even ignoring that, the family with a boat which you mention didn't have its tariffs set by an shipping company. Uber is setting too many rules for its drivers to recognize them as suppliers instead of employees, while at the same time it is ignoring government rules on cab drivers.

Re:Government knows best...

[Anonymous Coward]

there are no open frontiers, therefore 'leaving society' is not an actual option

Re:Government knows best...

[Anonymous Coward]

Modern liberalism. I get that all the time from union whores who want to buy products from me for $10, bitch about it being made in China, but don't want to pay $100 for the same product made in America by skilled union craftsmen, even though it would be a better product.

And this is why they should all be fed into logchippers.

Re:Why

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you give this pantsuited power hag even 2 lines of coverage?

What?!?! You'd rather the hag wore a skirt?

In stark contrast to the voters she's chasing

[Anonymous Coward]

Who adhere to the "Gibs me dat" economy.

Re:Clinton foundation got some PAC money from Uber

[thinkwaitfast]

Technology has peaked. Nerd now means you dress up as batman (like Halloween), go see a movie and complain about some social problem that didn't exist 15 minutes ago.

I specifically said why the law is good

[bigsexyjoe]

I'm sorry it was so hard to read the second and third sentences.

Re:I specifically said why the law is good

[KGIII]

Off-topic - thank you for the link in your signature. Much appreciated. Seemingly little bias from what I read and watched. I spent about an hour there off-and-on I think while I also browsed this thread. The nice thing was being able to watch with VLC in a browser format. I appreciated that feature. Again, thanks.

another win for the 1%

[swell]

Not long before you were born there was a system of employment called 'piece work'. If you work in a sweat shop or on a farm or in a factory, you got paid according to what you produced. Usually this meant that you worked your butt off and still got paid less than hourly workers. This has been frowned upon until recently.

People raising a family, paying a mortgage, saving for retirement or children's education need a reliable income. Corporations don't want to get weighed down with that burden--they want people that they can call when needed and dump when the need passes.

Corporations have been winning for a long time now and this 'gig economy' is the next step.

Re:another win for the 1%

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had this conversation with every Uber driver I've ever had: They all feel that this is an opportunity for them. They enjoy the money and the flexibility. Speculating about who is and isn't being taken advantage of is all well and good. But the picture is quite different if you actually talk to the people involved.

Re:another win for the 1%

[FranTaylor]

I've had this conversation with every Uber driver I've ever had: They all feel that this is an opportunity for them.

grifters gotta grift

Re:another win for the 1%

[IamTheRealMike]

Yes, I had the same experience the few times I've used Uber. The drivers always seem happy. They don't feel like they're being exploited and often feel it was an upgrade on what they were previously doing. The flexibility comes up a lot too.

Whilst it's just anecdotes, that would still seem to be a serious problem for the "Uber is exploiting the poor proles" camp.

Re:another win for the 1%

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in graduate school now working on a PhD so admittedly I am a little out of touch with piece work... but not that long ago you could still get that kind of work, how do I know -- because as a 13 year old back in 1992, my mom, my younger sister and I worked doing some piece work making those nice natural wreaths you see in shopping malls for 0.25 each ... the men and women in the shop who were good could crank out about one every 5-10 minutes, I could make one in about an hour. Before you think this was in the some backward country, I was living in the US at the time with a green card and all that jazz.

Re:another win for the 1%

[micahraleigh]

I'm not sure how it matters what the herd is frowning upon.

Also, that group is frequently over stated (e.g. the Bolshiveks and national socialists never got a real majority of anything).

Re:another win for the 1%

[micahraleigh]

Most people who buy lunch at McDonald's just want to pay for their meal. They don't want to pay for someone's children's college.

How is that any different?

Re:another win for the 1%

[avandesande]

Except that 'reliable income' has become somewhat of an illusion and is more of a euphemism for putting all your eggs in one basket. If you have 2 or 3 (or more) gigs going on like most tradesmen did before the industrial revolution and one of your sources evaporates up you are not high and dry.

Of course this makes it important to run your household like a business and saving money for the future, this is alien to most consumers who live hand to mouth.

Re:another win for the 1%

[swell]

micahraleigh says: "Most people who buy lunch at McDonald's just want to pay for their meal. They don't want to pay for someone's children's college. "

True, but you've mistaken the tree for the forest. The reality is most people don't want to pay for anything. We live in the time where 'something for nothing' is the goal. If it comes from slave labor in some far away country, that's someone else' problem.

We also live in a time when few people will accept responsibility. That's why we have the government, the corporations and the 1% we have. We vote with our dollars, we vote with our apathy, we vote with ignorance and we will pay the price in the long run.

Re:another win for the 1%

[fluffernutter]

You expect Uber drivers to understand their total affect on the economy once there are 100x more than there are today? You think they will still have the same deal once the 'gig economy' gains traction? Uber is just the first company of many.

Re:another win for the 1%

[trout007]

The problem is as follows. Employees like every producer want to have very few competitors, be able to charge a high price, and have steady predicable income. But as consumers we want the opposite. We want lots of choices, low prices, and be able to change the provider of our goods and services at whim. These are directly opposed.

If your policies favor the former you will get a market with a few, expensive, and slow changing products and services. If you favor the latter you will have a market with plenty of cheap and ever evolving products to meet consumers demands.

The goal of all lobbyists is to favor the former for their particular company or industry while favoring the latter for the rest of the economy.

Re:another win for the 1%

[micahraleigh]

Interesting, so you are equating the actions of an individual here with a corporation. At least you are playing fair in that respect.

Slave labor, to me, is half-freedom (you can buy from anywhere, but the suppliers coerce work out of their workers). If you are talking about very low pay, but the workers are free to leave, then they are choosing it over the alternative (which they are determining for themselves to be actually worse).

When the government of Fiji comes in and says the fishing companies have to pay for free health care and the companies relocate and everyone loses their jobs (true story) the workers are the ones who lose.

Re:another win for the 1%

[swell]

micahraleigh says: "When the government of Fiji comes in and says the fishing companies have to pay for free health care and the companies relocate and everyone loses their jobs (true story) the workers are the ones who lose."

In an ideal universe, the free press would tell consumers what had happened. In an ideal world, consumers would re-think doing business with those fishing companies. In an ideal world, fishing companies who were respectable, who provided for employees, who didn't kill other species, who went 'green' etc; those companies would find thoughtful consumers flocking to them.

Wouldn't it be great to have a free press? Free to tell us about defective products, and dangerous products like cigarettes? Free to tell us about worker exploitation? Free to tell us about suicides among Chinese workers who make our toys? As long as they depend on corporations for advertising, they are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds them. There is some free press but it's not easy to find and some times you have to pay to keep them going.

There are many people who NEED the low priced products available from McDonalds and Walmart. But there are many more who could be more thoughtful in their purchases.

Re:another win for the 1%

[Anonymous Coward]

Would that piece work that one could make a living (ish) off of become more available, my wife might find it easier to find and keep a job in light of a chronic but inconsistent health issue. With a piece work job, she could make money on the days (or even the hours) that she can work, and on the days she can't, she wouldn't have to stress about finding someone to cover her shift, calling out, making sure she hasn't used up all her available time, worrying that she'll be fired for not being able to make it in and not having to decide whether it's worth driving in to work to do a few hours of work only to have to leave a few hours later because her health won't let her work the continuous 8 hour shift, never mind that she could easily put another 4 hours in later that day if only she didn't have a set shift. I for one welcome a future were non-time based compensation is a viable alternative again.

Re:another win for the 1%

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand where you are coming from but there may be some things you are overlooking.
"People raising a family, paying a mortgage, saving for retirement or children's education need a reliable income. Corporations don't want to get weighed down with that burden--they want people that they can call when needed and dump when the need passes."

I think that the "reliable income" you are referring to is what enslaves people to corporations to begin with. People don't feel the need to save because their income is "reliable" and so they spend it all. How many people do you know that have the most expensive house they could possibly afford and the most expensive car(s) too? They did that because of their reliable income.

Once you get to that mindset (and debt level) they can't possibly quit their job to start their own business or just take a break to do a project that is interesting to them. I understand the sweet nectar that the "reliable" paycheck is but what you have missed is that corporations used that to get what they wanted - not the opposite as you have been lead to believe.

Normal

[nospam007]

"at least one major candidate"

Well, the Republican candidates are not so versed in operating the series of tubes.

They have their church-app and an online bible and that's it.

Re:Normal

[Anonymous Coward]

I think at least one of them has Trump: The app

Russell Brand makes a good argument

[bigsexyjoe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

We don't need to shovel more money into Goldman Sachs.

Time for the old Reagan quote

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

(Hillary's) view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Re:Time for the old Reagan quote

[fahrbot-bot]

(Hillary's) view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

And the Republican's view? If they're not rich, tax them; if they keep moving, ignore them; if they stop moving, forget them.

Re:Time for the old Reagan quote

[rubycodez]

nope, if they stop moving incarcerate them for victimless crimes, prisons are big money

Free? Who said anything about free?

[zerofoo]

I want to pay market prices for everything I consume. No one suggested that anything or anyone should be free.

Protectionist laws are not labor laws

[zerofoo]

Laws protecting an outdated business model are far different that laws that protect individual laborers.

I'm OK with workplace safety laws. I'm not OK with laws that prop up obsolete businesses.

Re:Protectionist laws are not labor laws

[FranTaylor]

I'm OK with workplace safety laws. I'm not OK with laws that prop up obsolete businesses.

Republicans tell us that safe workplaces are obsolete!

Re:Protectionist laws are not labor laws

[DerekLyons]

Laws protecting an outdated business model are far different that laws that protect individual laborers.

I'm OK with workplace safety laws. I'm not OK with laws that prop up obsolete businesses.

The problem isn't laws that prop up obsolete businesses, it's folks that regard any business that isn't shiny and new and app and mobile friendly as obsolete. And damn the workers so long as the self absorbed class get theirs.

It's telling that you don't seem to support laws that protect employees from predatory employers - you only seem to care that they're "safe".

Re:Protectionist laws are not labor laws

[fahrbot-bot]

Laws protecting an outdated business model are far different that laws that protect individual laborers.

I'm OK with workplace safety laws. I'm not OK with laws that prop up obsolete businesses.

Okay. Since we've been discussing Uber vs. Taxis, don't Taxi companies have to follow stricter rules and have commercial insurance whereas Uber has to ??? Does that make Taxis an "outdated business model" vs. Uber or is it just that Uber is current;y getting away with being less regulated? Not all regulations are bad - like those concerning safety and liability.

Re:Protectionist laws are not labor laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Contractors get no workplace safety laws, and Uber wants laws to be changed in order to create a new class of employee that's below contractor on the totem.

Re:Protectionist laws are not labor laws

[Anonymous Coward]

If so, then the same companies, who also happen to export their profits out of the country, should be exempt from:
* Copyright, trademark and patent laws
* Police
* Firemen
* MIlitary support
* Infrastructure
* Etc.

Captcha: fulfills

Re:Protectionist laws are not labor laws

[Anonymous Coward]

it's those "folks" choice to give their business to any company they like.

If I don't want to go to a particular bar anymore because I don't like the service, I like another bar better, I stopped drinking, or any reason whatsoever, it's not my concern where the bartender will be getting his tips.

Similarly, I'm not being part of a 'self absorbed "class"' if I want to give my money to an uber driver rather than a taxi driver. It's both of their choices to be uber drivers and taxi drivers respectively.

Whether or not a business is obsolete isn't decided by its employees but by its customers. If the workers are working a model that the customers don't want anymore, yes, they're damned if they don't change and adapt.

If you have strong feelings otherwise I'd like to know why you haven't been patronizing your friendly local horse breeder, buggy and whip manufacturer, and insist on using these newfangled "automobiles" that are putting so many hard workers out of a job you self absorbed bastard! Similarly, how can you stomach wearing those clothes made my machines? Can't you see you're ruining the livelihood of proud, hard working loom operators? Oh...hundreds of years ago you say? My mistake.

Adapt or perish.

Re:Protectionist laws are not labor laws

[fluffernutter]

If customers didn't want the model any more then they would abolish the law instead of supporting a company that is clearly breaking it.

Re:Protectionist laws are not labor laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they tell us that? I think they are all ass clowns but some sort of citation would be nice for a claim like this.

Re:Protectionist laws are not labor laws

[rail2rail]

How about slashing the OSHA budget? http://www.npr.org/2011/03/01/...

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[FranTaylor]

I want to pay market prices for everything I consume. No one suggested that anything or anyone should be free.

then why don't you pay double for your gasoline? you are getting a 50% discount thanks to government subsidies

and you should also be paying more for milk and other dairy products whose prices are artificially lowered by government actions

Isn't this more about full-time employment?

[barlevg]

Isn't this more in line with Jeb Bush saying what we need is more stable, 40-hour-a-week jobs, as opposed to part-time work and unreliable "gigs?" I don't see this as calling for regulation of Uber et. al but rather trying to boost economic sectors that provide stable employment. But maybe I'm wrong!

Re:Isn't this more about full-time employment?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a lie. You fucking lie. You are a liar. Anyone who believes you is also a liar because believing a liar makes you a liar. That is what you and your kind are.

The Bush Crime Family most certainly does not want more 40 hour a week jobs. As they've said and proven time and time again, they don't want to allow us jobs at all. They only want us to live off of the government so the government can control our lives. They want to be able to decide who lives and who starves to death. That is why they're working so hard to take food from the mouths of Americans by reducing welfare. They hate us.

Re:Isn't this more about full-time employment?

[Anonymous Coward]

> more stable, 40-hour-a-week jobs

No, his family wants us to work 80 hours a week from the time we're twelve. Their kind doesn't want to provide education for children. They want children to work. That is why they hate public schools, especially teachers. His family has also fought against providing healthcare for the poor. They want the poor to die from lack of money. Lack of money shouldn't be a death sentence like they want it to be. They want you to die if you can't afford care. Die.

Re:Isn't this more about full-time employment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeb Bush and Hillary are just two sides of the same coin. They just work for different masters. One for a criminal family and the other for criminal corporations. To a normal person, there is no difference if you get screwed by a Jeb or by a Hillary. It's the same result.

Either way, Jeb wants you to not have a job, so your "40-hour-a-week" comment is just plain wrong. Like the rest of the Republicans, he believes in big and powerful government, and the best way to make you dependent on the government is to make sure you don't have a job and live off of the government.

Re:Isn't this more about full-time employment?

[ULTRAJOE]

say what?

Re:Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

The latter, and that these "gig economy" companies haven't sent lobbyists and donations to her yet.

Who give a flying fuck what she thinks?

[jcr]

Hillary Clinton knows precisely squat about how people make an honest living. She gets paid because her cronies are hedging their bets in case she wins the election.

-jcr

Not seeing the problem

[sjbe]

Uber is an illegal cab company and should just be shut down.

It is not clearly illegal in many places and even it it is illegal in places it is not clear that it should be illegal. If Uber is providing competition in the taxi industry then more power to them. If they are innovating in an industry that sorely needs it then I see no reason to prohibit that. It sounds to me like a lot of taxi companies have had a sweetheart deal for a long time and are pissed off that they are having to compete. Not seeing why I should be sympathetic.

If Uber puts the cab companies out of business it most certainly take away a lot of "real" jobs.

If the cab companies get put out of business because they are inefficient and can't compete then they deserve to go out of business. I see no reason that they deserve special protection from competition. The fact that they bought overpriced taxi medallions (read artificial scarcity) is not my problem. That was a risk they took. Just because some drivers get replaced with other drivers is not a problem and it certainly isn't "taking away real jobs".

Furthermore, we'll all be slaves to "surge pricing".

Spare me the hyperbole. "Slaves"? Only if there are no other transportation options. You think Uber will have no competition? Furthermore what is wrong with pricing having something to do with supply and demand? A taxi SHOULD be more expensive when there is more demand for taxis. That's how it works.

And make no mistake, surge pricing is going to increase drunk driving fatalities.

And your evidence for this is what exactly?

Re: Not seeing the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear you on that but the problem is taxi companies have laws and regulations they have to follow, uber drivers do not. That is why uber
Is cheaper. Make uber drivers follow the same laws and regulations as a taxi company and then it's an even playing field. Game on, play ball.

Re:Not seeing the problem

[bigsexyjoe]

It is illegal. The drivers don't have taxi medallions.

"If the cab companies get put out of business because they are inefficient and can't compete then they deserve to go out of business." No cab companies provide real jobs, Uber does not.

What I said about drunk driving is obvious.

Re:Not seeing the problem

[hendrips]

The United States consists of more than New York City and Chicago, you know. There is no taxi medallion system in my city, nor in Washington DC, Minneapolis, or Denver, just to pick a few names at random. All of Uber's services are perfectly legal where I live. I don't see how you have disproven his point.

Re: Not seeing the problem

[TsuruchiBrian]

It is not the *only* reason why uber is cheaper. It is one of the reasons uber is cheaper. Also, uber is not always cheaper. When there is surge pricing, it is actually more expensive. When taxis are in high demand and low supply, you are unlikely to be able to get a traditional cab, but if you are willing to pay the market value, you can still get an uber car.

It's not as if there is nothing that can be improved about taxi systems across the world in the way of efficiency.

Re:Not seeing the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you seem a bit obtuse on the issue. If prices for a ride home are unpredictable then many people will choose to drive home drunk instead of taking a cab. That is a pretty reasonable assumption since its one of the major reasons people drive drunk anyway.

The trouble with Uber is that it solves a problem with technology that existed many years ago when we weren't regulating taxis. With their reputation system for both drivers and users they have it pretty well under control without government regulation. It's an interesting time we live in as this is now possible in all sorts of industries.

Re:Not seeing the problem

[KGIII]

I drove drunk all the time. No OUIs, no accidents, no anything really other than a lot of stupid risky behavior. It has never been a financial thing. It has been a "freedom" thing meaning I can go and come when I want without needing to rely on the service or goodwill of others. Do keep in mind that I was termed a functional alcoholic and drank daily from the mid 70s until just less than three years ago. This does not make me an expert but it does make me well versed in my own beliefs and the beliefs of other drunks. (We are the professional drunks, thank you. You hobbyists need not apply.)

The only bad thing about learning to drive while drunk is when someone informs you that you can actually still see the road when seeing double, you need only close one eye. I sort of wish I never learned that - while true it is amazing that I never killed anyone or myself. It may also help to know my MOS was 3505 (motor pool) where I drove a number of different vehicles and was quite frequently inebriated. Your tax dollars taught me how to drive and how to drive well, they also taught me how to drive drunk.

No, I will probably never get drunk again. (I have had a beer with a buddy a few times but I limit myself to one.) I am simply too good at drinking and a professional has to retire at some point and it is best to do when you are still in your prime. Also, the withdrawals and detox were so absolutely vile that I was truly near death - alcohol (and benzos) is actually deadly when you have serious withdrawals. Do not want... I do encourage others to drink on my behalf though. I am not an asshole in recovery. I am just an asshole.

Re:Not seeing the problem

[david_thornley]

Uber also often doesn't pay attention to making sure their drivers are appropriately insured and licensed. I consider these as more egregious than not having medallions.

Re:Not seeing the problem

[rossz]

The cities that have overly strict medallion systems also have a history of corruption. Coincidence? I think not.

Re:Not seeing the problem

[dywolf]

it's illegal if it's taxi company that ignores taxi regulations.

be like running a powerplant that ignores emissions rules, or a restruant that ignores health codes.

Re:Why

[Anonymous Coward]

Donald Trump is a far better candidate for the Presidency than Hillary Clinton and that's really saying something. At least Donald Trump has accomplishments he can point to, what can Hillary point to? Getting four Americans killed while Secretary of State?

Literacy

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it doesn't. that's a supreme court assault on freedom. The constitution says the feds can regulate "interstate commerce". The Supremes decided that means they can tell you that may not grow corn in your garden but that you must buy health insurance. Neither of those are in the constitution.

Re:Literacy

[FranTaylor]

have you read your state's constitution? they can regulate commerce within your state and tax you

Re:Literacy

[Anonymous Coward]

the fact that they _can_ (cause they have power) does not mean that they _may_

Juat another euphemism...

[ewhenn]

The term 'gig economy" is just a euphemism for day laborer. We did this back before unions when there would be lines of people waiting to work, if you got hurt or sick they tossed you out with the rest of the rubbish and hired another replaceable and worthless person to take your place. Is this really what we want to go back to?

Re:Juat another euphemism...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, so you're talking about TEMP services or Manpower? How many of those litter this country? Did you think govt took you past day laborers? Sorry to piss in your Wheaties.

Uber is at will - I say it is more like supplemental cash.

Re:Juat another euphemism...

[internerdj]

I started my career with Manpower. There was healthcare and a 401k program. That isn't nearly the same thing as what gp was talking about.

Re:Juat another euphemism...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the cat's out of the bag...

Re:Juat another euphemism...

[tomhath]

The term 'gig economy" is just a euphemism for day laborer.

That's completely wrong; "gig economy" implies you have something to offer that others are willing to pay for. It's your decision whether to accept the offered price. Nobody can fire you.

Re:Juat another euphemism...

[sabbede]

What? No, that's utter nonsense. Being self-employed could not be more unlike what you describe.

Just another euphemism...

[ewhenn]

The term 'gig economy" is just a euphemism for day laborer. We did this back before unions when there would be lines of people waiting to work, if you got hurt or sick they tossed you out with the rest of the rubbish and hired another replaceable and worthless person to take your place. Is this really what we want to go back

Re:Just another euphemism...

[catsRus]

The government and their rich over lords have screwed things up so bad that a lot of folks are just happy to work! It is not the people trying to survive that is the problem, it is the best government money can buy that is the problem. And HC is just selling it to the highest bidder again. Funny how you claim to help the little people by fucking them over!

Why not?

[MikeRT]

Maybe you're OK with taking in peoples' wash and sewing for low pay, no benefits or sick days, and a friendly "fuck you" when you're too old to work, but most people are not.

And most people have no real job skills that the market values. So where does that leave us? With a bunch of entitled, low-skilled people who think that being an awesome burger flipper or retail clerk should entitle them to a 2000ft^2 apartment or home, an iPhone, cable package, nice car and full health care coverage. This is despite the fact that their input into the economy is barely a drop in the bucket compared to what they expect to come back to them.

Don't whine about human rights and dignity here. Mathematics doesn't give a shit what you think is the right thing to do. The health care demands coupled with what people want to do with their bodies in modern industrial societies alone is beyond the productive capacity of modern economics to provide. That's why health care is becoming unsustainable even in countries that use socialized medicine aside from Cuba (which has some structural advantages such as being able to use medical workers' family members as incentives to work efficiently)

Re: Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe the economic engine cannot provide basic needs for the people you are thinking too small. We have successfully engineered our way to where we are now, no reason throw in the towel and say that mountain cannot be climbed.

Re:Why not?

[PopeRatzo]

And most people have no real job skills that the market values.

I would say that's more of an indictment of the "market" than it is of peoples' job skills.

Re:Why

[FranTaylor]

At least Donald Trump has accomplishments he can point to

please provide a link to all of his political accomplishments

That doesn't look like much of a stance

[damn_registrars]

She seems to be pointing out that they exist, but not really taking much of a stance on whether she thinks that is good or not. In other words, she's just being a politician.

Great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Great idea. Restrict employment opportunities because they are not 'good enough' when real unemployment is over 10%.

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you off your meds again?

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[danbert8]

[Citation Needed] Considering close to 1/4 of the price of gas in most places in the US is ALREADY taxes, that would be a hard number to back up. Or are you comparing the price here to the even higher taxed fuel in other countries and calling that a "subsidy"?

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[Anonymous Coward]

And how do you propose we price shared resources like the environment? If building your widget contributes to pollution you should be required to pay a fee for that. Trust me, you'd rather the government set that fee than having the community agree.

How do you want to get your goods? Should the market price for s also include the price of building a robust transportation network? Maybe the government can do that too.

Oh wait you want to order something online? guess the market price needs to account for a global telecommunications network as well.

You are wrong on the U.S. Constitutional breadth

[deck]

The Constitution of the United States (not your personal constitution, not the unwritten constitutional law of Great Britain, etc.) limits the Federal government to the regulation of Interstate Commerce. It should not have the scope to regulate business that does not cross the boundaries of the many States. For example, if I sell produce raised in the garden on my land to my neighbors or at a stand on the road I live on or even to a local store, I am not engaging in interstate commerce as my reach does not cross State lines. Now the State or the County or the City/Town/Village that I live in may regulate my business; but that is not encompassed by the U.S. Constitution. I know there are people who believe that we don't live in such an environment but in a totally top down government like those in many other parts of the world. And there are those who are wishing it were that way and even those who are fighting to make it top down. But it isn't so yet. Hillary Clinton is one of the latter. She and the Democrat Party would like nothing more than turning the States into mere departments of the Federal Government wherein the big cities of the East and West coasts could suck the money, life and freedom from the rest of the country. They desire the world of the Hunger Games.

'Nuf said.

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[phantomfive]

That's really stupid. That's like asking someone, "If you support higher taxes, why don't you just pay it yourself?" Such comments add nothing to the conversation.

If you went to a gas station and said, "I want to pay extra for my gas" the attendant wouldn't even know what to do.

Piece work

[sjbe]

Not long before you were born there was a system of employment called 'piece work'. If you work in a sweat shop or on a farm or in a factory, you got paid according to what you produced. Usually this meant that you worked your butt off and still got paid less than hourly workers. This has been frowned upon until recently.

Piece work is still around and in many cases it is a very appropriate way to pay for services rendered. If I'm an employer and I've got two employees and one is twice as productive as the other, why should they receive equal pay? What is the less productive person doing that makes them worth just as much despite doing less work? If the piece work rate is too low that is a different issue but there is nothing inherently wrong with compensating on a piece work basis.

Furthermore piece work is used in many place you aren't really thinking about it. Doctors get paid per-procedure which is basically piece work. (it's why they have to hustle through so many patients) Truckers often get paid per delivery or per mile which is basically piece work. Lots of professions get compensated on a piece work basis that have nothing to do with making widgets and there is nothing wrong with that. Piece work incentivizes efficient deliver of services.

The problem with piece work is that it can also incentivize shoddy quality if there aren't controls in place to keep quality high. Sometimes that is not easy to do which is why piece work isn't used in some place where it might otherwise make sense.

People raising a family, paying a mortgage, saving for retirement or children's education need a reliable income.

A reliable income can be assured through having valuable skills and working hard. If you lack a valuable skill and/or are not willing to work hard then a reliable income will be hard to come by. People are not and should not be entitled to a reliable income merely for existing - they need to earn it. Your choice to have a family or buy a house isn't my problem. Work hard and develop some skills that others value and chances are you'll do fine.

Corporations don't want to get weighed down with that burden--they want people that they can call when needed and dump when the need passes.

So corporations are supposed to pay people to sit idle and do nothing? How many people do you employ so that they can sit on their ass and collect a paycheck for no work? I'm guessing you've never run a company. I do run a manufacturing company. Paying people to do nothing (read work inefficiently) is pretty much the best way I know of to put a company into bankruptcy. No company should be required to employ someone when there is no work for them to perform or if they are providing sub-standard performance.

nobody complains

[FranTaylor]

when government regulation lowers prices

they only complain when government regulation raises prices

do you hear people complaining about how they pay too little for milk or wheat or butter or gasoline?

without government supports they would be paying a lot more

where are the complaints?

Re:nobody complains

[zerosomething]

when government regulation lowers prices

Citation needed

Re:nobody complains

[FranTaylor]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dairy_Price_Support_Program

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/price-support/Index

Re:nobody complains

[CrimsonAvenger]

Umm, those cites talk about the government RAISING prices, not lowering them.

The Feds set the MINIMUM price above market level, then buy up and remove from the market enough product to keep the market price at or slightly above the MINIMUM.

Basically, they're encouraging farmers to produce more dairy products than the market needs just to sell to the Feds....

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not so sure about milk. The USA has very high prices for milk. In North America (aka Canada because it is North of America formerly know as the USA) milk is a lot cheaper. My understanding is that milk is highly regulated and prices are actually higher because of it. I agree with you on petrol though.

Sad, many will vote for this idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

What Uber shows us is there is a demand for a service. What Hilljerry shows us is there is no way her corporate and union buddies can compete, so she will position herself to either eliminate or regulate to death.

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[cirby]

I want to pay market prices for everything I consume. No one suggested that anything or anyone should be free.

then why don't you pay double for your gasoline? you are getting a 50% discount thanks to government subsidies

You do realize that's completely false, right?

I know some nutcases like to pretend that the oil companies get untold billions in subsidies, but when you look at the actual numbers, it's just plain false. There's an "$18 billion" subsidy number tossed around, but that's because they include regular old tax deductions. You know, the kind (and amount) that every business gets. A lot of folks are annoyed that oil companies can deduct exploration costs, but that's no different than any business expense.

The single largest "subsidy" due to direct government spending is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve - where the government buys oil - at market prices (no bonuses), and keeps it, until they can use if for things like lowering oil prices when it's politically expedient.

Currently, the US consumes about 140 billion gallons of gasoline a year. Which would mean that, at current $3/gallon prices, we'd have to subsidize by about a half a TRILLION dollars a year. Someone would notice a check that large...

No, government "subsidies" don't cut your gas prices by half - but government taxes increase them by a fairly large amount.

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[chihowa]

Well, he's paying for the government subsidies through taxes, so why would he pay that fraction again until the subsidies are discontinued? Since the subsidies are many steps above his interaction at the retail stores, by what mechanism would he even pay the extra money if he wanted to?

In your mind, are those the only two options available to us? Have the government restrict the things that we can do for our own good or voluntarily pay extra to subsidized industries. Your argument doesn't make any sense.

Re:Why

[fahrbot-bot]

At least Donald Trump has accomplishments he can point to

please provide a link to all of his political accomplishments

Well, he filed for bankruptcy four times, oh wait, you said "political" accomplishments - never mind.

Re:You are wrong on the U.S. Constitutional breadt

[FranTaylor]

have you read your state constitution? where did i say US constitution? your state constitution gives your state the right to regulate commerce within its borders and levy taxes

For highly regulated e-commerce, vote Hillary

[zerosomething]

If you want lots of government controls over Uber, Etcy, and any other new idea for making money then vote for Hillary. If you don't, then don't vote for her. It's really that simple.

Re:For highly regulated e-commerce, vote Hillary

[fluffernutter]

Regulations keep you and I from getting screwed over. You realize that right?

Except that, in the US

[wiredog]

There is the Second Amendment, and lots of guns.

The Republicans may not realize that, but...

No reason to protect inefficient cab companies

[sjbe]

It is illegal. The drivers don't have taxi medallions.

It is NOT illegal in many places. Plenty of places don't require medallions and there are no laws against companies like Uber in those places. Furthermore even if it is illegal IT SHOULDN'T BE. I haven't heard a single compelling economic or moral argument that we should protect traditional cab companies at the expense of companies like Uber.

No cab companies provide real jobs, Uber does not.

Both provide taxi services. Both get compensated for that service. QED both are "real jobs", whatever that means. To be perfectly clear, I don't care about protecting traditional cab companies or their drivers. They can compete like everyone else or they can go out of business. You have provided zero reason why we should protect these companies. If another company can provide the same service, make a profit and provide better value to customers then so be it. By your logic we should all still be working on a farm because that is a "real job".

What I said about drunk driving is obvious.

You made an unsupported assertion without evidence based on your own opinions. Back it up with facts. If you are actually correct that should not be difficult. The fact that you believe it to be "obvious" does not make it true.

Re:No reason to protect inefficient cab companies

[meta-monkey]

My guess is that Uber fees can (or will?) go up during times of high demand, unlike taxi prices which are regulated. So prices for picking up drunks at 2am will increase, prompting drunks to figure "nah, I can make it" and drive instead.

I have no idea if that's a valid assumption, but it's what I gather he's getting at.

Re:No reason to protect inefficient cab companies

[TsuruchiBrian]

Gievn that you usually pay for uber with a credit card, I would think a drunk would be more likely not to notice the price and order the uber car anyway. If taxis are actually in high demand and low supply at the time, then chances are it will also be hard to get a traditional cab (that is priced below market value). The drunk may actually be able to still get an uber car, even if they may regret the bill the next morning.

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[FranTaylor]

the US navy protects oil tankers at sea, they don't collect a dime from the oil companies for the escort service

can we get government escorts when we go grocery shopping?

Wow case of do what I say and not as I do...

[mrlinux11]

Hilary has the nerve to mention making money in the gig economy with all of her and her husbands gigs giving speeches.

Re:Why

[Krishnoid]

Intelligently and thoroughly schooling a naysayer in how dangerous China is to US interests, for one.

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[FranTaylor]

Your argument doesn't make any sense.

so therefore the whole concept of "wanting to pay market prices" is just bullshit

This is why we need a Star Trek economy

[Anonymous Coward]

These problems and more go away when you have a "Star Trek" economy, where everyone's basic needs are covered by society (notice how we skirted that scary word 'government'). Then, if you want to give folks a ride for the heck of it, nobody suffers.

Re:This is why we need a Star Trek economy

[rubycodez]

oh do I get my own phaser, photon bombs and starship. No? That's not fair, the white starfleet academy boy gets one

US boom in 1950s a result of WW2

[perpenso]

Regulated monopolies are not good for any economy.

the us economy flourished in the 1950s with regulated telephones and regulated taxicabs and regulated airfares

The US economy flourished because it had just modernized during World War II and many other industrial nations had their economies wrecked during the war. Plus US industry was heavily "subsidized" by the government financed reconstruction of many of those countries devastated by war.

When making such comparisons always keep in mind the caveat of the statistician and economist, "all other things being equal". In the 1950s they were not.

Re:US boom in 1950s a result of WW2

[dywolf]

the economy and the middle class flourished because of all those evil leftist things, like workers rights, unions, minimum wages, and regulations.

then, after fattening the cows (the middle class), they started stripping those things away, and while the economy still continues to grow as they suck the life out of the middle class it will eventually come to a halt when the idle class can't be sucked any drier.

Wickard v. Filburn; state constitutions

[tepples]

The Constitution of the United States [...] limits the Federal government to the regulation of Interstate Commerce.

This power to regulate includes protecting businesses that engage in interstate commerce from unfair competition from intrastate-only businesses. Wickard v. Filburn.

Now the State or the County or the City/Town/Village that I live in may regulate my business

And this is the level of government that most commonly bans things like Uber and Airbnb.

Re:Wickard v. Filburn; state constitutions

[Anonymous Coward]

This power to regulate includes protecting businesses that engage in interstate commerce from unfair competition from intrastate-only businesses. Wickard v. Filburn.

The decision reached in Wickard v. Filburn was a blatant violation of the oaths sworn by the judges to uphold the Bill of Rights. A number of rights arising under the Bill of Rights, in particular the 9th and 10th Amendment, come into play here, especially the right to ethical practice of law, with the implications that right has for the scope of government authority.

Putting this into terms that will make more sense to those that don't understand legal ethics issues, the federal government would have the authority to do anything it wanted if this decision were valid, because pretty much anything could be argued as having an impact on interstate commerce. You want a breathe without paying somebody for oxygen (apologies to Heinlein)? Well, the government can regulate that, because your freedom to breathe without paying interferes with the freedom of somebody else in another state to charge you for the oxygen you use! Not much you can do without oxygen, so the commerce clause effectively applies to everything. Breathing is interstate commerce, as is anything you do while you breathe.

Those familiar with the debates over ratification of the Constitution will immediately recognize Wickard v. Filburn as invalid. The state governments that were afraid of federal power would not have given the federal government a carte blanche to do anything it wanted.

Those oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights being preconditions for holding high office, the judges involved disqualified themselves from their positions by violating them. Not surprising that FDR's hand-picked judges backed his policies, but they should have had more integrity and sense.

The Nuremberg Precedent being applicable to US law under the 9th Amendment, all legal professionals have an individual and personal responsibility under their oaths to recognize this decision as invalid and act accordingly.

Given that United States v. Lopez (1995) was the first major decision in six decades to go contrary to Wickard v Filburn, we could conclude that a lot of oath-breaking goes in the legal profession, but perhaps they are finally coming to their senses. Six decades seems about right for correcting insanity, it took about that long to end slavery, and later took about that long to end the Jim Crow laws. Getting the legal profession to act ethically is a very slow process.

Not only that

[ThatsNotPudding]

Soon, even 1.21 gigawatts won't be enough to make ends meet (in time).

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is a free market without a government? Without a government there is no property, property is defined by laws and regulations that only exist within a construction with a ruling class. Without a government there is no agreement on what to use to exchange products between two entities. Without a government there is no capitalism. Can there be a free market without capitalism? Isn't that what anarchistic communism is about? But isn't anarchistic communism as system of self governing entities that fail to produce what the market wants? Doesn't anarchistic communism form a supra communistic entity in order to plan what the market needs? But isn't that supra communistic entity that makes decisions for the people the opposite of free market? And wouldn't it be better if a kind of entity would replace the supra communistic entity to protect the free market? An entity where the population can vote for decision makers who they think make the best decisions, an entity that we now call ... a government?

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[OhPlz]

Part of the role of the navy for any country is to protect the shipping routes.

I need gigs to survive, since...

[Anonymous Coward]

her husband exported all the living wage jobs via NAFTA. I do have a "job", but they can't hire me full time because then they would be required to pay for my healthcare. So after NAFTA and Obamacare, gigs are the only way I can make ends meet. Basically, Democrats destroyed all the living wage jobs and now want to be elected in order to kill off all the gigs, too? Fuck no. I will do the unthinkable and actively campaign for Republicans, before I let the Democrats kill my last source of income and force me onto government handouts. Again, fuck no.

taxi drivers have full insurance any time uber

[Anonymous Coward]

taxi drivers have full insurance any time uber / lift has lot's of kind of's with that.

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[meta-monkey]

If you went to a gas station and said, "I want to pay extra for my gas" the attendant wouldn't even know what to do.

Pocket the extra cash?

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[PeteJanda]

You forgot to mention the cost of all the military excursions into and ensuing expenditures on the Middle East. It's anyone's guess how much of the DoD's ~$750 billion annual budget can be traced to protecting oil interests, but I'd be surprised if it were less than 10%.

How does Uber even exist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't we write an open-source app that coordinates ride shares without skimming a profit? Can't we just implement at-cost automation of most of society at this point?

Corrupt City Governments

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you forgot about the corrupt political machines that run big cities and feed off of the kick backs from monopoly taxi licenses like a cows udder.

Yes, Hillary Clinton is Corrupt

[Anonymous Coward]

Think. Are big cab companies among Hillary Clinton's big corporate donors? I'd say she's a lot more likely to get money from Uber than from non-existent multi-national cab companies.

The Democratic Party is the party of Big Cities. The wheels of Big City political machines are greased by the system of kickbacks from the medallion owners who will launder bribes through the "right" party connected lawyers. So yes Hillary Clinton is clearly looking out for her own self interest by looking out for the self interest of the big city political machines when she goes after a local licensing issue like this. This is a pyramid of corruption issue and Hillary Clinton is at the top of that Pyramid.

Re:Why

[TsuruchiBrian]

What counts as a political accomplishment? Convincing everyone you were pro gay marriage the whole time, now that it is popular?

Just Like H1b

[Anonymous Coward]

You know that Uber and Lyft are just like the H1-b program, right? I know that there are an awful lot of IT people here who piss and moan when Disney or some other large corporation decides to outsource to H1-b contractors. So how is it different when you decide to bypass the mechanisms put in place to control taxis?

There are laws that prevent a company from making you work less than four hours. Wel those laws are now under attack since they've successfully killed overtime and vacation.

Internet Commenter Knows Best

[chispito]

Even though Clinton is wrong on this, you're fooling yourself if you think you can always get past your own immediate self interest to see how changes to the big picture come back around to affect you. I hate getting my car smogged. It's expensive, it's a pain, and it feels like my car couldn't possibly be doing that much damage. But I would hate going to back to the way it was when I was a kid, and my lungs would hurt on Summer afternoons from all the crap in the air.

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[operagost]

then why don't you pay double for your gasoline? you are getting a 50% discount thanks to government subsidies

Yeah... the government already took tax money from me and gave it to oil companies. Obviously, that is not a free market, but I won't fault you for not understanding that because it's above the level of your third grade Social Studies class. By the way, your mom says it's time for dinner.

Re:Why

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk is cheap.

Guess where his clothing line is made?

Trump is just like the Waltons, banging the USA drum with one hand while selling us out to to China with the other.

Trump also said he had a huge bombshell to drop on Obama, haven't seen that yet either.

The Clinton Chronicles

[MagickalMyst]

A documentary on the sordid history of the Clintons.

Management as Automated Competitive Service

[Jodka]

In the gig enonomy, you no longer work for a boss who controls you. Instead, you choose from what automated service to purchase the management work which he/she formerly performed.

The so-called "gig economy" replaces inflexible and inefficient management and regulatory structures with flexible, competitive, efficient and inherently fair and safe automated services. It is the continuation of two trends: automation and the transition to a more efficient horizontally-integrated economy away from a vertically-integrated economy. Now the workers can choose ad hoc services which were traditionally performed by management, choose as an automated electronic service rather than committing to employment under a fixed management and regulatory structure. Computing as service (cloud computing) and the earlier transition to shipping as a service away from in-house shipping departments are two other examples of horizontal restructuring. Eventually everything except core expertise associated with your business identity will move out-of-house and be purchased as a service.

Both customers and workers benefit from replacing the costly and clunky managers and regulators with a competitive, cheap, safe and fair automated services. It is old-style management and government which is useless and burdensome and it is those interests who Hillary appeals for political support. The gig economy is a power-to-the-people trend which Democrats inherently despise. Their own ideologies are power to the politicians, power to the union bosses, power to the trial lawyers, power to the MPAA, Export-Import bank, medicial insurance companies and any other big-business interest will buy their votes. Power to the bureaucrats and regulators, certainly yes. But not power to the people, never to those poor, stupid common people who must be kept under the thumb of their bosses who are, in turn, controlled by the government.

There is an even more insidious problem for Democrats with the gig economy which is that it exposes the many actual workers directly to the massive taxation and regulatory burdens imposed the federal government. And those workers are aghast and horrified by what they now see. A substantial role of business management is as intermediaries between the government and employees, exposing the insane and massive regulatory and tax burdens to relatively few managers at large corporations while shielding the relatively many workers under them from full knowledge. Now when Democrats attempt to apply the burdensome fines, fees, taxes and regulations directly to many small business and individual workers in the gig economy, there is massive public outrage. Democrat politicians are freaking out. For example:

- Chicago just enacted a lunatic Cloud Tax. The liberal entrepreneurs who previously supported Democrats who enacted that tax are furious.

- from Bloomburg, about Bill DeBlasio :

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio presents himself as a champion of the technology industry. The industry says he’s trying to smother progress one app at a time.

  The mayor’s plan to require Uber Technologies Inc., Lyft Inc. and other ride-hailing services to get city approval for upgrades to the user interface on smartphone apps — and to pony up $1,000 each time they do — has rankled a broad swath of companies, with 27 signing a letter protesting his plan. It’s also raised questions about whether the mayor is siding with taxi and limousine owners who helped finance his 2013 campaign.

Expect the same sorts of things from Hillary if she is elected.

Re:Management as Automated Competitive Service

[ErichTheRed]

"Eventually everything except core expertise associated with your business identity will move out-of-house and be purchased as a service."

But guess what? All of those best of breed service providers need to make money and will charge accordingly. At the same time, they will maximize profit by squeezing every single inefficiency out of a process, leading to low wages and/or massive unemployment. Plus, it ends up costing a business more in the long run to outsource anything given that need to make money.

The economy on a macro scale needs some inefficiencies. I'm not touting myself as some uber-genius (pun intended,) but if you've ever worked for a large corporation, look at your co-workers. How many C-student folks have wandered out of college with a generic business degree in the last 40 years and landed in some random corporate department? At the micro scale, you say "That's terrible, we should fire everyone who doesn't contribute over 120% of their goal production every single year." At the macro scale, that argument gets way tougher to make. Each one of those C students pays employment taxes, many pay property taxes, and many are having little C students to keep society moving. Most use that nice comfortable job they have to purchase houses, cars, and other things that make the economy go around. The argument that the world is full of Supermen and Superwomen who could unleash their full potential if the system would just get out of their way is false when you expand it to a real population.

Stay Out of Americans' Business

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary is no different than other bureaucrats -- she wants to control people. She thinks herself and her cronies are "enlightened" and us little people need shepherding. Got news for you, Hillary, and all those like you. I don't need a nanny state and don't want one.

The US is in enough trouble without people letting the market drive innovations and controls, not government. America was built on entrepreneurship like Uber, Lyft, AirBnB, you name it. Someones' garage in the middle of BFE is where the ideas come from.

Hillary, as a government worker, has done nothing to make money for anyone other than herself. In fact, she has done nothing but take from American taxpayers. Getting paid tens of thousands of dollars for a speech? Please. Nothing she says is worth hearing. And, if she's elected, which is looking less and less likely, as Americans are seeing her for what she really is, we are really stupid as a people. None of the candidates on either side are really stellar, but Hillary is not the one to lead what was once the greatest nation on earth. Just say no.

Hillary brags about "womens' rights" yet accepts money from middle eastern donors who oppress women. Take a look and see the percentage of money that actually gets used for charity with her organization versus what goes to support her lavish lifestyle. Public servants should NEVER live lavishly. It's unbecoming. Ditto pastors/priests, ditto social workers, ditto anyone who claims to be a servant, even servant leaders. I'm sick of what America has become. We are headed in the wrong direction.

If that was aiming....

[Anonymous Coward]

...she missed.

Not sure what we are supposed to be talking about as she didn't actually say much of anything.

Not Till Next Year, Asshats

[Anonymous Coward]

The presidential election isn't until November of 2016. I will not espouse any political opinion, nor will I listen to anything any of these candidates have to say until at least a year from now, preferably longer.

If we don't get this under control, there will be non-stop campaigning 24-7 paid for with your tax dollars. Is this the world you want to live in?

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[Archangel Michael]

No, what he calls "subsidies" is actually programs that help people live. There are no "subsidies" for oil, they don't exist (at least directly). These are programs like "strategic oil reserve", and "Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program" (HEAP) are counted as ... you guessed it, "Subsidies".

And nowhere, do liberals ever talk about how much Government actually makes off Oil (Profits taxed, gasoline taxes etc), which amount to way more than what the oil companies get in profits.

IF anyone is getting "rich" off "big oil" it is government. And I can't wait till we are all on Renewable fuels that ARE subsidized, and the government loses a huge amount of their income.

And then you'll see liberals come out and want to tax "Solar Panels" and "biofuels" ....

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is so 90's. The Navy no longer does that, as it's racist to shoot Somali pirates, and we don't do shit about the straits of Melaka, as those are soveirgn territory. Nor do we do anything but bluff when Iran threatens to shut the Straits of Hormuz, as we will lose the carrier battle group before we get permission to shoot back. Further, most of our petroleum comes from the US, Canda, Mexico & Venezuela. Not much threat to the freedom of navigation, nor a carrier group there.

Gig economy = bad for society

[ErichTheRed]

I know most techies are devout Ayn Rand fans, and love the idea of the invisible hand of the free market controlling everything with no more government in the way. However, let me play Devil's advocate for a second. What will you think when this invisible hand comes for your work? There is nothing stopping most companies from offshoring every single IT job out there, except for the communication and talent issue. Here's the stark reality - the entirety of society since the 50s has been set up around the following:
- A post-high school education of some kind, college or trade school followed by...
- A 40 to 45 year work life providing a living wage in a steady paycheck that increased with time/inflation
- A 20 or so year retirement life in which you would spend down a pension or savings while waiting to die
- A need to purchase housing and put down roots in a community, this engendering employer/employee loyalty

The "sharing economy" wants to drop all that, putting everyone on permanent day laborer status. Establishing roots in a community is replaced with transient living, moving every 2 years or so, and never building up equity in a house. This works great in your early 20s - you live in a hipster loft with 3 roommates in a large city, spend most of your paycheck on restaurants and bars/clubs, and don't mind contract work because you value flexibility. The game changes a lot when you settle down and have children. I'm not "that old", I just turned 40. I really like the idea of staying in one place and having a steady stream of income to pay for my family's expenses. I'm normally a very PC person, but the fact of the matter is that transient living negatively correlates with school district quality -- this applies in cities and migrant worker communities equally. Keeping kids in an environment that doesn't change abruptly all the time lets them focus on learning. Keeping parents gainfully employed and not worrying about where the next meal is coming from lets them focus on their family, a virtuous cycle.

I know there are plenty of contractors in IT and software dev pulling down huge hourly rates, and I can definitely see how they say "Hey, I love this gig economy, don't mess with it." I personally know a couple who don't even have permanent residences since it doesn't make any sense - they make bucketloads of money so they just live in hotels all year jumping from client site to client site. That's not the target of Clinton's remarks IMO -- she's most likely targeting the idea that companies can basically get low-level, poorly compensated employees without paying the costs associated with traditional employees. The macro-level society-level transition from a stable work life to a transient one is going to be pretty scary, possibly on the French Revolution scale. Unless it's managed properly, things will be very messy for the average worker.

Speaking of average workers -- other advocates of the gig economy like to tout how much value they add to their employers' businesses relative to others. People need to look in the mirror and realistically assess their value. Anecdote != data, but I just stayed at a business hotel over the weekend for a family trip. It was a lot of fun listening to the empty suit Accenture consultants bloviating about how awesome they were to each other in the bar. Come on man, you travel the country giving canned PowerPoint presentations to corporate executives who are too scared to make decisions without cover of a consulting firm. That's not value!

Am I saying that FTE work is the best option and no one should be allowed to be an itinerant worker? No way. I'm saying that the playing field should be level between both camps, and it's not right now. That's where that evil word regulation comes in.

Re:Gig economy = bad for society

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, a comment with common sense. I agree with most of what you have to say, especially the putting down roots bit for the sake of children. I'm a techie in my 40s with children in school. It's a proven fact children do better when they have permanent addresses and parents with stable incomes.

People like Hillary think they should be guiding us "lower caste" people -- that they know better than we how our lives should be managed. I loathe big government, and just as an aside, I equally loathe the tripe Ayn Rand espoused. The objectivists love her. She was evil, pushed for forced abortions, hated entire classes of people, generally not a good person. I'm old enough to remember the US back in the 70s and 80s, when things were "normal", where a man could have a job, the wife stayed home with the kids, they did well on his income, he retired after 20-15 years with the same company. Long gone are those days. All in the name of quick profits and other short-sighted nonsense.

All of my Asian friends have/had parents that seemed to think a generation or two ahead. One friend came here with nothing. He and his wife literally worked themselves ragged for about five years. Now? Business owner, nice modern, yet modest home, Mercedes Benz in the parking lot. She quit work to take care of their American-born children. Their house is paid for. Their cars are used, yet paid for. He owes no one anything save utility bills and property tax. That's the American dream, right there. The white boys? They rush out for the latest phone, cars, foodie trend, any when the next paycheck comes around, they save nothing.

You are right. We are headed down a path as a civilization that is not a good path. Corporations and government are in bed now more than ever. Our masters are really corporations. Take a look. When you buy a computer, you pick your feudal lord. Who will I be a serf for? Apple, Google, Microsoft? Who runs the walled garden I wish to be locked into. Which ecosystem will I let enslave me and my data and worse, that of my children.

Re:Gig economy = bad for society

[Opportunist]

Personally I think Ayn Rand is about the worst economy theorist that ever existed (maybe coming close to Marx). And the invisible hand has never done anything but giving everyone even remotely relying on it the finger.

That said, I'm also in my 40s and I don't care whether I travel or stay here. With here being some apartment I rent for the time I drop my cadaver down around these places. The worst that comes with moving is the inevitable lack of internet 'til our ISPs get into gear and manage to get me hooked up.

What I fear about this "gig economy" is the race to the bottom that we're in. It's no big deal offering something cheaper if quality is no issue. And quality is no issue today. Mostly because quality HAS already eroded past the point where someone else could make it any worse. You are already no worse off using Uber than any "licensed" taxi. Because taxi drivers already don't know jack about their whereabouts and rely on GPS more than their knowledge of the town you're in. What's the benefit?

Airbnb is already no worse than a cheap motel. With the main difference of being, well, cheaper.

That's the real issue here. If taxi drivers knew their way around town and knew how to avoid jams and where construction causes delays, there would actually be some additional value to using a "real" taxi. But the problem is that Uber drivers often even know MORE about the town than the drivers that are used here today and some completely different part of town, or a different town altogether, tomorrow.

gig indeed

[White Yeti]

Clever wordplay? When I saw "Uber" I thought the word "gig" referred to a small, horse-drawn carriage. (After looking it up, I see that gig can also be "a light, fast, narrow boat adapted for rowing or sailing".) Then I thought maybe she meant it's harmful, so maybe she meant the pronged-thing-on-a-handle, also known as a frog-sticker. Finally reading the comments, I realized "gig" meant an un-contracted, one-off performance.

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously, the US took on the role of guarantors of maritime shipping from UK post WWII. The navy doesn't collect a dime for protecting these tankers, but having the only functioning blue water navy capable of projecting power throughout the globe is a huge geostrategic advantage for the US; it gains way more than it loses.

Screw Karma

[Prien715]

A worker works for who pays them. Hillary's current gig is financed by Goldman, Citigroup, and Chase. She'll say whatever she likes to get elected, and serve the people she works for. Biting the hand that feeds you is bad for business.

You could always vote for someone who takes money almost exclusively from unions and individuals and talked about corporate greed and struggling workers before it was "cool", but hey, how can you get elected without at least 3 major banks funding you?

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[pipingguy]

A 'subsidy' to some people is the difference between what taxes a company actually pays vs. what "activists" think it should be paying. Or, they'll tack on endless "external costs" which are nebulously defined and/or of dubious nature.

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[Jodka]

then why don't you pay double for your gasoline? you are getting a 50% discount thanks to government subsidies

There is no such thing as 50% government gasoline subsidy in the United States, nor any combination of indirect subsidies which reduce its price by 50%. You are making up a lie to support your position.

and you should also be paying more for milk and other dairy products whose prices are artificially lowered by government actions

It is the opposite. Prices of farm commodities are artificially raisied, not lowered by the government. These are FDR-era programs, often called "price supports". It was recently the subject a U.S Supreme Court case, Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture in which the court ruled against the government. It is also the entire purpose of the federal corn ethanol mandate to drive up corn prices by artificially stimulating demand.

Translation from Statish

[mi]

But that sort of work comes with its own problems, she said. "This 'on demand' or so-called 'gig economy' ... is raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future,"

Translation — despite our best efforts, people insist on taking care of themselves. Worse, some of these companies demonstrate, that the kind and benevolent government organizations of the past are obsolete and now block progress.

This deterioration of government's control and can not be permitted. The government's role as the source of benefits must continue to rise and can not be allowed to ebb.

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

All of that shit you buy from China is protected in a similar manner as is anything shipped from Europe. And it isn't an escort but there will be patrol ships out in the more dangerous areas that protect all shipping.

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[GNious]

But what marketprice do you prefer for your cab drivers?
Higher rates, meaning more money out of pocket, or the occasional rapist (see: various stories about "pirate-taxis", or even Uber drivers).

Government regulation of various products is there to avoid a race "through" the bottom, where things are so very cheap up front, but come with social/environmental costs.

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[chihowa]

How is it bullshit? He can't pay market prices for things because of the way that things are current structured, but he addressed this by saying that he thinks things should be structured differently: "I don't want government restricting options available to me, or restricting those that would provide those options to me." There weren't always oil and dairy subsidies and we could do away with them again.

There are many very reasonable things that I want that aren't currently feasible due to the way that our system is structured, too. The structure of society can change, and has continuously changed throughout history. In the grand scheme of things, ending oil or dairy subsidies is a pretty minor tweak to the system.

I don't totally with his stance but it isn't clear that you're actually putting forth any clear argument at all. What is your actual argument?

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are coming to that price due to the tax breaks we give Oil companies along with straight subsidies to the tune of many billions of dollars. We made oil shale affordable to refine through subsidies as well.

Re:You are wrong on the U.S. Constitutional breadt

[Anonymous Coward]

You're correct. They do. That said, this article and argument revolves around a US Presidential "hopeful" talking about regulation at the Federal level. If she wasn't referring to Federal control, then it shouldn't even be a talking point in her daily conversations.

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, now include the costs of our war efforts in the middle east, since that's mostly about oil as well. That's the problem with this idea of a free market. There is no such thing even if you didn't have government regulation. Free markets will merge until you have a monopoly, that is their very nature. That is why we have the expression "Everything in Moderation" as that is the most sane system we can come up with until we throw out the idea of needing money. We are in a society today quite capable of producing enough food to feed everybody, we can house everybody, give everybody all the things they need to lead a full life. We're talking Star Trek level society that we are technologically capable of right now but we choose to fight the ongoing battles of for-profit healthcare and education while waiting enormous natural resources.

It probably will take a massive world war where no one has anything anymore to break us of this concept, it is the next stage of our social evolution. It won't happen anytime soon, you have too many people complaining that you have one person buying lobster with foodstamps while hundreds of thousands are being responsible with their assistance. We could also choose to remember that lobster used to be considered the garbage of the sea. We could realize that diamonds are in much more supply than their price demands. We could recognize that our reliance on oil is killing our planet in many ways that are not reflected in its pricing.

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[Cinnamon Beige]

the US navy protects oil tankers at sea, they don't collect a dime from the oil companies for the escort service

can we get government escorts when we go grocery shopping?

Sure, just make sure you carry along around $2.8 million in valuables with you--according to a bit of poking around, that's the current value market of a full load of oil in a small crude oil tanker. (This was determined via checking Wikipedia for the number of barrels a small tanker holds and the lower of the two per-barrel values given at this time by oil-price.net.)

They also tend to pay taxes and there's a surprising number of people who for entirely non-economic reasons would rather not see the results of an oil tanker sinking or being blown up.

Or, in plain words instead of politic-speak,

[Opportunist]

how the fuck do we tax that shit?

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[OhPlz]

Humans being humans. I believe that some of this at its core is behavior hardwired into us from the earlier days of our evolution. Someone is always going to want more than someone else. Some of them will be entirely willing to accomplish that through the use of force or through thievery. That certainly happens in the animal kingdom, and we are animals ourselves. Yes, we could probably provide an equivalent existence for the entire population, but people in the developed nations are not going to lower their own quality of life by any significant amount therefore it's not going to happen. Not now anyway. If we get to the point where we can elevate everyone, then maybe.

A lot of us are doing what is basically busy work. It's not necessary, but as a people, we wouldn't know what to do with ourselves outside of work. Look at the sad lives of people who win large lottery prizes. Some end up worse off than before. I know of people that would qualify for disability, as an example, but they don't for the same reason. Look at areas where a lot of people live on entitlements. They tend to be high crime areas, do they not?

We could get there maybe, but we're not ready for it now.

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me a break. That's FUD. People who care about there freedom don't want any of it. They want government to stay out of there life. Period.

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be argued that this should be a paid service. Some liberty-minded activists would argue for privatising the police. They don't mean putting the police forces in private hands in the sense your forced to pay a private entity for police protection at the barrel of a gun. That isn't you have one police force, but a choice of police forces to protect you, if you so choose to pay for such protection. No idea how that might actually work mind you, but... then it might actually be a better idea than you'd think at first glance. The police don't actually have to protect you and they often won't. I forget what ruling it was that decided the people don't have a right to police protection, but basically any protection given is it at the discretion of the police / government.

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[KGIII]

The government does not give the oil companies money except when they purchase their products.

It's not about Uber, it's about independence.

[antonk9000]

In my spare time, I can drive for Uber, or Lyft, or Via, or Gett. I can pick up website design jobs off Thumbtack or eLance. I can pick up a writing gig off Fiverr. I can deliver stuff with Postmates of TaskRabbit. I can transcribe audio with BabbleType. And so on.

I have those choices. And each and every one of those is an example of the "gig economy". I'm not obligated to do any of those. I do them WHEN and IF I feel like it. Of course, that's too cool and too nice. But moreover, that's dangerous. That kind of work creates a mindset that's focused on skills and abilities, instead of blind attendance 9-5. That's a mindset that makes me learn additional skills, so I can maximize my per-hour earnings. That's a mindset that wants to guarantee my own financial future, instead of hoping for the thrice-broke Social Security system to still be there several decades later.

Needless to say, the LAST thing our government, or the corporations, want, is a generation of people who think for themselves and motivate themselves.

Re:It's not about Uber, it's about independence.

[Beeftopia]

[Aside: I notice your interesting post is at 0 points: Reminder to certain mods: There's no "-1 disagree"]

Regarding your post - what is the net result of individuals being able to pick up a small gig here and there? What is the social cost of that? Yeah, it can generate some spending money, but is the overall result to drive down wages of workers, while increasing wealth among business owners?

Or does it lower costs for business, both in regulation and wages, leading to greater business innovation and business creation, and greater social welfare?

Or does it lead to deflation as wages are pressured down? How about deflation along with greater income inequality leading to even worse social outcomes?

I don't know - but my point is that policy makers (politicians) should be trying to understand the big picture, guided by what most improves social welfare, and not what gets them the most contributions (hah).

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[rubycodez]

You are so funny, here in Crook County IL half the price of gasoline is taxes.

Milk is cheap (about half price again, ha!) usually through "loss leader" pricing by your supermarket or convenience store

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[rubycodez]

The US navy would be out at sea anyway, projecting power globally.

Re:Why

[rubycodez]

only if he shaves his legs.

What do you expect from an idiot?

[Anonymous Coward]

She knows nothing. Her 'knowledge' is what her team of pollsters tell her what it is.

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[Rockoon]

then why don't you pay double for your gasoline? you are getting a 50% discount thanks to government subsidies

See here folks how disgusting and utterly repulsive liberals are. They just make shit fucking up when its convenient in order to support their otherwise unsupportable arguments. Its usually not this fucking obvious and blatant, but its always there.

Re: Free? Who said anything about free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because you and your kind want to continue to preach about the free market while not actually paying for stuff you profit off of or destroy in the process.

Uber only exists

[fluffernutter]

because it is really hard to fit all those cars into consolidated sweat shops.

Taxi Medallion Cost: FYI

[kaatochacha]

I used to work at a Credit Union financing a Taxi Medallion purchase in New York.
This was a few years ago, and If I remember correctly, it was around US$1,000,000.

Re:Why

[KGIII]

Trump is probably going to 'let the world know' how he has been observant and has finally reached the conclusion that Obama is black.

Also, seriously? Obama has been in office for 27 years already as POTUS and spell check still does not know his name by default? And, finally, after about 9 years, I have finally changed that and added it to the dictionary.

Re:Jeb says work longer, Hilary says work longer.

[KGIII]

I do not know what you do for a job but you should probably be doing a bit more than staring blankly at a screen unless your job is to determine the effects of eye strain. There's probably a keyboard and mouse attached to that screen. You might try poking those and seeing what they do. With enough poking you might actually find out what your employer expects (it is probably not staring blankly at a screen) and then you should determine if you are actually qualified to do the work that the employer has hired you to do. If you are unqualified then you should keep this job as long as you can and use the time to surf the internet and leave pithy replies in various comment sections.

Someone is successful... KILL THEM.

[Karmashock]

Typical nanny state politician. Never miss an opportunity to fuck things up for someone else.

If the people working for uber either wanted or could get a better job they would. They either don't want them or can't get them. So fucking with their "gigs" just means you get nothing.

Way to reinforce that Geezer cred

[buybuydandavis]

"Gig? What's a gig?

Working for the Company, living in the Company town, and being buried in the Company cemetery is the way life should be.

Now get offa my lawn!"

The term is "Creative Destruction"

[Beeftopia]

"Creative Destruction" is the destruction of the "worse" which is replaced by the "better". Hopefully resulting in better overall social welfare.

Would the destruction of the current model of the taxi industry lead to higher general social welfare? If the choice is between concentrating more of the profit at the top and less of it among the workers, probably not. If it means more profit for workers, and more workers, then it would improve social welfare.

Trying to identify which model improves social welfare is the key. Change is scary and disruptive, and not always good. But without technology-driven change, we'd still have a wagon-wheel manufacturing industry. On the other hand, we have lost a great deal of manufacturing, with all the costs and benefits that entails. IMO the costs outweigh the benefits in losing manufacturing.

Unfortunately, we don't see creative destruction in other important areas such as finance or politics. The financial system imploded in 2008, due to consistent patterns of misjudgment and malfeasance. But, they are among the biggest donors to federal politicians, so they received a rescue. I can understand saving the banks, but no executives were penalized, much less jailed. And the business models didn't change. Too Big To Fail just got bigger. Also, we don't see creative destruction in politics where the game is heavily rigged to favor the incumbent. If taxi drivers can convince (i.e. contribute sufficiently to) local, state and federal politicians, they may be able to save their business model, regardless of the social welfare implications.

Re:The term is "Creative Destruction"

[eWarz]

Regular Taxi services are just as bad IMHO. A yellow cab taxi approached us once in Atlantic City. It said something like $20 max on his car (was years ago, don't remember the exact amount). He wanted to charge us $50 as we were getting out. I told him his car said $20 (or whatever the max was), paid him the $20 + 20% tip. He got super mad, I told him to call the police if he felt like we were in the wrong, and he drove off angry. This is one of the reason both Uber as well as Lyft are thriving. The other is access. As someone who used to frequent new york city, we often had to take illegal black car services during rush hour. Rather than adjusting to demand, The trademark yellow cabs were nowhere to be found (until years later. Last time I was in NYC things had improved slightly...they even take credit cards via a fancy system in the back now!) I'm not arguing for or against Lyft/Uber. I don't use them (moved away from NYC to somewhere more accessible), but if your business model is so inefficient you actually leave room for a competitor to enter the market, you are doing something wrong...

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[Anonymous Coward]

The oil companies pay for that just like everyone else: taxes.

The original introduction of income tax was to pay for defense, and the whole point of the Navy, and every navy, is to protect ships at sea (all ships at sea) from attack.

nothing to see here, moving along

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a politician seeming to take a position without actually saying a single, meaningful damn thing.

Citation Needed.

[sethstorm]

N/T

Except you're wrong.

[sethstorm]

You leave out the details of how someone gets there or that others do well with an established company.

Such lines of work do not show any net benefit - unless you have the luxury of being able to turn down any line of work.

That's enforced happiness, not real happiness.

[sethstorm]

The only person that would be happy is a person that has the rare luxury of being able to turn down any form of work.

Uber drivers are not of that set, but of a set that would choose more stable arrangements if offered them.

My reply, in plain American English.

[sethstorm]

The idea of promoting unstable work arrangements is one that needs to DIAF. Promoting it as "flexibility" with a Potemkin Village doesn't make it true - it only serves to show that the "on-demand" economy cannot stand on merit, but on deception.

Perhaps you might want to read up on your historical friend, the company town, and wonder why we don't want to head back to the vagaries of the 19th century.

Re:My reply, in plain American English.

[mi]

The idea of promoting unstable work arrangements

Ah, so government is the fount of stability, good to know!

Promoting it as "flexibility" with a Potemkin Village

Throwing around terms like "Potemkin Village" without knowing their meaning reveals utter ignorance.

Perhaps you might want to read up on your historical friend, the company town

Friend or not, I fail to see, how the rise of Uber and Airbnb have anything to do with "company town" reappearing. Quite the opposite, actually.

Yet an FTE job outdoes you every possible way.

[sethstorm]

The only way an FTE job loses is when someone has enough ability to deflect the negative consequences of turning down work. These people are few, rare, and have the luxury that nearly everyone else doesn't have.

An FTE job provides the necessary stability. Your arrangements do not.

For once, the modders are right.

[sethstorm]

Regarding your post - what is the net result of individuals being able to pick up a small [redacted] here and there? What is the social cost of that? Yeah, it can generate some spending money, but is the overall result to drive down wages of workers, while increasing wealth among business owners?

Correct.

Such arrangements discourage stability and destroy the option for those that thrive best on conventional, FTE arrangements.

Or does it lower costs for business, both in regulation and wages, leading to greater business innovation and business creation, and greater social welfare?

Incorrect.

The only innovation that it "creates" is by creating more "broken windows". The loss in stability is not a positive factor, as it transfers the advantage to the broker/agency/etc, not individuals in general.

No thank you, but the casualization of labor does not lead to anywhere good or sane.

That's not the case.

[sethstorm]

If anything, it's Uber and the like responding with the call of "Individuals have too much stability, KILL THEM."

Re:That's not the case.

[Karmashock]

Explain that please. I don't understand what you mean.

Re:That's not the case.

[sethstorm]

From ~2007/2008 to present day, the rallying cry has been to kill off anything with stability and replace it with high instability.

When individuals have a stable form of employment, they are less controllable. Less stable forms of employment, such as mentioned in my reply, impart more control over the person.

Re:That's not the case.

[Karmashock]

That is more a result of the government requiring that stable employment include lots of expensive benefits more than anyone wanting to control the workers.

Look at all the liability an employer has to deal with if you're full time? That's your culprit right there and the business leaders have told you that from the fucking start. You didn't listen. You put that gun against your forehead and played a game of Russian Roulette... raspberry jam got splattered all over the walls.

Want that to not happen again?

Stop listening to Marxists. Half of them are idiots and the other half are liars.

The term is Destructive Destruction.

[sethstorm]

...where the "better" (FTE), is getting replaced by the "worse" (irregular labor such as Uber/1099's/agency).

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[rossz]

Milk is price controlled by the Federal government. It should actually be cheaper.

Re:You are wrong on the U.S. Constitutional breadt

[rossz]

Since it's a discussion about a presidential candidate suggesting she will regulate uber, the Federal Constitution is what matters. So basically HRC is saying she wants to violate the Constitution.

Very weird, un-American statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just Uber:

"Many Americans are making extra money renting out a spare room, designing websites, selling products they design themselves at home, or even driving their own car,"

She also appears to be taking aim at every one-man web designer, everyone who makes & sells stuff via etsy or similar sites... But pretty much every entrepreneur started off making and selling their own stuff - the Apple founders included - so her statement is pretty much a broadside against entrepreneurship and the American Way. I'm not convinced that's what she meant, but it's certainly how it comes across.

Slanted reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

I nearly fell for this one, to be honest - this is a better report: http://www.cnet.com/news/hillary-clinton-takes-aim-at-uber-during-speech-gig-economy/

Pretty sure workplace protections are irrelevant

[sabbede]

to the self-employed.

How does one force themselves to work unpaid overtime? Even if violating labor laws is possible, who's going to turn you in?

Real businesses are not a 1% fantasy

[sjbe]

That's an interesting reply to my original '1%' post. You've taken the employer perspective as many other employers would.

You seem to have some fantasy that people who own companies are raking in millions at the expense of those who work for them. Real world businesses are rarely that profitable and most employers would be very happy to have a large well paid work force because it means that the business is doing very well. That is NOT what the real world is like however. In the real world business owners live in terror for much of their existence because they are taking enormous risks. Most people who lose their job can usually find another one. It sucks but it's manageable. Entrepreneurs often literally are risking everything they have.

I ran my own construction company and helped run another.

Fair enough. Then you should understand the need to keep costs under control. A business that goes out of business employs nobody. Most small businesses are under-capitalized and don't have deep pockets.

There is plenty of room in construction work for people to drag their feet, to slack off and take advantage of their employer. In our companies, we took a personal interest in our employees (typically around 30) and their families.

You seem to be implying that I don't care about my employees. Most of our full time employees have been with us for many years. We support our employees as well when we have dips in orders. We employ temp workers to meet labor needs when we have a spike in production. But if there is no work then there is no work. In our industry generally when work dips it is because a job has ended. We compete with China on price and we have customers that will move the business for a few pennies per part savings. So should I adjust labor costs to keep the company healthy or should I continue to employ people while the company loses money risking everyone's job, including my own? Employing more people than I have to means that I must pay everyone less. Should I pay some people a better wage or pay more people a worse wage?

Treating a business like a charity helps no one in the long run. Pay your people as well as you can and treat them as well as possible but you HAVE to make sure the business is profitable. A business that isn't profitable will not be a business for long.

During the inevitable slow periods we tried everything imaginable to keep everyone on payroll. We bid jobs below cost at times just to keep them active.

That's very kind of you but you can only do that if there is a reasonable likelihood of business picking up. Construction is a seasonal business. Manufacturing like what we do is much less so. Our business cycles last years. Getting a new job might take 18 months or longer if it is of any substantial size. We have down periods too but you cannot employ people indefinitely for work you don't have no matter how much you care about them. If we employ too many people or over pay them, we will kill the company faster than you can say "Chapter 11".

I'd prefer to make slightly fewer millions knowing that my employees can thrive.

"Slightly fewer millions"? Cute. That is why I was dubious you have ever owned a business because very few businesses are in a real position to make "slightly fewer millions". If you made millions good for you but most manufacturing companies have profit margins in the single digits if they are profitable at all. Our company makes enough money to cover payroll with just a little left over for some small capital improvements. The owners of my company take home less than $100K annually after tax. Millions? Yeah, actually running a real company isn't the 1% fantasy you seem to think it is for most business owners.

Re:Real businesses are not a 1% fantasy

[swell]

"Slightly fewer millions"? Cute.

This has been a really interesting thread. Yeah, those millions were in my dreams but that was because I was essentially offering a commodity. I had developed some work methods for efficiency, a price structure that accurately reflected my costs, and a powerful sales tactic, but to most buyers I was indistinguishable from other contractors.

In my current businesses I have things that are not available anywhere else. I compete with nobody. I have intellectual property. It's too late in my lifecycle to expect millions, but it's fun and gets me up in the morning with a smile. Find a way to add that kind of value to your business. Best wishes.

Show me where I'm wrong.

[sjbe]

So sayeth Faux news and scattered anecdata. (And the rest of your comment is just the same - rightwingnut talking points.)

Here's the funny thing. My politics are anything but right wing. I'm probably center left if anything. I can count the number of republicans I've voted for in the last 20 years on my fingers with lots left over. I support workers rights, socialized medicine, emissions taxation, a reduced military, and plenty of other items that generally are considered left wing. I listen to John Stewart, Bill Maher and that crowd for entertainment. I don't think you could pay me to listen to the wingnuts on Fox news. So there's that.

If you think what I said is wrong, show me the evidence to the contrary. Actual evidence. Do you have actual evidence that shows that not having valuable skills and not working hard results in better outcomes? By all means show me how I can do well by being lazy and having no skills anyone values. That would make my life a lot easier.

will she repeal the H1B program?

[Anonymous Coward]

NOPE!

Will she repeal NAFTA?
NOPE!

Will she repeal China most favored nation status?

NOPE

So she's talking hot air.

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[Anonymous Coward]

bullshit he'd go sure and pocket the 'tip'

Re:Free? Who said anything about free?

[dywolf]

Government taxes account for a whopping 18 cents per gallon.

The state of Oklahoma alone gave the oil industry in this state over 500 million in subsides and tax cuts/credits (which are another form of subsidy) last year.
(meanwhile we had a budget shortfall of ~600 million....just by coincidence....)

Considering the industry is present in most states, if every state gave the industry just half that much support, it would total ~13 billion dollars, just from the states. the Federal government from its own admission pitches in another 4.5 billion or so. Oddly enough, that totals ~17.5 billion.

ROTFLMAO

[DerekLyons]

Here's the funny thing. My politics are anything but right wing.

I'm just going on what you wrote - and it's all rightwingnut talking points.
 

Do you have actual evidence that shows that not having valuable skills and not working hard results in better outcomes?

Do you have any actual evidence that they invariably (as you imply, "can be assured") result in better outcomes? No, you do not. You're just repeating a rightwingnut talking point.

Piss right the hell off, you don't get to make unsupported claims and then insist that I'm the one who has to produce evidence.

Okay, let's try using a keen sense of the obvious.

[TaleSpinner]

Has no one else realized that the ONLY growth we are getting in this country is ways in which people are dodging the government?

Think about it. Are people building new restaurants? Hell, no. You already have to be filthy rich to open a new restaurant, the amount of regulations you need to go through is staggering, and impossible without lawyers and similar ilk to do the heavy lifting. So we get food trucks, instead. Lots of new food trucks, all around areas where regulation-happy government lunatics have kept people from trying to open restaurants. Coincidence? No.

Look at the Tiny House movement. Is this because it's just plain fun to live in a tiny house? HELL no. It's because more and more people can't afford the regulations, taxes, and controls placed, directly or indirectly, by various levels of government, on normal "housing". It's no surprise many tiny homes are on wheels - that puts them in a much-less regulated area, and one the RV industry can be counted on to help defend.

Look at Uber and Lyft. Look at taxies probably the greatest anti-consumer, scam-the-customer-for-all-he's-got cutthroat government regulation. The whole idea is antithetical to free markets and consumer rights. It exists because people who run the taxi companies are constantly funneling money back to politicians who promise to protect them from the slightest competition. Uber and Lyft find a way to get around these regs and the next thing you know is everybody and his brother wants to regulate and/or ban them and why? Is it because consumers are complaining? No, it's because the taxicab companies want it that way.

The "gig" economy exists because of Democrats and their job-killing policies. It takes the vast risk out of hiring someone you otherwise have to support with all kinds of government-required expenses, Obamacare far from the least among them. She helped create the "gig" economy, it's a direct result of her and her miserable party's proclivity for destroying old-fashioned jobs to fuel their social "justice" agenda.

We could go on and on with this. People are desperate to get out from under a stifling government. It's about time we realized that all of this is a reaction - an allergic reaction - to Big Government, and maybe start voting the damned thing smaller.

Government is the greatest destroyer of wealth ever created, and it has proven itself as an antidote to capitalism, the greatest creator of wealth ever spawned. With less government we wouldn't need to work so damn hard to get around it!

I'm not under 30 - and I don't worship Rand

[zerofoo]

I'm not sure what this has to do with government protecting failing business models.

I'm not under 30 - and I don't worship Ayn Rand.

My dad died of cancer while I was in college - I constantly think about being older, weaker...etc. That's why I started saving for retirement at a young age.

Social safety nets are a good thing for the most needy. I have a problem with Government that has grown beyond "safety nets" into dictating winners and losers in our economy.

That can not be permitted to continue.

Clinton: "... what a good job will look like,,, "

[Anonymous Coward]

Big government folks just hate to let people decide things for themselves. Why not let those involved decide?

Her goal is to prevent people from being able to

[ToddInSF]

choose what they want to do; to force us all to have to turn to the government for every option, and to only have government approved options.

I see zero innovation from taking this stand, and I do not for a moment believe her goal is to protect the public.

She wants more of us registered in insecure government databases, that when they get hacked they will never take any responsibility for. They want to be able to find new innovative ways to tax us all, and give us nothing in return but propaganda an platitudes.

Hillary isn't just for big government and big, old, outdated corporations. Oh wait. Yeah, that's exactly what she's for.

The United States is about choosing one of two fake "choices", and it's tired, and it's defenders are idiots.