Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Laws protecting an outdated business model are far different that laws that protect individual laborers.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.
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).
Love sees no species.
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?
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.
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
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
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.
...omphaloskepsis often...
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.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.