Slashdot Mirror
Gig Economy Business Model Dealt a Blow in California Ruling (nytimes.com)
In a ruling with potentially sweeping consequences for the so-called gig economy, the California Supreme Court on Monday made it much more difficult for companies to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees. The New York Times: The decision could eventually require companies like Uber, many of which are based in California, to follow minimum-wage and overtime laws and to pay workers' compensation and unemployment insurance and payroll taxes, potentially upending their business models. Industry executives have estimated that classifying drivers and other gig workers as employees tends to cost 20 to 30 percent more than classifying them as contractors. It also brings benefits that can offset these costs, though, like the ability to control schedules and the manner of work. "It's a massive thing -- definitely a game-changer that will force everyone to take a fresh look at the whole issue," said Richard Meneghello, a co-chairman of the gig-economy practice group at the management-side law firm Fisher Phillips. The court essentially scrapped the existing test for determining employee status, which was used to assess the degree of control over the worker. That test hinged on roughly 10 factors, like the amount of supervision and whether the worker could be fired without cause.
for a bad job. It's better to not have a job than one that doesn't pay a living wage.
for a bad job. It's better to not have a job than one that doesn't pay a living wage.
Queue complaints about the federal minimum wage not being a "living wage" in California in 3.... 2.... 1....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Here is what they should do:
You are an employee if ANY of the following are true:
* They have any control over your clothing, besides requiring safety equipment
* They control your hours, rather than give deadlines.
* They can require you to do things using their method, rather than accepting any method.
* They make any attempt to find out if you are working for other people, let alone prevent you from doing this.
* They decide which sub-contractor does the work, rather than the head contractor.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
What is E-Verify and what does it have to do with this? There's no mention of it either in the blurb or in the article.
Also Uber claims that they vet all their drivers. Such vetting would clearly weed out any "illegals", and Uber definitely wouldn't lie to us!
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
potentially upending their business models
Good.
A company's business model should not be based on exploiting people who are desperate for work.
Pay decent wages and benefits, or, GTFO.
Can you imagine what this means to the illegals?
Probably nothing, in practice, unless they currently work for Uber. I don't see any compelling evidence that any other companies will change their policies unless forced to directly in the same fashion. This isn't a new law, it's merely a new ruling on an old law that companies across the entire industry have been flouting for years. You'd think there would be some sort of organized backlash, but these same employers are also the primary source of most such employees' understanding of employment laws in the first place and they've engendered an entire culture of lying to them about their rights as well as their actual employment status.
Cue*
Half of the gig economy is companies trying to cheap out on traditional worker benefits. Uber is one of them, and they can suck it up.
A worker-centric gig economy isn't managed by the platform: the workers should decide whether/how they deliver the goods or services, have some meaningful control over prices/profits, and be able to accrue a meaningful reputation.
If the gig platform forces its workers to behave 90% like employees, then yeah, round that number up and call them employees.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
"right to work" is just talking point brainwashing. It's all about a right to negotiate collectively.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Care to give ANY reason for that?
When I worked my way through university, I worked two jobs. Neither of which paid me a 'living wage', and without which I would have left carrying one hell of a lot more debt.
Is it your position that it is better to live of the state (which of course means other people who can be bothered working) than work?
Is it your position that people who dont have enough skills to get 'a living wage' dont deserve a job?
Of course the Gig economy is also a festering pile of crap, however in any sensible state there are suitable regulations in place, and they are enforced.
If that is not happening, look to your state as the problem though, not the employers.
If the state wont do sensible things, then organise a union - it may not be easy, but thats actually what they are for!
If the state is in effect sponsoring people through other payments to do the job and undercutting you, then take it up with the state.
However, if other people are willing to do the job cheaper than you, then dont gripe about that.
Having more people on the dole means more control so the government can take better caer of the people.
Save it the Libertarian/Conservative fairy tale shit.
The housing market has broken from the labor market. In the olden days, housing prices were limited by people's incomes.
No more. Thanks to cheap money for the last decade, hedge funds looking for returns, they have used that cheap money to buy housing; which subsequently pushed housing prices out of the reach of many people.
All over the country.
However, the market for labor - all up and down the food chain - hasn't kept up because unlike housing (and land), you can offshore labor one way or another (H1-bs, anyone?)
That's why in Silly Valley you can make what would be awesome money in most parts of the country and yet live pay check to pay check.
And that's why we're becoming a renters society.
That is mostly because they want voters.
Many people have lost tough with one base truism of the right/left wing political process.
'Successful' people, especially those who made their own way to success, are generally right wing voters, to try and protect what they have.
'Unsuccessful' people are generally left wing voters, because they want more 'give me'.
Both sides want more voters.
So the right wing generally wants to improve things for the middle classes and try to life people into the middle classes.
The left wing generally wants more people on state support, so does their best to force and trap people down to that level.
This is completely sensible from a power point of view, as it gives the two sides more support, more votes, and more chance at power.
THIS folks is the big picture. Politicians care about little else than votes, and while they tend to be rather short sighted, their parties often play
the longer game, and do realise this.
A *LOT* of policy makes much more sense when you look at the reality of the voter pools.
Touché.... I should know better.. My bad..
Homonyms, Eye due knot no witch two right off ten.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I am just wondering what business model that employs any significant number of people you think is NOT based on exploiting people desperate for work?
Of course, there is desperate and there is desperate, but that is pretty much why it is called work, not fun, and its not easy to be paid to have fun.
Of course the translation of what you are saying is actually:
'I am set up enough to have a solid job with prospects, and I see no reason why people who are not should have a job, because they cannot earn enough to make it worthwhile in my view'
And that is pretty god damn bad.
Enforced? Get a state to do something that isn't bought and paid for by lobbyists and campaign contributions?
C'mon.
Organize a union? With Right To Work legislation? Nope. Sever employees that try to organize? Ask the NLRB how many complaints are on file.
This is about: Need To Eat. This is about not subsidizing businesses. This is about not having businesses pay so low that people have to use subsidies to live-- eat, get housing, medical care, and transportation to just, yes, live.
Some of them don't have your brains, motivation, whatever it was that made you work two jobs. Lots of parts of society struggle with poverty, opoid addiction, busted families, congenital or other disease. They're not all dope smokers/users living on welfare money.
But most want to work. Some can't get jobs because they have no address. They have no teeth. They have no skills, or the ones they had have been replaced by automation, or just market shifts.
Employment is high. So is under-employment. For each Walmart worker, there's a better than even chance that your state is subsidizing that worker because Walmart won't pay enough. You can't keep dividing off what's taxable and needed for basic human subsistence. The math doesn't work. They're not all as gifted or able as you. Those of us who can work, and do make money, subsidize the unemployed/under-employed through taxes and charitable generosity. This is where corporate taxes need to the job-- or a freaking living wage, salient for the cost of living in the area where paid (looking at you, Bay Area).
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
this is actually cheaper and better for Uber,
- first they can forbid you to work for Lyft (anti-competitive clause) even in your off-time (you can still work for McDonalds in off-time i guess)
- second they can give you minimum wage and not a cent more (now some drivers get less but some much more)
- third they can employ you for maximum of 30 hours per week so you don't have any benefits like big grocery stores already do, in other words additional benefits costs are significantly reduced
- fourth they can tell you "you work only in rush-time when there is a lot of work" in other words Friday evening and other similar unpleasant time (for same minimal hourly wage), and we don't care you have to take your daughter to soccer practice
- fifth they can still easily fire you, just create a lot of small 5 man "companies" that are under contract with Uber to provide service itself (each with 5 drivers), and if they want to fire you with no money they just stop paying this 5 man company and let it go under, while other 4 people in your "company" get offer to switch to another also "5 man company" and continue working for Uber
the only cost will be that they have to buy/provide cars for you to use and do work, but i think savings on worker itself will make it more profitable in long run
and almost forgot, they are guaranteed to get workers which practically cant refuse to work, just tell unemployment provider to send them any workers with drivers licence, and if you refuse job you loose unemployment benefits you depend on for food
sometimes i think i would be great devil :)
Will this change also affect contractors that were independent contractors long before this new gig economy trend? For example, if a family owned rug store offers to tell rug installing contractors about sales done that day (with the approval of the customer), are those contractors now under threat of becoming employees? What if the store offers to arrange the timing of the appointment for installation?
When someone working 40 hours a week at the federal minimum wage has a gross income (not take-home) that is less than the rent on the average studio apartment in LA, it's not a living wage.
On the other hand, California has its own minimum wage, which is quite bit higher (and still nowhere near a living wage), so your whining is fairly stupid anyway.
California issues drivers licenses to illegals. Once you have a valid license, it's trivial to get insurance (if you have money). What else does Uber "vet" beyond the ability to get in and out of the car without hurting oneself?
Yeah....that seems to be a stickler in this country: many folks base a person's value on their ability to produce, IQ, and wealth (hence why Eric Trump is "worth" more than those school teachers in ....well, everywhere.)
Zuckerberg gets his ass kissed for pimping out people's data (and he'll never stop) while others get kicked in the ass for caring about the little things in life and the little people.
We have a segment of society that will literally kill to protect the unborn but when it comes to a living child's well-being, it's dog eat dog.
What a twisted fucked up society we live in.
Don't mind me; I have a great inheritance from a father that invested in defense stocks. Every time a POTUS says "bomb", I make enough to buy a low end BMW. And people kiss my ass because I got money from choosing my parents well.
I'd laugh if it weren't so pathetic.
It's better to not have a job than one that doesn't pay a living wage.
That is your opinion. In the opinion of some who seek a supplementary income, a job with is lesser rate of pay is acceptable.
A student who lives at home, a retiree with a pension, a housewife with free time while her kids are in the school each want to earn some additional cash in their free time. You demand that they be denied the right to some jobs which they would voluntarily accept.
This is why conservatives and libertarians regard leftism as inherently fascist; Leftists such as yourself seek the power of government to impose their own preferences on others, under threat violence, fines, and incarceration.
You should be free to accept or decline a job offer as you see fit. You should not be entrusted with the power to govern, because you will use that power to deny that same freedom to others.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
I am just wondering what business model that employs any significant number of people you think is NOT based on exploiting people desperate for work?
One where you pay employees well, treat them well beyond pay, offer opportunities for advancement, etc.?
For example, In-N-Out.
for a bad job. It's better to not have a job than one that doesn't pay a living wage.
My teenage son strongly disagrees and so do the two in college.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be careers. Anyone that's making minimum wage for more than a few months isn't making any effort to advance themselves. Minimum wage is meant for part time workers, students and starter jobs. Learn a trade, make yourself more valuable to your employer, do more than clock in and clock out.
Well, it isn't. What would be a fair "livable" minimum wage nationwide - something that would cover San Francisco, CA, and McAllen, TX? SF is 3.4 times more expensive than McAllen... Rather than have a Federal minimum wage, it should be a local - or at highest, State - kind of thing.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Next time, please be direct with your allegations.
What you're implying is completely false. This does nothing to illegals. Illegals can not drive for Uber/Lyft. Period.
And this does nothing to legal immigrants either, for instance, refugees, that can prove they've been driving in the State with a State's driver's license for more than one year. Those will still be allowed to drive for Uber/Lyft (assuming they can maintain more than ~4.6 stars after they've given more than 50 rides, the exact cut-off point varies by areas, but below 50 rides, they're allowed to have a low star rating unless the complaints are really bad).
It's as if Silicon Valley created a time machine that takes workers back to the (lack of) labour laws in the USA in the mid 19th century. At least that's what I understand from the ideas espoused as "the gig economy."
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
Is it really that hard to imagine someone who WANTS to work in order to have more, but by virtue of already having their basic needs met is not *DESPERATE* for work?
So you contend that if employers have to pay a living wage, they'll fire everyone and rage quit their business?
Is it your contention that employers would rather fire everyone and rage quit than raise their prices a bit and pay a living wage? Or do you believe that labor is so cheap that employers are in the habit of hiring more people than they actually need to run their business?
Because otherwise, if the minimum wage increases, employers will pay it so they can continue to make money. Since their competition will also have to pay it, they won't be disadvantaged. Then, we the taxpayers won't have to subsidize their payroll anymore.
Consider, if employees were businesses, they would leave the market before they would sell at a loss (that is, work for less than a living).
Good slave. Well done.
when I hire somebody to fix my fence that's a contractor. When I hire somebody to fix fences for my fence repair business that's an employee.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Uber sets all prices. e.g. it decides how much the employees get paid. Also, Uber will fire you if you don't show up to work. e.g. Uber often has unprofitable rides. Uber won't tell you what the ride is until you pick the person up and if you try to guess and turn down too many rides (or if you turn rides away after you find out they're not profitable) they'll fire you (e.g. ban you from the app). They control what you earn and when you earn it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
or having proper commercial drivers insurance. Modern and very safe cars mean We've yet to see a real test of what happens when there's a multi-million dollar accident caused by an Uber driver. But it's only a matter of time.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
One could easily twist all that logic right back atcha, bro.
One could say, you are forcing everyone into this kind of job market where no one pays a living wage, not even for full time employment. We are in fact, required, by your thinking, to hold several 'little jobs', juggle their schedules within the confines of our own lives, so your wife can take up part-time babysitting at a wage no one could survive on?
You see what's happening, your personal freedom claim is affecting everyone around you. When you force the bar to go this low, no one is winning here, we're all getting shorted at the end of the day. Why pay anyone a living wage if no incentive for me to do so? I'll just call you an independent contractor and pay you way under minimum wage with no benefits or pension for long service to your business. I mean, do you think all that stuff came out of people who were happy with how things were going? Read some history bro, workers got sick of your mentality and revolted, employers had to change their ways to get ANY labor after that.
But they're been eroding away unions for decades now, and brainwashing the likes of you into thinking all these rules are infringing on their personal freedom to fuck people over. Learn some history before you post again.
The money for the new wages has to be created from something.
Costs are taken out of company growth. A company in CA stops growing to cover new wage costs.
New prices get put onto the price of a service and products.
Less profit for them company that offers work. Less jobs on offer.
Pass the full costs of the new wages to the people buying products and services.
People stop spending in CA and the company has less to pay their workers. Growth stops and less jobs are created in CA.
The few skilled people with jobs get to keep their jobs. New jobs that meet new state wages then cost too much to create.
The smart money then invests well outside CA. Away from new CA job regulations that reduce profits.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
The basic crux of the problem here is part-time employment. It's been abused and misused to an extreme that is just unimaginable.
What used to be a rare sight, a fluke, a unicorn in the overall job market, the part-time job. The paper-boy route for the aspiring teenager. Or the babysitting gig for the stay-at-home mom.
Someone took this and ran into hell with in it and dragged us all along for a painful experience that we're currently living through. Part-time was never supposed to be a career choice. It was never supposed to be the only thing you could find. It was a stop-gap, a place for the teenager or young adult. Now it's become THE JOB MARKET. Fulltime employment is hard to come by now.
Why? Well, because part-time employees are cheaper. You don't have to pay benefits, or retirement plans for part-time employees. It's supposed to be a temporary job after all, not your career. But now, it is. The part-time job has metamorphosed into the mechanism by which the employer is abusing the employee. When they realized the gold-mine of cheap labor they had with the part-time employee, they did any good business person would do. They got rid of the expensive full-time employees and just hired a few more part-timers to fill the gaps.
Now employers are taking it a step further. Our employees, they're not employees at all. At least on paper. We pay them as contractors and as such, we're not subject to ANY employer/employee rules at all. Even cheaper. Nice. Another win for the top. Yay?
The race to the bottom is making no winners except for those at the very top. And you jerkoffs who come in here and scream personal rights about part-time or 'gig employment', you can just go take a flying leap. Your kind landed us in this awful situation, and I don't think you have any right to say anything anymore. The part-time job needs to be restored to a temporary thing, not the new normal. An awful lot of people died, spent time in jails, or detention camps, to win the rights we have as employees and I think it's pretty fucking selfish for some of our population to sell that out for their own selfish reasons.
I do contract work for many companies and my work is core to what they do. I set my own hours, use almost all my own equipment, work in my own office, subcontract out some QA and repairs, I even bill in 15 minute intervals - I don't see how I'm different from an Uber driver. The existing test of control made perfect sense.
Question - will I now have to be an employee of the American companies I'm currently doing contract work for? or just companies in California?
I think you need to read up on what slavery was actually like, if you think a part time job is the same thing.
The most likely answer is the same way they deal with an increase in fuel/food/other costs. They pass it on to the customer. You don't think an increase in minimum wage is the first time a business has ever had to deal with a rising cost of business, do you?
Of course, that can (and often does) lead to a virtuous cycle. The employees have more money, so they can afford to buy things, so businesses have more money. At the same time, less demand for SNAP and other safety net services means we don't have that coming out of our pockets anymore. That also means more people with more to spend.
As a nice bonus, since low wage payers are forced to stop dipping into our pockets through subsidized payroll, they get our money based on merit, just like the market intended :-)
Re "You don't think an increase in minimum wage is the first time a business has ever had to deal with a rising cost of business, do you?"
That would be an investment buying new equipment that grows profits, saves on wages.
New computers, new production line, more capacity, an investment that lower past costs.
Re "The employees have more money"
With everyone passing on mores costs in CA to cover the regulated wage costs.
More money goes to pay for the wage gap into savings or something productive, usefull.
Food costs, transport all reflect the mandated wage costs that further takes away from any wage rise for any one worker.
Everything a poor worker needs every month costs more and the new costs passed on are not covered by a wage rise.
Re "they get our money based on merit"
The same low skill workers are getting a new wage for doing the same job.
Thats not going to grow profits or the ability to invest more in the business. Any growth has to cover new wages for the existing staff.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
phone, car and commercial auto insurance will cost a bit.
So paying all or part the costs of an smart phone + data plan. Car costs like full mileage (dead time and dead heading moves say return from a long trip to the main area) maybe even airport que waiting time as well.
they force you to rent / buy there tools! as well. and when you are an employee there are very limited things with that.
this one gig economy place wanted an cut of parts cost + laber costs and they put the parts cost down as income on your 1099
yea.. .company stores and other similar abuses put an end to that.
Plus, once enough people get poor enough they turn violent and start killing people.
The real reason for the minimum wage is to keep the masses hopeful enough that they don't turn violent.
Once it gets bad enough, you get places like Brazil where you or your kids may be kidnapped if you have money. and murdered if you don't have as much as they thought. A place where the police hunt and execute 12 year old homeless kids.
It's really horrific. I hope you guys that like that sorta thing don't win.
There's a concept called a "viel of ignorance". It works like this. If you had no idea which role you would have in a society (bottom, top, middle, homeless), how would you design the society?
Most wealthy conservatives wouldn't want to live in the kind of society they lobby for if they had to end up on bottom.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
potentially upending their business models
Their "business model", if you want to call it that, was precisely to circumvent those regulations. It's a bit like basing a business on not paying taxes and then crying when the IRS comes knocking.
Really? Your business doesn't function anymore when you have to run it like a proper business? Maybe there's a problem with your business model in such case?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Further mechanization is a red herring. Remember that flap about 'flippy'? Then the reality set in that it was expensive and slow even compared to employees with raises. Eventually, the automation will work and it will be introduced even if we half the minimum wage. Hopefully, by then the old guard that's stuck in the 19th century will have died off and we can talk seriously about how to restructure our economy so it can work even as more and more labor is replaced by machines. That's a GOOD thing.
Naturally, prices will rise, but the net result still leaves the poorest better off and the rest of us paying less for SNAP.
Who said anything about losing money. They'll increase prices just like they do when any other expense rises. So will all of their competition.
Note that in the few places that have already increased the minimum wages, businesses are expanding.
What would prevent them from adding a (DMCA-like) anticircumvention rule?
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
The choice California gives you is either to be an indentured servant to both corporations and the state, or to become a government-dependent welfare recipient. They control you either way.
They hate independent contractors and the gig economy because it allows people to get away from their stifling regulations and taxation.
EOM
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
'I am set up enough to have a solid job with prospects, and I see no reason why people who are not should have a job, because they cannot earn enough to make it worthwhile in my view'
There are a couple of issues. The first is the difference in negotiating power. In a high-skill or high-demand occupation, there is a vaguely level playing field between employer and employee. If the employer doesn't treat the employee well, then the employee can leave and continue employment elsewhere (and the departure is likely to financially hurt the employer). In a low-skill occupation, there is a huge imbalance. The employee is replaceable, but probably needs the job to be able to afford to live. There is a large mass of historical evidence that, when employers are allowed to abuse this bargaining power, they will do so. The only ways that have historically worked to prevent this abuse are minimum wage and related regulations and collective bargaining. The latter works only if the majority of the workforce opts into it.
The second issue is one of indirect subsidy. If a company is not paying enough to live, then that slack has to be picked up elsewhere, typically by welfare payments. We, as taxpayers, are paying that bill. If a large chunk of my income is going to welfare payments, I'd much prefer that it were going to help people less fortunate than my and not to subsidise abusive business models from companies that couldn't compete if they paid a living wage.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Since this is the pedants thread, I think you mean homophones. As in 'I'm not a homophone, some of my best friends sound the same!'
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Mandating a location based living wage would have the additional benefit of encouraging companies to set up in cheaper areas, instead of all clustering in expensive ones.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
One could say, you are forcing everyone into this kind of job market where no one pays a living wage
Freedom is force, got it. Is war also peace?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
A student living at home? Well, perhaps if his education was affordable, his parents could give him an allowance.
And there is a LOT of difference between making a few bucks for a few hours and working full time to just be able to buy ramen to be able not to starve.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
That's the way I read it every time this comes up.
"Signal the complaints to start." (Cue)
or
"Line up the complaints." (Queue)
Both sound fine.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
I'm all for states rights... We shouldn't have a federal minimum wage if the states can have their own. In fact, a LOT of federal rules and regulations are unnecessary for the same reason. The states should be left to make their own rules about most things anyway.
(Shush though, you might sound like Trump if you keep this perspective up very long.)
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
We are in 100% agreement - on all points. if a law or regulation doesn't make sense at a Federal level - then it shouldn't exist at a Federal level.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Good night, Westley. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely kill you in the morning.
for people to apply to become employees then Uber could argue that these contractors simply don't want to be considered employees. Now they're faced with the over-bearing hand of the law, which will undoubtedly say that either all Uber's drivers are employees or none of Uber's drivers are employees. That simply isn't the black-and-white truth though, is it? I imagine some people only clock in when they want to, and others clocks in because it's their primary income and they need to.
It's the DPRC (Democrat People's Republic of California) bitching that they can no longer control everyone's money and dole it out as they see fit.
Weird - someone who call himself a Christian actually acting like a Christian ought to. Bible verses on the bottom of a cup seem a whole lot less offensive to non-Christians than exploitative business practices *should* seem to Christians.
Minimum wage is meant for part time workers, students and starter jobs.
Citation needed.
Would it, though? Businesses go where the markets are. Uber might want to move where labor is cheaper, but the vast majority of their customers are - and by extension, their drivers need to be - in expensive urban areas.
Companies also need to have employees with sufficient skill to do the job. For many (if not most) companies, those people don't exist in sufficient numbers in cheaper places, and their existing employees have no interest in moving.
Costs are taken out of company growth.
Where is the money for stock buybacks taken from?
This isn't just about Uber, etc. This pretty much puts a bullet in contract engineering/programming in CA. Creating soft/hardware is part of a tech company's regular business, so this judgement says that anybody who participates in that would automatically be an employee even if it's a brief or specialized gig.
This just makes 3rd parties richer, namely the gov't and the "consulting companies" that more & more companies are using as intermediaries. "Consulting companies" is in quotes because there are companies in CA that merely act as condoms to provide temp workers without the obligations of hiring real employees. They're not really even like temp agencies since a tech company will typically find the consultant themselves, but then the consultant has to be hired as am employee of the intermediary. There's zero chance that said intermediary will find you another gig.
Under this arrangement the "employee" loses many tax deductions and advantages, so you end up with the worst of being an employee and a gig worker
Officially the intermediary "hires" you for a gig but it's not a real job since they fully intend to lay you off once the gig's up. (Normally it would be much harder for a employer to lay off regular employees without trying to find them another spot in the organization and/or give them separation payments, but a consulting firm's mission is to serve their customer so the can legitimately say that you're redundant when the customer no longer needs you.)
This doesn't make the ex-contractor richer since they pay the "employee" their consulting rates MINUS all the money they have to give the gov't. This includes contributions for unemployment insurance even though your chances of collecting are zero. And of course the intermediary marks up the total when they bill back their customer. Both the contractor and customer lose. Makes hiring US temp engineers that much less attractive.
Re "You don't think an increase in minimum wage is the first time a business has ever had to deal with a rising cost of business, do you?" That would be an investment buying new equipment that grows profits, saves on wages. New computers, new production line, more capacity, an investment that lower past costs.
So, raw materials costs never increase? Utility costs never increase? Real estate taxes never increase? Transportation costs never increase? Interest rates never increase? Insurance costs never increase?
Re "The employees have more money" With everyone passing on mores costs in CA to cover the regulated wage costs. More money goes to pay for the wage gap into savings or something productive, usefull. Food costs, transport all reflect the mandated wage costs that further takes away from any wage rise for any one worker. Everything a poor worker needs every month costs more and the new costs passed on are not covered by a wage rise.
I'm going to go ahead and assume that English is not your first language (in which case, kudos to you - truly - for trying to learn what is a bitch of a language), because what you have written here only bears a passing resemblance to it. But doing my best to parse, you're saying that because things get more expensive, there's no point in trying to pay employees enough to keep up? That makes no sense at all. The labor cost of most of these things is a small enough contributor that wage increases do in fact more than offset the increase in price required to cover the wage increase.
They brought this on themselves by using investor money to lowball prices while allowing airports and other entities to take a 40% cut of the fares. I know in LA that drivers make almost no money unless they get a 1-2 hour trip from LAX. They lose money if they have to take someone downtown from the air port. I question why people are agreeing to work for that rate. They literally get $2-3 for waiting in line to drive someone downtown from LAX. I tipped my last driver $150 for driving me from Pasadena. Others have to be tipping as well or this just wouldn't work.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
The employees have more money, so they can afford to buy things, so businesses have more money.
Money is not value. By giving more money to these employees, you increase the price of goods they purchase, which comes out of both their and other people's pockets. The total amount of goods society as a whole can consume did not increase. You simply shifted some consumption from better-paid employees to the minimum wage ones.
That in itself is not a bad thing. But if that's all you care about, then the same could be accomplished by simply raising the income tax, then giving it to the lowest paid employees. In fact, you could do better by giving it to everyone, including the unemployed. This is UBI.
With minimum wage however, "the employees have more money" is only true if you can stay employed. Businesses could simply fail, or must layoff some to maintain solvency. Not all businesses are competing under the same minimum wage rules. Their competitors may be out-of-state. So they may not always be able to pass the costs onto the consumers by increasing prices.
Moreover, a class of work whose value is below minimum wage will simply not be done. Rather than eating out for example, people may elect to cook themselves. Unfortunately, they will be less efficient than someone whose job is to cook, because they're not specialized. So while they spend their evenings cooking instead of preparing for the next day, the would-be cook is twiddling their thumbs. As a whole, society becomes less efficient, and the total amount of goods produced (and thus consumed) is less.
If you don't think these problems can happen, then consider a proposal to raise the minimum wage to $1000 / hour. Are there any reasons it wouldn't work? If so, why wouldn't those reasons apply to a $25 / hour minimum wage?
One could say, you are forcing everyone into this kind of job market where no one pays a living wage, not even for full time employment.
There are plenty of job markets where there aren't widespread unions and yet people are paid well, so no.
Why pay anyone a living wage if no incentive for me to do so?
Sometimes you need to hire qualified people and you have to pay them enough to work for you, because you are competing with other employers for that person. Shocking, I know.
You may think this only applies to high end jobs, but to go back to the example of child care... if I'm paying $3000/month for daycare for my 2 kids, and the daycare center saves labor costs by replacing all of its workers with illiterates, criminals, and/or "ad hoc" workers who fill in for an hour or two whenever they want... would I continue sending my kids to that daycare, even if they dropped the price? No, I would find a new daycare. If I wanted to save money, I could already send them to a cheaper daycare. I want nice, qualified teachers and low staff turnover, and I pay for it.
And in your weird dystopian view of capitalism, if ALL of the daycares near me adopted this low labor cost model out of fear that they couldn't compete otherwise, guess what? I'd hire a nanny and be the employer myself. Or maybe organize a new daycare since I know there's a market of people similar to me who want to pay for quality.
Leftists tend to view "labor" as a bunch of interchangeable cogs, and that's evidenced by your post. No, people don't all have the same value. No, you can't just substitute in "Worker B at $1/hour" for "Worker A at $12/hour" and get the same result.
I mean, who's really against a living minimum wage? Or companies having to follow the law on working conditions... other than trolls being paid for "social media" work by megacorps, and suckers, sorry, "libertarians", who think they have leverage with whoever they work for, and only believe that they've got theirs, screw the rest of you?
Just because people who work for corporations benefit from something doesn't make it "corporate welfare." It has to be specific to that particular corporation, otherwise it's just "welfare."
Is public transportation corporate welfare? "They want employees to be able to get to work, but don't want to pay for a private bus service, so they rely on government to make up the shortfall."
Minimum wage? "They want people to be able to buy their stuff, but they don't want to pay the entire country, so they get the government to force other companies to pay people more, ergo corporate welfare."
Working for Uber is enough to get subsidies (welfare).
Any job they take is going to suck...Uber sucks less since they can bug off whenever they want. In a restaurant/retail you are tied down for many hours a day (opportunity time wasted) and cannot leave the premises.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Your analysis only makes sense if everyone was currently being paid minimum wage or a salaried equivalent.
The employer who tries to make the office staff clean the toilets will end up with nothing but bottom of the barrel office staff and quite likely, filthy bathrooms that make it impossible to make a good impression on visiting clients. In the current economic climate, if they could do without janitors they would do so even if they only had to pay them $3/hr.
Likewise, if they could get by with one guy on call 24/7, they would have done it already. Especially an employer chintzy enough that IT staff would be affected by a rise in MINIMUM WAGE. (Or more likely, they already went down in flames. The kind of IT 'support' you could get for minimum wage is worse than nothing).
Salaried positions very rarely work out to minimum wage
Because only part of the population works for minimum wage and so would make more money with an increase, the rise in prices would be less than the rise in income for a minimum wage worker.
"Whaaa I want to earn less money while being more expendable" whined no actual worker, anywhere. Unless they have a hole in their heads or are trolling.
Why should we care about a red herring?
If someone is making $10 an hour they need to be bringing in at least $30 an hour.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Yeah, they do. Or GTFO. If a job is worth doing, its worth doing it for more than poverty wages.
Your son really doesn't want to make $15 an hour working some part time job? Riiiiiiiiiight.
When your "freedom" means poverty for the masses just so some robber baron can buy his 4th Porche to leave at his third vacation home over the summer - yeah, it is.
So if you suddenly had to take a second job at Taco Johns to make some cash on the side, you'd be totally happy with them paying $7.25 an hour rather than $15? Why yes, I would be interested in buying some oceanfront property in Kansas from you. The other part of this is if businesses were forced to pay a living wage, you would need a second (or third or forth) job in the first place for said extra cash.
Then you're inherently stupid, as leftism is the polar opposite of fascism.
You typed a lot, but it's the same tired excuses adding up to little. Obviously since only a portion of consumers are making only minimum wage, the rise in price wouldn't negate the rise in income at the bottom.
Personally, I would support a reasonable UBI, I've advocated for that myself. But realistically, that's going to be a much longer argument. Raising minimum wage is a reasonable interim measure.
As for economic efficiency, if a business cannot remain solvent without the rest of us subsidizing their payroll, it SHOULD fail. Just as it should if it can't stay open unless we send them a government check to maintain their griddle and fryer or pay the power bill.
BTW, if McDs was ACTUALLY more efficient than me preparing my own burgers at home, it would be cheaper than burgers cooked at home. That is simply not the case.
That's just fearmongering blackmail to browbeat workers into accepting slave wages for the benefit of their corporate overlords. There is no robot army able to step in and replace all the jobs at McDonalds, Wal-Mart etc etc if those companies were forced to pay $15 an hour.
When your "freedom" means poverty for the masses just so some robber baron can buy his 4th Porche to leave at his third vacation home over the summer - yeah, it is.
That's the mother of all false dichotomies.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Your son really doesn't want to make $15 an hour working some part time job? Riiiiiiiiiight.
My son is smart enough to realize that a $15 minimum wage would simply make him completely unemployable.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Of course people are forced to work. Otherwise they don't have a roof over their heads or food in their bellies. You wanna go full communist and provide food, housing, and medical care to everyone under the sun regardless of employment, then we can have a conversation about how people aren't forced to find work.
Companies have a history of taking advantage of people. Remember 12 hour work days, 6-day weeks, and deadly working conditions? There's often someone desperate enough, and society has an extended history of needing to dictate to companies at what point they're mistreating or abusing their workers, rather than entering into an equitable business relationship.
Now, you could argue that it those adjustments from the past were necessary to fix criminal abuses, and that the point we have today is just right and needs no further adjustment. (Though I suspect many, many people said the same thing about 12-hour days, child labor, and people losing a fingers to machinery.)
Of course there's also a pretty big spread between "abusive" and "guaranteed living wage" and I'm not necessarily arguing for the latter. But I don't think you can point to the fact that there's someone desperate enough to take the job as proof, by itself, that the job isn't inherently unfair at some level.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Companies pay, at maximum, what a job is worth to them.
They won't turn down a good deal, same as you.
The trick is to get that full 'what a job is worth to them', it's always more than they think, initially.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Dipshit will have rKnockTeeth.exe done anyday.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It is actually not so difficult to have fun at work and be payed for fun. ... or even smootje ... depending ofc what you cook or where
Dance or Yoga teacher, martial arts teacher, heck even a trainer in software processes/languages etc.
Engineer/Developer(software), Scrum Master, or even PO, if the product idea does not suck
Pilot
Artist
Captain on a boat/ship
Cook
Medical doctor
Even a mere sys admin might be fun, you read stuff while there is no incident ... e.g. /.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Companies pay, at maximum, what a job is worth to them.
Or they pay the minimum required by law or trade unions, and on top of that if they want to keep the employee.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You typed a lot, but it's the same tired excuses adding up to little. Obviously since only a portion of consumers are making only minimum wage, the rise in price wouldn't negate the rise in income at the bottom.
Did you actually read my post? It's good for those minimum wage folks who can keep their job. The rest of us, especially poor ones, are still paying for it.
Raising minimum wage is a reasonable interim measure [in place of UBI].
It's really not. It hurts the unemployed and marginally employed because they're the ones who'll see bigger grocery bills. UBI only hurts people at the top.
As for economic efficiency, if a business cannot remain solvent without the rest of us subsidizing their payroll, it SHOULD fail.
That's fine, but you should prepare to import all the goods you actually need, and hope that you have an equally compelling export in some other industry to make up for it. Otherwise the entire country ends up poor.
If McDs was ACTUALLY more efficient than me preparing my own burgers at home, it would be cheaper than burgers cooked at home. That is simply not the case.
But it is. How long does it take you to buy the ingredients, clean and prepare them, then cook the burger? Is your time worthless?
Plus the spawn of the gig-economy is way too entrepreneurial for the comfort level of our government communist overlords. The last thing they need are people tasting freedom.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Some people are born to live in a cage like a subhuman animal.
Terry Pratchett had a phrase for people like you: All mouth and no pants.
On the internet, everybody is a badass who will kick you in the teeth and take your candy.
No, HornWumpus is correct in general. Companies won't pay an employee more than that employee is worth to the company (not outside management, anyway). They'll pay the minimum they can get away with, but not more than what the employee is worth.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
But it is. How long does it take you to buy the ingredients, clean and prepare them, then cook the burger? Is your time worthless?
Of course my time isn't worthless. My time and gas to drive to McDs, wait in line, pay, and drive home also isn't worthless. As it happens, the nearest McDs is in the same parking lot as the nearest grocery store. But I only need groceries once a week. By comparison, it only takes me 7 minutes to cook burgers. I can be done by the time I would be paying for the McDs. So, if I factor in time, home cooking looks even better. If I factor in quality of the result, McDs isn't even in the running.
As for the rest, The unemployed and marginally employed will still have SNAP (and I would advise making it easier to get and make it cover costs better).
I would prefer UBI, but it'll take years of conservatives wailing and rending garments before we can push that through.
pedant's
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Uber might want to move where labor is cheaper, but the vast majority of their customers are - and by extension, their drivers need to be - in expensive urban areas.
Why would anyone who can afford to live in an expensive urban area hire an Uber driver instead of taking a Taxi?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The federal minimum wage would be the base line (but considering what problems americans have with grasping what base load is ...) and the states could up it.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Of course it makes sense on the federal level.
You seem not to grasp how a federation works.
The feds only need to pass a law demanding that the states deploy a state law sufficient to some metrics.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
That's the mother of all false dichotomies.
No it is not. If you want to speak newspeak: poverty is antifreedom.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You got it so wrong again ...
No, I would find a new daycare.
No you would not. As you would not know that the high qualified super day cares were replaced by low wage criminals.
I'd hire a nanny and be the employer myself.
With your example of "paying $3000" that was a no brainer. You should have thought about that at the first place instead of making silly arguments.
Leftists tend to view ... ... how retarded. Can one not have an opinion about one matter and another opinion about another matter with out being insulted as a lefty, righty or liberal or alt something?
Ah that stupid american thing again to put people into "lefties", the "rights" and the "liberals"
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Wow are we super negative again?
Obviously your sons don't need a living wage and pay for a family, as you pay for your family, which includes your sons.
So your argument would need to be: would you be good with a "not living job" that can not pay for your sons on college?
Are you really just an asshole or are you super dumb or just one guy who likes to make polemic posts in a news for nerds site?
Message us again when one of your sons makes so much money that he can pay for his three sons (doing underpaid part times jobs) and let them go to high school and college. (And don't forget, he has to pay for his wife and a somewhat comfortable home, too)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
My son is smart enough to realize that a $15 minimum wage would simply make him completely unemployable.
And who would take his job then? An illegal Mexican immigrant?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
So a Federal minimum wage DOESN'T make sense, because you say they should force the States to determine the minimum wage. Thus it's not a Federal wage.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Then that's what Uber would already be doing.
Keep your day job.
By comparison, it only takes me 7 minutes to cook burgers. I can be done by the time I would be paying for the McDs. So, if I factor in time, home cooking looks even better. If I factor in quality of the result, McDs isn't even in the running.
Sounds like you're a much better cook than me. How come you're only making them for yourself? Make 10 burgers instead and sell the extras to your neighbors.
Shouldn't that be pedants'? There are at least three of us, I believe...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
There should be neither welfare nor a minimum wage.
Okay, so when a company offers a job for just above starvation wages, what do you expect to happen? The history of the industrial revolution tells us that desperate people will accept it, because the other alternative is to starve to death. You think that's good for the long-term health of the country?
The solution to inadequate pay in an environment where you have no skills is to move.
Move where? Look up the term 'race to the bottom'. And, again, look at the history of the industrial revolution. Oh, and also explain how you expect people with no welfare, no jobs, and few skills to be able to afford to move.
I'm not a low wage worker- but I moved from a place where the cost of living was higher and the people living there were wealthy.
And, no doubt, you were able to do this because you had a decent amount of savings accumulated to cover your relocation costs and you had a very high chance of employment where you moved.
It's lazy and/or stupid people who think like you who need to be educated on economics
The irony of ending a post that demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of either history or economics with that is not lost on me. I honestly can't tell if you're a parody or not.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
There are two ways: either the feds force the states to set a minimum wage, or they set a baseline and the states can increase it.
Both would work.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Which parts of my emphasized words: law and trade unions, did you not get? ... that is something different.
If the law says this position is payed with $2500 a month, no company can pay less.
And if the trade unions have a contract with companies that say $2650 is the minimum, the company has to pay that.
If an employee thinks he deserves $3000, but the company says: actually you are only worth $1500, but because of the fucking trade union we already pay you $2650, so go and fuck your self
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I'll cross 'em, you knock 'em in.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Several reasons. First, I have a regular residential kitchen. To sell food to others, I would need a commercial kitchen so it could pass an inspecton. Then I would need such an inspection. Then proper business and food service licenses. I would need to sell a hell of a lot more burgers to cover all of that.
I already have a day job.
No you would not. As you would not know that the high qualified super day cares were replaced by low wage criminals.
Are you completely ignorant about childcare? Do you really think that parents choose a daycare and then never meet the staff? I get pictures and videos of my kids each day. I meet the teachers daily. In what world would I not realize that the great teachers I met on day one were replaced by shitty teachers on day 200? Please get some experience with the real world before commenting on obvious things like this.
With your example of "paying $3000" that was a no brainer. You should have thought about that at the first place instead of making silly arguments.
Yes, it's a no-brainer, that's why I said it could never realistically happen. It's not just a no-brainer for you and me, but for everybody. All the mid to high end daycares would go out of business.
how retarded. Can one not have an opinion about one matter and another opinion about another matter with out being insulted
no apparently not lol, moron
You would not know what a teacher that gets replaced is earning, nor if s/he is a criminal.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.