[HN Gopher] Uber funds new lobbying group to deny rights for gig...
___________________________________________________________________
Uber funds new lobbying group to deny rights for gig workers
Author : pseudolus
Score : 237 points
Date : 2022-03-12 13:55 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| MaxMoney wrote:
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| I am thinking more and more that gig work is taking a huge toll
| on society and will contribute more and more to increasing
| inequality. It splits the economy into the people who run the
| services and can have traditional careers where you move up the
| ladder. And the other larger group are the gig workers that
| develop almost no marketable skills, have no bargaining power and
| never can move up in the company. They are pure commodities. The
| capitalists like and it has some short term benefits for some gig
| workers but in the long run it's are really bad deal.
| ryeights wrote:
| This is the future tech workers are helping to build.
|
| I question my career choice more and more every day
| black_13 wrote:
| smsm42 wrote:
| Most of the things drivers complain about - like unability to
| see the rides upfront and decline ones they do not see as
| profitable - do not require any advanced technologies. It is a
| managerial decision to make it so, not some technological
| advance that required "tech workers" to "build" it. It's like
| lamenting people learned to build houses because that also
| enabled building prisons. If you opposed to it, you can refuse
| to work for a contractor that builds prison, but blaming the
| whole house building technology makes no sense.
| ryeights wrote:
| Without tech and its "ecosystem," if you will, the system of
| Uber could not have existed at all.
|
| - Advanced tech allowed Uber to reach its pervasive global
| scale
|
| - Insane venture capital valuation allowed Uber to
| artificially deflate the price of rides to gain market share,
| with the explicit understanding that they would then leverage
| their market power to jack up prices
|
| - Near-zero marginal cost of administration allows Uber to
| recruit far more employees than a traditional cab company
| ever could, commoditizing the supply of workers and enabling
| abuses (someone will always take their place)
|
| - High profit margins enable faster spread, and allow the
| company to spend much more on lobbying and anti-union efforts
|
| - Business-side workers are complicit because they aren't
| working at a taxi company with actual human workers on the
| other end, they're building a killer app!
|
| - Managers and higher-ups are similarly abstracted away from
| their decisions
|
| Are all of these properties inherent to the notion of tech
| itself? No. Could Uber have been built differently, given
| different managerial decisions? Yes. But tech allows
| behaviors that were not previously possible.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Maybe if the US healthcare system wasn't ass backwards and
| didn't tie health insurance to your employer, this wouldn't be
| a problem.
|
| I use Uber a lot and when I talk to drivers, many of them do
| like the flexibility.
| neon_electro wrote:
| Just say no to Uber recruiters.
| nine_k wrote:
| Are you working for Uber?
|
| Software development is like metalworking. It can be used to
| make a gun or a bicycle with equal ease, it's what you choose
| to build, not how.
| loudtieblahblah wrote:
| technology serves capital more than society.
| TOMDM wrote:
| All labor predominantly serves capital.
| nvr219 wrote:
| That's deep
| dopamean wrote:
| It's also true. At least in the US.
| mushbino wrote:
| Labor creates all wealth.
| 1270018080 wrote:
| Their entire business model is just underpaying their employees.
| CryptoPunk wrote:
| This is an incredibly biased article from Guardian journalists
| who are themselves unionized.
|
| Describing mandatory benefits, as "rights", is an entirely
| ideological position, that good journalism would not pass off as
| fact.
|
| Journalists using their platform to advance an ideological
| framework that advances their own narrow interests is a major
| cultural threat and deserves more attention.
|
| Here is one example of the perverse incentives in effect:
|
| Vox writers, who eventually unionized, spent years publishing
| articles arguing for laws limiting the gig economy, like this
| one:
|
| "The gig economy has grown big, fast -- and that's a problem for
| workers" [1]
|
| Three years after the above article was published, its agenda
| succeeded, and a new anti-gig-economy law, that was heavily
| supported by major unions, was passed in California. That law in
| turn forced Vox to let go of hundreds of gig economy freelancers,
| thus reducing competition to the full-time journalists who had,
| in articles like the above, used their media platform to lobby
| for the law:
|
| "Vox Media to cut hundreds of freelance jobs ahead of changes in
| California gig economy laws" [2]
|
| Circling back to my original point: the media being fully
| unionized means that it is extremely biased in its coverage of
| these kinds of stories.
|
| [1] https://www.vox.com/2016/10/26/13349498/gig-economy-
| profits-...
|
| [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/16/vox-media-to-cut-hundreds-
| of...
| bildung wrote:
| _> the media being fully unionized means that it is extremely
| biased in its coverage of these kinds of stories._
|
| So? As with many societal topics there is no neutral position
| here, because all arguments eventually boil down to questions
| of ethics/morality. Biases only become a meaningful topic if
| they introduce factual errors into the content. Have you found
| factual errors?
| CryptoPunk wrote:
| The neutral position is one that is presented without bias.
|
| Making excuses for this kind of bias, which is motivated by a
| major undisclosed financial conflict of interest, and which
| completely undermines journalistic integrity, is the
| irresponsible attitude that has allowed the culture of
| professionalism and ethics to degrade to this point.
| drekk wrote:
| There is no neutral, bias-free position. Acting like there
| is already displays bias.
|
| The undisclosed financial interest is they're in a union?
| What a joke, as if the existence of other unions suddenly
| changes their own. And what a joke to bring up California,
| where Uber and all of these shitty companies lobbied to
| pass an unconstitutional law to their benefit. Maybe that's
| the financial conflict of interest I give a fuck about, not
| whether or not the media and goods I consume are union
| products.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > The neutral position is one that is presented without
| bias.
|
| It seems like for you, "without bias" means biased towards
| the owners of papers, whereas bias towards the interests of
| workers "completely undermines journalistic integrity."
|
| Find me a single person who doesn't have a financial
| interest in the costs of health care who isn't dead.
| stevehawk wrote:
| yes so it's not just Uber
|
| > is backed by gig work mainstays including Uber, Lyft, DoorDash
| and Instacart.
| bogota wrote:
| Uber sells clicks. The others don't.
| [deleted]
| nemo44x wrote:
| Labor law simply hasn't caught up with the times. We have
| classifications for "employees" and "contractors" and gig work
| really does fall into both in many ways.
|
| A new classification with fair labor law applied to it is needed.
| Hourly employees have the FLSA for example.
|
| Arguing for either side here is impossible because they are both
| right in sone ways and wrong in sone ways. We need clear
| guidelines and classification.
| mchusma wrote:
| I think we need to eliminate the "employee bundle" and just
| talk more directly about what we want for workers and legislate
| that. Most problems here relate to the bundle concept. For
| example, healthcare shouldn't be tied to employment, minimum
| wage laws could apply to all classes of labor, withholding for
| taxes could be for independent contractors, etc. A lot of this
| was shown in the AB5 bill in California, which was an attempt
| to create exemptions for employee classification for special
| interests. If you create a bundle that is wrong for a certain
| group, you can either do what we have been doing and make the
| bundle more complicated, or just get rid of the bundle.
| okareaman wrote:
| > _apps like Uber and Lyft don't give her the details of a ride,
| such as its distance, expected time, and pay, until after she's
| accepted it - at which point she has little choice but to follow
| through, even if it loses her money._
|
| > _"I find out that it's going to take me 45 minutes to go five
| miles, and I'm going to get about $5 for the ride. My only choice
| then is to either basically do volunteer work by accepting the
| ride, or canceling it. And we are disciplined, and threatened
| with being terminated, if we cancel it._
|
| > _"So don't call me an independent contractor, because that's
| not what we are."_
|
| As a former Uber/Lyft driver I exaggerate when I say I've read a
| million words Gig jobs, but the above is a good summary of the
| problem. You're not shown in advance what the ride is and then
| you're penalized for cancelling it. One day you can't log in
| anymore but they won't say why, but you know from talking to
| other drivers that you get "fired" after cancelling too many
| rides.
|
| There are other problems, such as not being compensated when gas
| prices go through the roof, but there is a hidden problem that
| many drivers don't take into account: Every mile on your car
| decreases it's value and if you do the calculations you might
| find out you're taking equity out of your car and putting it in
| your pocket, so you're not making money and you might be selling
| your car bit by bit for pennies on the dollar.
| agilob wrote:
| >apps like Uber and Lyft don't give her the details of a ride,
| such as its distance, expected time, and pay, until after she's
| accepted it
|
| Is it the same in Europe? Feels very American thing to me, I
| recently learnt that many shops don't show prices of products,
| like grocery, and gas stations also hide price when
| inconvenient. It's beyond my imagination to go to Lidl to buy a
| cake and learn at checkout how much it costs
| jrockway wrote:
| What stores in the US don't show prices? I think you're
| conflating that with taxes not being included in advertised
| prices. That is common, but it's not like the tax rate is
| arbitrary, you can calculate exactly what you'll pay from the
| prevailing tax rate and the price on the shelf.
| achow wrote:
| On the other hand, in India canceling of rides by drivers is
| creating huge pain to riders.
|
| _Commuters are up in arms over the increasing number of
| cancellations on app-based services such as Ola and Uber. More
| often than not drivers, after accepting a ride, call up the
| passenger to ask about his or her destination before
| cancelling. They are unwilling to come to certain destinations
| and are not ready to pick up passengers in residential areas
| located away from main roads, said one regular user of Ola and
| Uber._
|
| https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/bengaluru-com...
| okareaman wrote:
| If they showed the driver the ride details beforehand,
| drivers could not accept the ride and passengers would never
| know. That's what would happen if drivers were truely
| independent. But by forcing the driver to cancel and
| irritating customers, Uber and Lyft are able to use this as a
| stick to discipline "independent" drivers.
|
| Note that drivers wouldn't cancel profitable rides, only
| rides that don't make them or cause them to lose money. I'm
| not sure why anyone has a problem with this.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If they showed the driver the ride details beforehand,
| drivers could not accept the ride and passengers would
| never know_
|
| Then you go back to the taxi problem of there being no
| rides from or to predominantly black neighbourhoods.
| achow wrote:
| Not necessary. In India there is law that if you are
| running cabs on govt license then you cannot refuse
| passengers. If you as a cab driver do refuse (for whatever
| reason) then traffic police can take action (article
| mentions this).
|
| There must be reason that this condition has been put into
| place.
| koolba wrote:
| NYC had a law for decades that a licensed cab must take a
| passenger to any location in the five boroughs. In
| practice, late night cabbies would _never_ take you to
| the boonies as the ride back is unprofitable dead time.
|
| They'd ask you, " _where you going?_ ", before you got in
| the cab and drive off if they didn't like the
| destination. Experienced riders would ignore the cabbie,
| enter the cab, and _then_ explain the destination. Then
| when the cabbie argues with you, you'd cuss them out and
| tell them to drive before you call the taxi commission to
| get their medallion revoked.
|
| While many of us do miss the fun of those arguments, not
| having to deal with that is one big plus that Uber
| blessed the world.
| Ekaros wrote:
| And this is why the system really should be reverse. The
| riders provide all details and then drivers provide the
| price. Forming binding contract on both sides for agreed
| upon price. And there should be absolute no limit on the
| price. Be it 1 dollar or 1 million. And the company
| offering this should take action to enforce any contract
| in court.
| koolba wrote:
| In a pure market system, sure. I'm about as free market
| as they come, but the intention here is not just to
| maximize GDP. A functioning transit system with known
| costs makes a city more livable. That's a sustainability
| issue for the city as a whole.
| zdragnar wrote:
| My gut instinct is that it is a protection from caste
| discrimination, that is really just a wild guess on my
| part.
| [deleted]
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _My gut instinct is that it is a protection from caste
| discrimination_
|
| You're probably right. Not even a decade ago in New York
| I had to call cabs for my Ivy-league educated, well-
| dressed black roommate because they would curiously blow
| past him.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| Please stop making everything about caste without any
| evidence.
| achow wrote:
| Absurd.
|
| It is about passenger safety. The article itself mentions
| that people are stranded late night and one driver after
| another refusing to pickup the rider. Think women,
| emergency,.. etc.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Then offer to pay more. There is always a price point
| where someone is ready to provide the service. This
| should be in the system, maybe provide all details up
| front and then include extra payment which the rider can
| agree to pay to get their service, free market.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| None of that is false, but the higher-order effects are
| socially unacceptable.
| ddoran wrote:
| A driver won't just chose profitable over unprofitable, but
| also more profitable over less profitable, and this ends up
| hurting some passengers on less profitable / less desirable
| routes.
|
| If you wanted a cab to Brooklyn from Manhattan 20+ years
| ago, you had to get in the back of the car before telling
| the driver where you wanted to go. Otherwise the driver
| would just drive off without you. The ride was definitely
| profitable, but they knew they'd pick up another Manhattan
| ride on the next block and so on - a _more_ profitable
| option that to risk not having a fare back from Brooklyn.
| Many drivers wised up and wouldn 't let you into the cab
| until you told them where you were going. It was a major
| PitA.
| [deleted]
| bathtub365 wrote:
| Is it crazy to suggest that taxi drivers should be paid hourly
| rather than by fare? I know it's a radical departure from the
| business model but what are the downsides?
| forty wrote:
| If it drives faster it uses more gas so it should be taken
| into account. Duration only based price would not take that
| into account. As a side effect it would be an incentive for
| drivers to drive slower. Would be a net win for the planet
| and for safety but maybe not for the customer :)
| mrtksn wrote:
| I think the economics might work, as we already know he
| demand and the costs we should be able to ballpark the
| average hourly pay and simply switch to it.
|
| It would alter the experience, probably for the better for
| the most part. The taxi drivers wouldn't be acting like
| a-holes on the roads since they wouldn't need to squeeze as
| much as miles in the workday. However, I'm sure that it would
| create a lot of unintended disruption too, that might be good
| and bad.
|
| It might turn out that you can't find drivers for the job.
| AFAIK, this job is preferred by many people who need lots
| money fast or people who are between jobs, already having a
| job or people who wouldn't be able to get a proper job for
| one reason or another.
|
| It can be tricky.
| beecafe wrote:
| Citymapper tried this in London, but they had to shut it
| down.
| farmerstan wrote:
| Cancelling a ride destroys the entire system. It can't be
| allowed otherwise what's the point if drivers can pick and
| choose their rides? The point is they should be compensated
| fairly for it. If they simply don't want to drive someplace
| then they should stop driving for the platform.
|
| Taxi drivers have the exact same rule. Taxi drivers aren't
| allowed to reject rides once you're inside.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| The point is that if drivers have to drive where Uber tells
| them for the money Uber wants to pay, or quit for good, then
| they are employees. Contractors can read a contract and
| refuse it if they don't like it, on a contract-by-contract
| basis, or negotiate more money for difficult or unpleasant
| contracts. If Uber drivers can't do those things and must
| drive the place the company wants them to go for the money
| the company wants to pay, they are employees by another name
| and deserve employee protections and rights.
|
| > " _It can't be allowed otherwise what's the point if
| drivers can pick and choose their rides?_ "
|
| The point would be that the driver chooses to do work which
| is profitable to them and ignore work which is not. Isn't
| that what contractors would do with work contracts?
|
| The fact that normal people drive other normal people around,
| and Uber the company extracts enough money from being the
| middleman in this to fund lobbying against the driver's
| interests, and does so, is so twisted.
| dnissley wrote:
| The contract isn't working each job though, is it? It's a
| higher level contract allowing them access to a pool of
| jobs, one of the requirements for which is that you don't
| get to see certain details about a job before accepting it.
| If that's not something a person is willing to do they can
| choose not to accept the contract allowing them access to
| the job pool.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| Then you're describing a normal job. A contract which
| allows me to access to a pool of company work, I don't
| get to see individual task details in advance, cannot
| pick and choose it except for an overall option to leave
| the job.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _A contract which allows me to access to a pool of
| company work, I don 't get to see individual task details
| in advance, cannot pick and choose it except for an
| overall option to leave the job_
|
| The contractor working on my house has a general
| impression of the work he must do. But the specifics are
| far from ironed out.
| CJefferson wrote:
| The contractor working at your house, I assume, knew what
| the work was and quoted a price to you. They didn't pick
| the house name off a list, and were then told the work to
| be done, and the price they would be paid for it.
| farmerstan wrote:
| If they aren't ironed out then you made a foolish
| decision. I would never let the contractor decide the
| materials, how things look, the color, etc.
| farmerstan wrote:
| That is an extremely primitive definition of employee and
| wouldn't work in many or most jurisdictions.
|
| They can elect to turn the app off whenever they want. When
| they want to drive then don't have a choice. This is more
| flexible than taxi drivers who lease their taxi at the
| beginning of their shift so they start owing money to the
| taxi company. And they still can't choose where to go if
| their customer tells them.
|
| Having a system that is profitable only for the driver and
| a miserable experience for the customer is a terrible
| system. It won't work. It has to be a fair compromise. Pay
| the driver a fair rate and have the customer choose where
| to go.
| jeltz wrote:
| I agree, but I think the solution is that Uber should pay
| their drivers a liveable hourly wage.
| okareaman wrote:
| On the face of it, I agree with you. Customer experience
| suffers when drivers can cherry pick rides. That's how Uber
| would put it. I wasn't making a living wage so I no longer
| driver for them.
| dapids wrote:
| And that's the way it should be. But many stick it out like
| their life depends on it, because somehow it usually does,
| and getting any other job is apparently out of the
| question. Good on your for deciding enough is enough.
| lhorie wrote:
| I work at Uber. Opinions are my own. Etc. Here's my two cents:
| people in the company are acutely aware of this problem.
| Insiders legitimately want drivers to have flexibility without
| fear of penalties, and there are some major projects in the
| works to try to make things better for drivers.
|
| The challenge from the company's perspective is that
| historically, people game the system and tragedy of commons
| scenarios can quickly become prevalent. For example, if you
| show high profit heat maps, you risk drivers flocking there and
| the balance of service reliability dropping elsewhere. So
| changes like showing drop-off locations or allowing more driver
| choice in the matching algorithm need to designed very
| carefully and tested extensively in pilot programs to avoid
| degenerate scenarios. Many changes are difficult to implement
| quickly when they affect multiple moving parts, e.g. the recent
| fuel surcharge. Driver payment is mind bogglingly complicated
| due to regulation differences in different places.
|
| Ironically, another problem that insiders have been vocal about
| is the perception the Uber is bad at communicating with the
| public about positive changes in the platform.
|
| I'm sure when Uber rolls out these new programs designed to
| make driver life better, people will find some way to criticize
| them, or it'll just not garner enough upvotes, because who
| cares about stories about companies listening to feedback for
| once? Not really sure what Uber can do about this, tbh.
| ergocoder wrote:
| > Not really sure what Uber can do about this, tbh.
|
| I don't see why Uber can't show the pick up location and drop
| off location before choosing to accept the job.
|
| That is the fundamental of being an independent contractor.
| You have to know what the job is.
|
| From your comment, now I know why Uber will never solve this
| problem. Uber employees don't want to solve it, basically.
| scarface74 wrote:
| > For example, if you show high profit heat maps, you risk
| drivers flocking there and the balance of service reliability
| dropping elsewhere.
|
| Isn't that the entire purpose of the market based,
| algorithmically generated pricing?
|
| If a certain area gets congested, the prices will go down and
| the rates should equalize based on prices.
| treis wrote:
| >The challenge from the company's perspective is that
| historically, people game the system and tragedy of commons
| scenarios can quickly become prevalent
|
| Well yes, that's what every business does. Ultimately that's
| the fundamental problem. Uber wants employees that act in the
| business' best interest but does not want the regulatory
| burden that comes with it.
| notyourday wrote:
| > I work at Uber. Opinions are my own. Etc. Here's my two
| cents: people in the company are acutely aware of this
| problem. Insiders legitimately want drivers to have
| flexibility without fear of penalties, and there are some
| major projects in the works to try to make things better for
| drivers.
|
| This is laughable. The reality is that no one at Uber gives a
| two cents about "making it better for drivers" because of the
| sweet sweet paychecks that they are getting by screwing those
| drivers ( and since most of drivers look like the taxi
| drivers of NYC no one really gives two cents that they are
| being screwed).
|
| Fish rots from the head. Uber has a rotten CEO. If he could
| sell his mother into slavery for a buck he would. Rotten CEOs
| attract other rotten people. Costco demonstrated that it is
| possible to even compete with the bottom feeder like Walmart
| without screwing people who work there.
|
| At least Travis did not pretend like Dara does. Watching SV
| view Dara as a Jesus walking on water is wild.
| darrin wrote:
| Wouldn't the simple solution be to guarantee a minimum hourly
| rate from the time a driver accepts the ride to the drop-off?
| Uber would have an incentive to be efficient (find closer
| drivers, get more drivers on the road) and drivers wouldn't
| worry about the 45min-$5-ride problem. If the ride is
| profitable on its own, there's no change. If there are no
| close drivers for a short ride, the ride would (and should)
| cost more.
| Jasper_ wrote:
| > Driver payment is mind bogglingly complicated due to
| regulation differences in different places.
|
| Are you expecting us to pat Uber on the back for managing to
| solve the impossibly difficult problem of actually paying
| their workers, as if that's a unique problem no other company
| has ever had to solve? Come on...
|
| If you didn't want to handle the regulatory hassle of paying
| people in 50 countries, you didn't have to expand to 50
| countries. You chose to expand to more locations, and that
| means you get to deal with the consequences of being in those
| locations.
|
| Yes, it's complicated to build infrastructure to dispatch and
| pay your workers. But, come on, as middlemen, that is
| _literally_ your only job. You don 't even have to do the
| driving part!
| lhorie wrote:
| I'm not personally on any mission to "convert" anyone. If
| you don't care about an insider's perspective as a data
| point for informing your opinions, that's totally up to
| you.
|
| I'm merely pointing out the irony of people on a forum full
| of programmers talking about Uber as if changes to complex
| systems with live SLOs can magically be done with a snap of
| fingers.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| It doesn't seem that hard to show drivers the expected
| payout for a ride. They hide that information for a
| reason, but of course they don't say the reason is "fuck
| you, pay me" - they'll find a way to justify it as good
| for the stakeholders.
| yeahsure wrote:
| I might be very wrong, but in my humble opinion Uber
| drivers are their workers as much as iOS app developers
| could be considered Apple employees or Youtubers could be
| considered Google employees. Just because you provide a
| service through someone's platform doesn't mean you're
| automatically their worker.
| Jasper_ wrote:
| I agree. They should be considered employees, and be
| given the same benefits as employees. However, Uber
| doesn't agree, it says all of its drivers are
| contractors. So I'll continue saying that Uber's
| employees aren't the ones doing the driving, at Uber's
| own admission.
| l-lousy wrote:
| I think you misread the comment you replied to. They were
| saying they're not employees, same as content creators
| for YouTube or independent iOS devs.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Parent agreed with your equivalence, but not your
| conclusion. Your conclusion was that they were both not
| employees, while the parent's conclusion was that they
| were both employees.
| redstarpa wrote:
| Send me resume@fure.cab founders equity..
| pessimizer wrote:
| > The challenge from the company's perspective is that
| historically, people game the system and tragedy of commons
| scenarios can quickly become prevalent. For example, if you
| show high profit heat maps, you risk drivers flocking there
| and the balance of service reliability dropping elsewhere.
|
| The challenge from the company's perspective is that they
| operate under and sell the delusion that app magic dust makes
| considerations about which neighborhoods you work in and
| which neighborhoods you don't disappear into smoke. This
| isn't a tragedy of the commons, it's a bunch of people who
| are working hard trying to maximize their efficiency. Uber
| tries to thwart them through deception and punishment.
|
| Taxis didn't work unprofitable neighborhoods, and avoided
| dangerous ones. It wasn't personal.
|
| If you really want to solve the problem, you make all the
| drivers employees, and guarantee their hourly income when
| they work. Then you send them out as inefficiently as you
| want, but _you_ pay for that inefficiency.
| thr0wawayf00 wrote:
| > The challenge from the company's perspective is that
| historically, people game the system and tragedy of commons
| scenarios can quickly become prevalent.
|
| It drives me crazy that when we talk about gig workers acting
| in their best interest, it's "gaming the system" but when
| companies like Uber operate (read: manipulates) a market in
| their best interests, it's just SOP.
|
| > I'm sure when Uber rolls out these new programs designed to
| make driver life better, people will find some way to
| criticize them
|
| This is essentially a captive market and Uber's best
| interests are often not aligned with that of the drivers, as
| you perfectly detail above. As long as that remains true,
| there is always going to be valid criticism against this kind
| of model.
| hdhcndk wrote:
| Isn't that always the case? You are just treated worse when
| you have less money.
|
| How's one perceived if high earner hires professional help
| to take advantage of every loop hole in the system and
| how's one perceived if they take advantage of a loop hole
| in the system with say food stamps. Neither is breaking the
| law.
| scarface74 wrote:
| It's not about having less money. If I'm going into town
| from the burbs, I have the money to pay Uber and I'm
| willing to pay more for one. But there are not that many
| people in the burbs that need to use ridesharing.
|
| I might be poorer in the inner city. But my rides are
| going to be a shorter distance and there are more people.
| nearbuy wrote:
| I think you're misinterpreting the parent comment. By
| "gaming the system" and "tragedy of the commons" they mean
| that features they release to help can hurt the drivers and
| the passengers. Tragedy of the commons is when people
| individually following their self interests make themselves
| worse off.
|
| Eg, if you aren't careful with heat maps, drivers flock to
| the busy area and then can't get enough fares and
| passengers elsewhere can't get drivers.
| hansworst wrote:
| But the "solution" to that potential problem arising
| cannot be limiting the information that drivers get. At
| least not as long as Uber also wants to treat their
| drivers as independent contractors.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| This runs counter to the principle that more/better
| information makes for better markets.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| Much to the chagrin of economists we do still operate in
| the physical world and if everyone flocks to the same
| space and clogs up the intersection idealized scenarios
| about markets don't tend to do well
| buran77 wrote:
| If Uber gives a driver a ride at a price that's a guaranteed
| loss for the driver (like in the example) but never shares in
| that loss then none of Uber's actions are motivated by care
| for riders or drivers but exclusively for the bottom line.
|
| The solution for the $5, 45min ride that comes out of the
| driver's pocket is to guarantee the trip price covers a
| profit for the driver and let the rider choose if it's worth
| it. But that would mean fewer trips and lower guaranteed
| profit for Uber.
|
| Anything else is abuse and a lot of rationalizations to put
| your mind at ease.
|
| And if you think I'm wrong, tell me you'd be OK being treated
| like this as a customer: never knowing what the price will be
| and not being able to cancel without being taxed or punished.
| Wait, that's more or less the taxi industry that Uber is
| ostensibly fixing by turning the tables and putting the
| drivers and the wrong end of the shit stick. So what was
| wrong in the past is ok now because you work for the company
| who affords your salary _because_ of these practices?
| panda-giddiness wrote:
| > The solution for the $5, 45min ride that comes out of the
| driver's pocket is to guarantee the trip price covers a
| profit for the driver and let the rider choose if it's
| worth it. But that would mean fewer trips and lower
| guaranteed profit for Uber.
|
| I'm glad you wrote this comment, but I have a slightly
| different solution: Uber should just subsidize the ride.
| Uber brings in billions of dollars in revenue - not every
| trip needs to be profitable for them. (Of course, not
| without limits; if a driver is regularly unprofitable, Uber
| should stop offering them trips or fire them.)
| lhorie wrote:
| > The solution for the $5, 45min ride that comes out of the
| driver's pocket is to guarantee the trip price covers a
| profit for the driver and let the rider choose if it's
| worth it. But that would mean fewer trips and lower
| guaranteed profit for Uber.
|
| IMHO, a $5, 45 min trip should just never happen. Algos
| should price that properly and drivers should get more
| transparency so they can choose to not accept bad terms
| before it ever becomes about cancelations.
| antisthenes wrote:
| The absolute bottom cost of a trip should be 58.5 cents
| per mile, which is what the IRS allows you to deduct for
| driving for business purposes.
|
| And that should be _after_ Uber 's cut, not before.
|
| We don't need to subsidize car travel any more than it
| already is, especially by tricking vulnerable workers to
| slowly trade their asset value for cash.
| scarface74 wrote:
| That's the entire purpose of supply and demand based pricing.
| If enough drivers see it isn't worthwhile to drive for Uber,
| prices should adjust dynamically.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Or the ride-sharing company should match customer to
| providers. On provider based pricing. Let them to evaluate
| the case and bid on it what they feel is reasonable. At right
| price there is always someone providing a service.
| scarface74 wrote:
| How is what you are describing different than what Uber is
| doing?
|
| Personally, under the circumstances when I take Uber, I
| don't care about how much they charge and I tip the maximum
| amount allowed by our guidelines - 20%.
|
| 90% of the time when I take Uber, it's for business travel
| and I'm getting reimbursed (consulting). The other 10% of
| the time I'm on vacation where I expect to spend stupidly
| or going into town from the burbs for "date night" and we
| don't want to worry about parking or DUIs.
|
| I live in a very car dependent metro area so I don't have a
| clear picture of when most people use Uber for day to day
| use.
|
| Well, I guess there was the couple of years we were
| spending $350/month on Uber for our son to get back and
| forth to work and go friends because it was cheaper than
| car+insurance.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Uber dictates the price and hides the ride details. It is
| not the driver seeing the mass they need to transport and
| from where to where.
|
| Two clear details that should affect pricing.
|
| In system I am describing the driver could make offer
| after the rider has provided pick-up location, the drop
| location and how much mass or passengers they want to
| move. They could include in offer terms like cancelation
| fees, per kilometer cost, per time cost. Or just lump sum
| offer. And potential penalty fees if the rider doesn't
| provide all information, or miss represents something.
| Also could be included any fees such as cleanup.
|
| I see no reason why Uber should have anything to say
| about how the drivers price their service. And it is up
| to rider to either accept these terms, wait for better
| terms or use alternative transport such as walking.
| scarface74 wrote:
| There are a few issues with that.
|
| 1. What if I want to be picked up from or go to a "bad
| neighborhood" - ie a "neighborhood with too many Black
| people that don't tip well"? Uber drivers would cancel
| just like taxi drivers use to refuse to service the area.
|
| 2. That's way too complicated compared to "choose my pick
| up spot and choose my destination ".
|
| Two other comments.
|
| Before the woke police downvote me or flag me for being
| racist because of the first comment, I am Black.
|
| If drivers are complaining about the distance/time/cost,
| Uber has enough people on the road to tell drivers how
| long a trip will probably take based on the time it will
| take to get to the pick up spot, traffic patterns, and
| the time it will take to get to the destination. But
| telling them those two spots will automatically make it
| more expensive for minorities to get an Uber. The driver
| shouldn't care where they are going, just how long will
| it take them to make the trip. The algorithm will price
| the rides based on supply and demand.
|
| I do feel bad when a driver has to come way up north to
| pick me up and take me to the airport on the other side
| of town. I schedule my rides in advance so they know
| going in before they accept.
|
| Sources:
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/
| 23/...
|
| https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-cabbies-
| fines-...
| Ekaros wrote:
| 1. Then you pay more. Someone will eventually set a price
| at level they are willing to provide this service.
| Nothing wrong with free markets operating as they are
| intended.
|
| 2. Contracts are inherently complicated. In the end you
| probably only need to check the total price or ask for
| such offer.
|
| Drivers absolutely care where they are going. And have
| all the rights to set price accordingly risk on their
| lives and livelihoods they perceive. After all there
| should be risk premium for going to areas where they
| might have to risk their vehicles or lives.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Really? Let Black people pay more because of racism? I
| just cited two articles where Black business men in the
| middle of the city have a hard time catching a cab
| because of their color.
|
| Isn't that the same thing people said about segregation
| and Jim Crow laws? Before you think that is ancient
| history. My still living parents grew up in the Jim Crow
| south.
|
| I travel for business across the US as a consultant. I
| work for a company worth $1.6 trillion dollars last time
| I checked. My expense reimbursements can easily go to
| over two grand for a week trip. I'm glad I know I can
| just click a button to be guaranteed a ride in 2021,
| instead of the dealing with taxis the first time I went
| to NYC in 2012 for a vacation.
|
| And to your second point. This is why engineers make
| horrible product designers.
| Ekaros wrote:
| So you are saying that someone should not be able to set
| higher price to let's say move goods to eastern Ukraine?
| But would be mandate to go there at same price level as
| let's say Spain?
|
| Or they should make delivery of goods to remote place in
| Alaska for same price as between two highly
| interconnected hubs? Taking that distance between is the
| same...
| scarface74 wrote:
| No, I specifically said that the drivers should be able
| to choose a ride based solely on cost/benefits - how much
| in time and money will the ride cost - distance to the
| pick up spot, distance to the destination, and traffic
| congestion. You can determine all of that in aggregate
| based on gps.
|
| If you want to add another variable - rider ratings -
| that's fine. Judge people based on their individual
| behavior - shocking I know.
|
| And despite all of the fear. The chance of a random Uber
| driver being harmed in a "bad neighborhood" are
| infinitesimal. Most of the reports of people being harmed
| on Uber rides was on the part of the driver directed at
| the passenger.
| donmcronald wrote:
| Exactly. There are always going to be low profit or
| unprofitable areas and it's unreasonable to expect an
| individual driver to subsidize those rides. That should
| fall on the company that's profiting in aggregate (ex:
| Uber). Unfortunately I think I'm in the minority with my
| belief that companies like Uber have a social obligation
| to serve economically depressed areas.
|
| Everybody should be asking themselves where the line is
| when it comes to not being a profitable enough customer
| because, as wealth disparity increases, the odds of being
| on the wrong side of that line are going up for everyone
| in the bottom 50%.
|
| > If you want to add another variable - rider ratings -
| that's fine. Judge people based on their individual
| behavior - shocking I know.
|
| Yes. Uber has all the info needed to obfuscate ride
| details to the point where they could reduce
| discriminatory biases and have drivers selecting rides
| based primarily on economics and rider reputation.
| scarface74 wrote:
| > Exactly. There are always going to be low profit or
| unprofitable areas and it's unreasonable to expect an
| individual driver to subsidize those rides.
|
| I've said it twice now. Give the drivers the information
| they need to know the cost of the trip - distance to pick
| up, distance to drop off, and the estimated time to get
| there. Let the algorithm decide how to appropriately
| charge based on supply and demand. I have no problem
| paying more to get from my house in the northern burbs to
| the airport in the south 60 miles and two hours away in
| traffic. I'm the epitome of the none price sensitive
| customer - I'm not paying for it. Either my company is
| paying for it or my company's customer is paying for it.
|
| When I am price sensitive on personal trips, I get an
| Uber to the closest train station that is much closer and
| less traffic.
|
| > Unfortunately I think I'm in the minority with my
| belief that companies like Uber have a social obligation
| to serve economically depressed areas.
|
| I disagree. The only responsibility that Uber has is to
| make a profit and let drivers use their own free will to
| decide whether it's worth it. Uber shouldn't even be
| responsible for benefits. If we as a society decide that
| everyone has the right to healthcare (I do), add a per
| ride government fee and let the government pay for it.
|
| If you want affordable transportation, the government
| should either provide it themselves via mass transit or
| subsidize Uber rides for those who can't afford it and if
| it's more cost effective. That's already happening in
| some places - via a "Universal Fund" tax added to each
| Uber ride.
|
| If it isn't obvious, I'm a pro capitalist, bleeding heart
| liberal big government pig. I should (or at least my
| company should) pay for the societal benefits of the ride
| share drivers.
| dehrmann wrote:
| You don't want to have the NYC taxi issue of drivers refusing
| to drive to the Bronx, so I'd do things like
|
| - Have a "end my shift soon" button that can be used once every
| 24 hours that will only connect you with riders that get you
| closer to your home
|
| - Allow drivers to define ~1-hour radius "work zones" where
| fares have to pay for the return trip, a la EWR to NYC taxis.
| This surcharge is fed into driver selection ranking.
|
| - Pay for miles + time. I'm not sure how to structure it
| because Uber wants to show the fee to riders up-front and
| commit to it, pay the actual cost to drivers, but keep the
| contractor relationship. Maybe structure it as "fare
| insurance?" The idea is for both riders and drivers to get the
| price they expected, and for Uber, with its massive ride
| volume, to provide a good p95 experience on both sides.
| dainiusse wrote:
| This whole sharing economy is just a hack on labour law. Thats
| it.
| redstarpa wrote:
| The few ways this changes, every driver leaves Uber/Lyft and sign
| up with FURE.Cab. We can all keep complaining about this till
| nothing happens. And everyone who's reading this post, knows
| nothing going to change.
|
| Riders ride free or pay less. Indie drivers get 90% of the fare.
| FullTime drivers get a salary.
|
| We're hiring too.. resume@fure.cab #fullstackdevelopers
| #projectmanagers #marketingninjas
|
| Built FURE.Cab to rebuild an industry.
|
| Rudy Ferraz- founder/biz dev, deaf family man, who likes cars,
| tech, dance, music, and the stars. linkedin.com/in/rudyferraz
| Rudyferraz.com Twitter- @rudyferraz
|
| Roby Devassy- founder/tech, family man who likes tech, sports and
| quiet time. linkedin.com/in/robertdevassy
|
| https://fure.cab
|
| Cyan Bansiter/Long Journey Ventures - First investor (Uber,
| Postmates, SpaceX, Tesla, etc)
|
| 700k Driver Wait list -http://bit.ly/FUREDriversSignupWaitList
|
| 100k Riders Wait list -http://bit.ly/FURERidersWaitList
|
| YCombinator - https://www.startupschool.org/users/A5GA-06GE9h4Qw
|
| Twitter - https://twitter.com/furecab
|
| Angel - https://angel.co/company/fure-cab (RUV info DM us)
|
| r/ - https://www.reddit.com/r/fure_rideshare/
|
| CrunchBase - https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/fure
|
| YouTube- https://youtu.be/gdsbp_jID7M
| https://youtu.be/S898LDdDSnQ https://youtu.be/4TGIRhS9fVg
| nso95 wrote:
| How does this make money?
| ProjectBarks wrote:
| Looks like they show you ads in the ride?
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30611380
| smsm42 wrote:
| I'm not sure I get it, how can Uber drivers strike, beyond not
| accepting rides, not logging into the app, etc.? They can do it
| right now, so what exactly "right to strike" means?
| thr0wawayf00 wrote:
| The right to strike refers to protections given to employees to
| collectively act without fear of punishment, which is part of
| the NLRA[0]. Since these are contractors, they are afforded no
| such protection.
|
| 0: https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-
| right...
| smsm42 wrote:
| Is there a punishment in Uber for not logging in into the
| app?
| jstx1 wrote:
| From the recent terms update I got from Uber:
|
| > When you take an Uber ride, you will contract directly with
| Uber for the transportation services, rather than the driver -
| we've updated our User Terms to reflect this.
|
| I wonder what difference it makes, if any.
| farmerstan wrote:
| "I find out that it's going to take me 45 minutes to go five
| miles, and I'm going to get about $5 for the ride."
|
| This is a lie. Drivers get paid for distance and time. They will
| be making more like $20-25 dollars.
| okareaman wrote:
| > They will be making more like $20-25 dollars
|
| Are you a driver? Because I don't think you know what you are
| talking about
| farmerstan wrote:
| I'm pretty sure you actually have no idea what you're talking
| about. Or you're straight up lying. I have taken many 30 mins
| rides that cost me well over $30 and the entire cost is
| broken down in the app.
| c-cube wrote:
| Have you considered that maybe, out of these 30$, only 5
| might go to the driver? Sometimes even the tip is pocketed
| by the company -- forgot if it was doordash which was found
| to do that a little while ago, and some people on HN were
| defending them.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| I don't really _want_ universal healthcare but I would take it if
| it makes people stop talking about the obligation of employers to
| provide additional services and benefits for their employees that
| fundamentally have nothing to do with the labor /payment
| relationship.
|
| If it's a fundamental right, the government should do it directly
| or subsidize it. Not lump it on employers just because it's
| convenient.
| mouzogu wrote:
| You just want to ride the horse until its tired, then shoot it
| and eat it.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Datavant should strip away all of your benefits since it
| fundamentally has nothing to do with your labor/payment
| relationship indeed! Cash only.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| It's strange for a site where most compensation is non-cash
| to hear people extolling their virtues of cash only for
| compensation
| neon_electro wrote:
| I don't know about you, but in my 10-year career so far,
| the amount of cash compensation I've earned is orders of
| magnitude higher than the actual liquid compensation I've
| received from equity actually becoming worth something.
| tl;dr I got lucky and won the startup lottery, but it
| didn't pay out nearly as much as the cash compensation I've
| earned.
|
| Am I in the minority here? I doubt it.
| Cederfjard wrote:
| They're probably talking about RSUs at Big Tech, rather
| than startup options.
| orangecat wrote:
| RSUs are nearly as liquid as cash. Health insurance is very
| much not.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| RSUs are liquid after they vest. Health insurance vests
| pretty much right away
| bogomipz wrote:
| Who is Datavant? I'm not seeing it mentioned in the article
| or other threads in this post.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Google the username of the guy he's responding to.
| bogomipz wrote:
| Ah I see. Datavant is healthcare tech.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Yes, I would much rather get more cash than a bunch of
| annoying FSA, life insurance, pet insurance, disability
| insurance, gym expense, home-office benefits.... all benefits
| I have to manually keep track of and optimize.
|
| This clown car of "perks" only exist because of a dumb tax
| regime that makes those benefits pre-tax, and that regime
| should end.
| bogomipz wrote:
| Have you actually asked your employer if they can do away
| with that 'clown car of "perks"' in exchange for more
| salary? I would think that would be something you could
| negotiate as part of any job offer. Accepting a company's
| employer healthcare and benefits is certainly not mandatory
| either.
| richbell wrote:
| > Yes, I would much rather get more cash than a bunch of...
| benefits I have to manually keep track of and optimize.
|
| I've worked at a few large financial institutions that pay
| technical employees significantly below market rate, but
| aggressively and publicly boast about how competitive they
| are because of "total compensation".
|
| It's absurd, and often results in large dysfunctional teams
| where they have to hire 10+ junior people, for ~60k each,
| because they're unwilling to hire 1-2 experienced people,
| for ~150k each.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| You know even if there is universal healthcare, you can pay
| private doctors yourself if you would like.
| sidlls wrote:
| That's not really different from care outside of insurance
| coverage that exists today, e.g., elective plastic surgery.
| Universal healthcare, done even as poorly as our government
| likely will, will go a long way toward decoupling basic needs
| like this from employment. If companies want to offer
| "luxury" plans to cover elective health procedures they'd be
| free to do so, but it would no longer be as effective a wage-
| depressing, servitude inducing cudgel as the current system
| is (however unintentionally).
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| > That's not really different from care outside of
| insurance coverage that exists today, e.g., elective
| plastic surgery.
|
| It is different, because in most countries where there is
| universal healthcare you can still cover that "private"
| care with a health insurance plan if you choose (e.g. BUPA
| or Nuffield in the UK)
|
| And then you can do the extra electives on top of that.
|
| So there are three tiers, rather than two.
|
| (In the UK there are a few situations where we effectively
| almost have only the US two tiers; opticians, dentistry,
| nutrition, physiotherapy all have much less NHS provision
| coverage, largely because the elective stuff is so easily
| upsold; professionals can leave the public sector for the
| private money. The worst being opticians; the idea that the
| market can provide that more cheaply has been proved
| wrong.)
| richbell wrote:
| > I don't really want universal healthcare but I would take it
| if it makes people stop talking about the obligation of
| employers to provide * additional services and benefits for
| their employees that fundamentally have nothing to do with the
| labor/payment relationship.
|
| Employers don't provide additional services for altruistic
| reasons: having perks outside of the "labour/payment
| relationship" is a tool for attracting and retaining employees.
|
| That said, basic access to healthcare should not be contingent
| on employment (with a specific company) because it gives
| companies a significant amount of power over their employees.
| Many companies abuse this to trap employees into unfavorable
| working arrangements.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| There was a time when employers were happy to offer health
| care, pensions, and other enticements to get workers.
|
| It's an "employers' market" now as we are competing with the
| poorest nations on earth -- a race to the bottom.
|
| Nice for shareholders I guess?
|
| People turn to their tax-paid, elected government for the
| things that Capitalism decides not to provide.
| richbell wrote:
| > It's an "employers' market" now as we are competing with
| the poorest nations on earth -- a race to the bottom.
|
| Ironically, many poorer nations have more affordable
| Healthcare than the United States. There's a whole "medical
| tourism" industry built around people from the US going to
| other countries for basic procedures and medication.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Healthcare was only ever offered as a perk because employers
| could pay for it pre-tax instead of post tax, but individual
| employees could not do the same with their own money.
|
| That was always stupid and didn't make sense, it's not
| because the labor/employment relationship used to be
| different.
| bogomipz wrote:
| >"Healthcare was only ever offered as a perk because
| employers could pay for it pre-tax instead of post tax, but
| individual employees could not do the same with their own
| money."
|
| This is completely false. Employer-based healthcare was a
| consequence of World War 2. The US Congress passed 1942
| Stabilization Act in order to combat inflation. As a result
| of this legislation employers could not compete for workers
| using wages alone. Employers then began to offer health
| benefits a perk and since that perk was not compensation it
| was not taxed. This fact is actually well-
| documented.[1][2]. It was offered in lieu of compensation
| and pre-tax vs post-tax status had nothing to do with the
| birth of this.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Act_of_1942
|
| [2] https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-
| obamaca...
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| I want universal healthcare, but otherwise I agree. It's stupid
| that we've developed a model where healthcare is tied to
| employment. Imagine if the only sane way to buy groceries was
| through a food insurance plan because buying them a la carte
| was insanely expensive, but also food insurance was super
| expensive so you needed to get it through a job.
|
| "I can't quit my job, I need my food insurance so I can eat!"
| That's the situation we're in today with healthcare.
| sokoloff wrote:
| It amuses me that our current health insurance situation
| traces pretty directly back to World War II era government
| price controls on labor.
|
| https://www.griffinbenefits.com/blog/history-of-employer-
| spo...
| cyberpunk wrote:
| Seems to work okay in Spain and the UK, and even in Germany we
| have a kind of hybrid system.
|
| Americans hate their poor, vulnerable. It's one of the many
| reasons I would never even visit there. Land of the free? Yeah
| ok.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| Employer based health insurance should be abolished. Same for
| things like 401k or pensions where a company decides what
| services the employee can get (and probably not the employee's
| benefit but for the company's benefit). Everybody should have
| access to the same plans when it comes to retirement and health
| insurance.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Health insurance is associated with employment because
| originally, unions and other social organizations started
| providing it. They wanted to break the unions. So the
| government heavily subsidized employer-provided insurance
| through a tax break.
|
| It was not "lumped on" employers. It was another attack on
| working people. Tax it just like other wages, and I promise
| you'll start to see it disappear.
| orangecat wrote:
| Agreed. Either full socialism or an actual market in health
| care would be better than the idiocy we've gotten ourselves
| stuck with.
| tzs wrote:
| > I don't really _want_ universal healthcare [...]
|
| Most common definitions of "universal healthcare" say it is a
| system that assures that all citizens of some political
| grouping (country, region, state) have access to healthcare
| without it being an undue financial burden.
|
| If you also use such a definition, then I'm curious what
| citizens you think should not be assured of such access?
|
| If you are using a different definition, then I'm curious what
| that is.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| I would create a per-capita federal refundable tax credit
| which is commensurate with the average cost of
| "comprehensive" market health coverage for an individual, but
| not mandate people to buy anything other than catastrophic
| care coverage.
|
| Dunno what you'd call that.
| tzs wrote:
| If the tax credit based on comprehensive coverage was
| $1000/month, and catastrophic coverage cost $400/month,
| would someone who chooses to only have catastrophic still
| receive the $1000/month (giving them $600/month they could
| use on anything regardless of whether or not it is related
| to healthcare), or just receive $400/month, or receive
| whatever their insurance and medical costs actually are
| each month up to $1000/month?
|
| If the later two it would be universal healthcare. Not sure
| how the first would be classified.
| plasticchris wrote:
| High deductible health plans are a thing, and fulfill the
| current (weak) insurance requirement in the US so the last
| half of that is here today.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I'd wager that a lot of people using HDHPs are doing so
| in order to be allowed to use HSAs as a stealth (but
| best) additional retirement account.
|
| https://www.madfientist.com/ultimate-retirement-account/
| renewiltord wrote:
| Oh that's easy. Under certain other political conditions, the
| addition of a system of universal healthcare that is not
| market-based will harm the members of its society more than
| its absence.
|
| I think those conditions are met. With doctors having
| legalized limits on their numbers etc. I don't think we'll
| see a requisite increase in healthcare outcomes for the money
| spent.
|
| Given that, my preference is market-driven outcomes with
| deregulation of medicine, then the status quo, and finally
| the worst option: simply paying everyone who is doing the
| current job 10 times as much and expecting this to mean
| everyone can go see them.
| sokoloff wrote:
| > a system that assures that all citizens of some political
| grouping (country, region, state) have access to healthcare
| without it being an undue financial burden
|
| In broad strokes, that's how I'd define it as well but, as
| with many things, there are devils in the details.
|
| Should it be only "citizens" or should it cover all "lawful,
| permanent residents", "anyone lawfully present", or "anyone
| who can get themself into the covered territory"? If it's
| only citizens and excludes mere residents, is that
| "universal"? [and in that case, this puts non-citizen
| residents at a huge disadvantage]
|
| Should all care be covered, in unlimited amounts? Only well-
| accepted, standard care? Or experimental treatments as well?
| Should expected life outcomes (either absolute or relative
| among the possible care plans) be factored into the approval
| process?
|
| Should public-paid care be metered in some way, with
| supplemental or elective care being paid out of pocket?
|
| Should healthcare-adjacent services be covered? (independent
| living, assisted living, or nursing homes, or travel to
| medical care [routine commute, ambulance, or medevac])
|
| Who defines what "undue financial burden" is?
|
| It's easy to imagine two people both strongly being "for
| universal healthcare" and disagreeing on many critical
| details.
| fredophile wrote:
| A lot of your questions also apply to the current
| situation. The difference is that right now your insurance
| company is the one making decisions about costs, benefits,
| and limits of care you receive. Making the government the
| de facto insurer wouldn't change that.
| GrumpiNerd wrote:
| It's easier to change insurance companies than
| governments if not satisfied.
| the_other wrote:
| These are all pointless questions dragging the conversation
| back towards healthcare tied to some arbitrary other
| function.
|
| Your caveats and "details" also move the administrative and
| management burden into some weird place based on factors
| that are difficult to manage and track (need, quota,
| citizenship etc).
|
| The answer is simple: everyone in the administrative region
| gets covered for everything. Anything else is
| discriminatory. Planning of care services can then respond
| to the medical and health need of the population at large
| rather than arbitrary permissions banding.
| e4e78a06 wrote:
| > everyone in the administrative region gets covered for
| everything
|
| That leads to rampant abuses. For example in certain East
| Asian city states with "universal" healthcare people
| would use ambulances as taxis because they were free. You
| need copays to prevent this kind of abuse.
|
| And you also forget that the US has a big illegal
| immigration problem. By and large illegal immigrants make
| minimum wage or lower, generally under the table (i.e.
| not paying taxes on it). By covering healthcare for them
| you are automatically subsidizing illegal immigrants at
| the cost of citizens and permanent residents. Is that
| fair?
|
| If you think these aren't legitimate outcomes of allowing
| everyone to have free healthcare then you're naive.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Hence, we've established that you and tzs are "both for
| universal healthcare, but disagree in significant
| details".
| drekk wrote:
| If you are for "universal healthcare" that is not
| universal, you're for a socialized healthcare system, not
| a universal one. It's not really that complicated.
| andybak wrote:
| Remind me not to work for you.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Deal
| wdb wrote:
| Didn't expect anything else from this company
| mouzogu wrote:
| How long until web development becomes part of the gig economy,
| if it hasn't already.
| black_13 wrote:
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| Outsourcing has existed for a long time already but it has
| shown its limitations. But a lot of developers need to
| understand the company and its processes really well. You can't
| just hire somebody and expect them to contribute much. It takes
| time. I am in a regulated industry and it takes people years to
| really understand the processes.
| [deleted]
| fat_pikachu wrote:
| Upwork
| dayvid wrote:
| Gig work is great for easily defined, repeatable tasks. Uber
| is going from point A to point B. This is something done for
| a long point of human history, and can be easily optimized
| through maps and routing algorithms. General software
| development can be more murky, because usually:
|
| 1. The person writing the requirements doesn't fully
| understand what's needed from an eng perspective 2. They need
| someone to describe tradeoffs of eng approaches 3. They'll
| probably need custom changes due to shifting business or
| client needs 4. They might need someone to guide them on a
| better framework or eng setup for their project
|
| Being able to actually complete a task well, on time or
| faster will get you a premium (it can be really hard to
| find). Being able to assist on a consulting side on top of
| that is very valuable and rare. I think the people who are
| really good on Upwork often get hired outright by contractors
| with more money or get higher paying side gigs (or they are
| outsourcing their work to other devs).
| GrumpiNerd wrote:
| Yes, after two years we can take our relationship off
| UpWork.
| GrumpiNerd wrote:
| I'm getting lots of clients via UpWork. I'm never going back
| to full-time 9-5.
| mouzogu wrote:
| no, i'm thinking more the like of toptal who i am seeing
| increasingly more and more.
|
| i don't know their business model exactly but what i do know
| is that companies are increasingly seeing web dev as a
| commodity or to use the expression "code monkey" work.
|
| something to be outsourced, get people to work unpaid
| overtime.
| mathattack wrote:
| The difference between a good web developer (80th
| percentile?) and a median one is much greater than the
| difference between a good driver and a median one. And the
| inputs and outputs can be fuzzier. And bad output in tech
| lasts longer than the negative effects of a bad ride.
| That's why it's harder to hire anonymously like via an app.
| everforward wrote:
| It's unlikely to happen because of how much of the work is
| contextual and that it's generally a constant demand.
|
| Most gig work is context-free and on-demand. Pick up person at
| X spot and take them to Y spot. Pick up food from X and take to
| Y. You don't need to understand why, or how this fits into the
| rest of the person's evening/week/month.
|
| Wages might go down, but I'd be surprised if something like
| Upwork overturned the software development market.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-12 23:01 UTC)