My understanding is that the default is worse. Propositions that don't specify anything can't be changed by the legislature at all. 7/8 is aggressive, but at least it allows uncontroversial fixes.
My understanding is that the default is worse. Propositions that don't specify anything can't be changed by the legislature at all. 7/8 is aggressive, but at least it allows uncontroversial fixes.
Uber and Lyft are just playing chicken with California. In the long term, neither business can operate without the Californian market. It's just impossible. For perspective, the Californian market...
Uber and Lyft are just playing chicken with California. In the long term, neither business can operate without the Californian market. It's just impossible. For perspective, the Californian market is several times larger than Canada, the country. California is a larger market than India or Germany or the United Kingdom. And it's even moreso for Uber and Lyft, because the SF Bay Area, and especially Los Angeles county are some of their biggest breadwinners (whereas much of the midwest is a net loss for them).
This is worse for Lyft, because they mostly operate in the US. Not having revenue in CA is unimaginably godawful for their business.
What falls faster? The sentiment of Californian voters or Uber's (and Lyft's) bank account?
I don’t think they will pull out entirely, but it’s possible that there might be reduced service, concentrating on more profitable areas? It would make sense that if drivers are paid more then...
I don’t think they will pull out entirely, but it’s possible that there might be reduced service, concentrating on more profitable areas? It would make sense that if drivers are paid more then prices would go up and there would be fewer customers willing to pay. Unless Uber and Lyft decide to lose money as they have for years, but I don’t think that will continue.
Based on what happened in NYC, it’s hard to say whether drivers will benefit. Here is one story about that:
So if some drivers get better wages and hours and others end up getting locked out, how do you decide which is more important?
In the long run it’s probably good for Waymo.
But that’s all guesswork. It’s crazy that voters are asked to decide this and at least 99% of us haven’t a clue what will happen. Lots of people will make ideological arguments or guesses based on Econ 101 reasoning (like I just did) but nobody really knows.
Agreed, and it doesn't have to be this way. California's state legislature already passed this into law as AB5, despite strenuous opposition from Uber and Lyft. Prop 22 is Uber and Lyft and the...
Prop 22 is Uber and Lyft and the rest trying to get a "that law that was written with us it mind shouldn't apply to us" exemption.
If you're undecided / unhappy with having to make this vote, the best thing to do would be to vote no and let the law, as passed by the state legislature, take effect.
Aye, but the answer there is probably to reform AB5 after seeing its effects, not getting a blanket exception which might hold even after a reform to AB5.
Aye, but the answer there is probably to reform AB5 after seeing its effects, not getting a blanket exception which might hold even after a reform to AB5.
I don't like either of the options presented. (Disclosure: I do not live in California, so I don't get a say anyways). The problem Uber drivers face is the lack of employment benefits that come...
I don't like either of the options presented. (Disclosure: I do not live in California, so I don't get a say anyways).
The problem Uber drivers face is the lack of employment benefits that come with working as a contractor rather than an employee.
I think Uber is correct in stating that their business model doesn't really work if they make their drivers bona-fide employees. The state of California is also correct in saying that these drivers should have access to benefits like health insurance.
I think the answer is to decouple life-critical benefits like health insurance from employment entirely. California should be taking this opportunity to lead the nation in building a proper single payer healthcare system.
Althought to be specific - Uber is making a (massive) net loss and have been since the start. Its alive due to VC money, not a shining business practice.
Althought to be specific - Uber is making a (massive) net loss and have been since the start. Its alive due to VC money, not a shining business practice.
In New York, drivers did lose some degree of flexibility, with fewer spots open for new drivers and Uber and Lyft announcing moves to limit access to their apps. The companies locked out drivers at times and in areas of low demand in response to the new regulations, providing a map showing where demand is highest for drivers to find work elsewhere in the city. These changes have been frustrating and even nightmarish for some drivers who say the new system is exhausting to navigate. Labor groups have said the changes by Uber and Lyft were scare tactics meant to undercut new regulations.
I mean, yes, they do get to decide how to set prices and how much money they are willing to make or lose in a market. But customers get a say too, and that could result in less work for drivers if...
I mean, yes, they do get to decide how to set prices and how much money they are willing to make or lose in a market. But customers get a say too, and that could result in less work for drivers if prices are set higher than the customers will accept.
The problem is that we aren’t seeing much independent analysis of how this turns out, and no way should anyone trust either the ride share companies or unions on this. So the sentence you quote doesn’t help me at all.
Having recently moved out of California, I think I'm starting to understand how non-US users feel about the dominance of American news and culture on the internet. Suddenly all kinds of stuff like...
Having recently moved out of California, I think I'm starting to understand how non-US users feel about the dominance of American news and culture on the internet. Suddenly all kinds of stuff like this that was just normal newsworthy stuff that I would have read in a paper newspaper in previous decades is still on my front page despite being utterly irrelevant to me in any direct way.
I'm voting no on 22 only because there is a provision requiring 7/8ths of both houses to repeal it. It's basically a "this law is irrevocable" clause
I'm amazed the legal system allows those sort of statements in law, it doesn't seem the most democratic
My understanding is that the default is worse. Propositions that don't specify anything can't be changed by the legislature at all. 7/8 is aggressive, but at least it allows uncontroversial fixes.
Uber and Lyft are just playing chicken with California. In the long term, neither business can operate without the Californian market. It's just impossible. For perspective, the Californian market is several times larger than Canada, the country. California is a larger market than India or Germany or the United Kingdom. And it's even moreso for Uber and Lyft, because the SF Bay Area, and especially Los Angeles county are some of their biggest breadwinners (whereas much of the midwest is a net loss for them).
This is worse for Lyft, because they mostly operate in the US. Not having revenue in CA is unimaginably godawful for their business.
What falls faster? The sentiment of Californian voters or Uber's (and Lyft's) bank account?
I don’t think they will pull out entirely, but it’s possible that there might be reduced service, concentrating on more profitable areas? It would make sense that if drivers are paid more then prices would go up and there would be fewer customers willing to pay. Unless Uber and Lyft decide to lose money as they have for years, but I don’t think that will continue.
Based on what happened in NYC, it’s hard to say whether drivers will benefit. Here is one story about that:
The Lockout: Why Uber Drivers in NYC Are Sleeping in Their Cars
So if some drivers get better wages and hours and others end up getting locked out, how do you decide which is more important?
In the long run it’s probably good for Waymo.
But that’s all guesswork. It’s crazy that voters are asked to decide this and at least 99% of us haven’t a clue what will happen. Lots of people will make ideological arguments or guesses based on Econ 101 reasoning (like I just did) but nobody really knows.
I think I might just not vote on this one.
Agreed, and it doesn't have to be this way.
California's state legislature already passed this into law as AB5, despite strenuous opposition from Uber and Lyft.
Prop 22 is Uber and Lyft and the rest trying to get a "that law that was written with us it mind shouldn't apply to us" exemption.
If you're undecided / unhappy with having to make this vote, the best thing to do would be to vote no and let the law, as passed by the state legislature, take effect.
There's also a similar thing here in WA - our legislature passed a law overhauling sex ed in the state and requiring schools to teach it (while still allowing individual parents to opt their children out). Opponents of the bill are trying to override it with an initiative to allow it not to take effect.
This doesn’t help that much if you think AB5 is a bad law (and I do).
Aye, but the answer there is probably to reform AB5 after seeing its effects, not getting a blanket exception which might hold even after a reform to AB5.
I don't like either of the options presented. (Disclosure: I do not live in California, so I don't get a say anyways).
The problem Uber drivers face is the lack of employment benefits that come with working as a contractor rather than an employee.
I think Uber is correct in stating that their business model doesn't really work if they make their drivers bona-fide employees. The state of California is also correct in saying that these drivers should have access to benefits like health insurance.
I think the answer is to decouple life-critical benefits like health insurance from employment entirely. California should be taking this opportunity to lead the nation in building a proper single payer healthcare system.
Althought to be specific - Uber is making a (massive) net loss and have been since the start. Its alive due to VC money, not a shining business practice.
From the article:
This is it right here. All of the bad things that Lyft and Uber keep saying will happen are only going to happen because they make them happen.
I mean, yes, they do get to decide how to set prices and how much money they are willing to make or lose in a market. But customers get a say too, and that could result in less work for drivers if prices are set higher than the customers will accept.
The problem is that we aren’t seeing much independent analysis of how this turns out, and no way should anyone trust either the ride share companies or unions on this. So the sentence you quote doesn’t help me at all.
Having recently moved out of California, I think I'm starting to understand how non-US users feel about the dominance of American news and culture on the internet. Suddenly all kinds of stuff like this that was just normal newsworthy stuff that I would have read in a paper newspaper in previous decades is still on my front page despite being utterly irrelevant to me in any direct way.