Man, Cali had some terrible props this time around. Prop 22 was also pretty terrible and passed quite easily. 'Hey guys, you know that law that was written explicitly to close the loophole that we...
Man, Cali had some terrible props this time around. Prop 22 was also pretty terrible and passed quite easily.
'Hey guys, you know that law that was written explicitly to close the loophole that we exploit mercilessly? We should totally be exempt from that.'
I'm upset about that too, but I'm not surprised. They poured a crazy amount into advertising; I saw their ads just about everywhere but never saw any to the contrary. It's this kind of blatant...
I'm upset about that too, but I'm not surprised. They poured a crazy amount into advertising; I saw their ads just about everywhere but never saw any to the contrary.
It's this kind of blatant stupidity that makes me wish we could get rid of the entire voter referendum system in this state.
I've been quoting Aristotle a lot lately (emphasis mine): I do think this is fundamentally true. The problem arises when we live in a society that has built a shrine to ignorance and takes...
I've been quoting Aristotle a lot lately (emphasis mine):
If the people are not utterly degraded, although individually they may be worse judges than those who have special knowledge, as a body they are as good or better.
I do think this is fundamentally true. The problem arises when we live in a society that has built a shrine to ignorance and takes marketing at face value....not even getting into the blatant lies and propaganda.
I think California's referendums are quite commendable overall, the problem being that nobody has time or inclination to be properly informed about exactly what they are voting for (and why it is/isn't a problem).
I don't have a legal degree. I do my best to understand these, but I often get stuck entirely uncertain of exactly what it's trying to do. I don't disagree with the process as an idea (although I...
I think California's referendums are quite commendable overall, the problem being that nobody has time or inclination to be properly informed about exactly what they are voting for (and why it is/isn't a problem).
I don't have a legal degree. I do my best to understand these, but I often get stuck entirely uncertain of exactly what it's trying to do.
I don't disagree with the process as an idea (although I do not believe the public is engaged enough to care). I disagree with the details of the process - there needs to be stricter regulation on how things are worded and what information is disseminated alongside it.
The whole reason we elect officials to deal with the writing of law is that it's a complicated process in the united states and you need a degree which takes a large portion of your life to even begin to understand it. Then we want them to start out somewhere small and get some familiarity with law and how it is written before promoting them onto the next position. At the point we're dealing with referendums going to the entire state, you're talking about people who are experts in writing law being hired to mislead the public in order to pass something that's beneficial to the people who hired them to write this law.
That's a whole lot stacked against your average individual.
I don't know why Prop 22 won. Maybe ads had something to do with it? But it seems like any theory should explain why it lost in the bay area and won everywhere else? There was very little...
The fact that uber and lyft were willing to pour $200+ million into this showed me that there was a huge financial incentive for the investors to ensure this passed. I always vote against the...
(I couldn't figure it out, so I left it blank.)
The fact that uber and lyft were willing to pour $200+ million into this showed me that there was a huge financial incentive for the investors to ensure this passed. I always vote against the financial incentives of people who have more money than they deserve or need.
As a side note, uber happens to have a large share of its ownership governed by the Saudi government. They literally have so much money that a large portion of their investment strategy is to pump and dump 'tech' IPO companies as a means to shift real financial burden onto others and what is effectively defrauding the public by avoiding typical operating fees such as the 413m they would owe in unemployment if they actually 'employed' individuals.
These companies lose money every year and yet their values keep going up because people believe there's money hiding somewhere, or lying to themselves about what 'assets' these companies have. Some just don't want to miss out on the next facebook or netflix, so they invest in anything they possibly can. These inflated stock values are a way to slowly make money off a product that is designed to lose money.
To me, the fact that they spend so much money showed that this issue means a lot to them, and they probably would lose money if the proposition failed. But whether that happens doesn't matter to...
To me, the fact that they spend so much money showed that this issue means a lot to them, and they probably would lose money if the proposition failed. But whether that happens doesn't matter to me.
The thing I am uncertain about is whether drivers would be better off. Maybe some would become employees, and others would end up without a job, because Uber and Lyft would be too expensive and a lot of people would stop using them? I don't know how to predict that or figure out whether the benefits outweigh the costs.
I guess we'll never know what would have happened.
Perhaps in lower income areas, but frankly that's probably not where they make most of their money. They make money in cities, where people tend to have enough dispensable cash that they will...
The thing I am uncertain about is whether drivers would be better off. Maybe some would become employees, and others would end up without a job, because Uber and Lyft would be too expensive and a lot of people would stop using them? I don't know how to predict that or figure out whether the benefits outweigh the costs.
Perhaps in lower income areas, but frankly that's probably not where they make most of their money. They make money in cities, where people tend to have enough dispensable cash that they will simply regulate how often they go out to match the cost.
Although they also aren't exactly out to make money in the usual sense of the word either.
This wouldn't be a problem if they were classified appropriately. They'd be on the hook for unemployment. What's the point of social support systems if we let them be abused in this manner? I say...
This wouldn't be a problem if they were classified appropriately. They'd be on the hook for unemployment.
What's the point of social support systems if we let them be abused in this manner? I say we treat these individuals as worthy by providing them with jobs that don't leave them starving. I see no issue with redirecting funding from other sources or fining these companies for their atrocious behavior.
The EFF actually didn't recommend voting for this and I followed their lead.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/why-eff-doesnt-support-cal-prop-24
Same. This was a terrible bill and it's unfortunate they duped so many people into voting for it.
Man, Cali had some terrible props this time around. Prop 22 was also pretty terrible and passed quite easily.
'Hey guys, you know that law that was written explicitly to close the loophole that we exploit mercilessly? We should totally be exempt from that.'
I'm upset about that too, but I'm not surprised. They poured a crazy amount into advertising; I saw their ads just about everywhere but never saw any to the contrary.
It's this kind of blatant stupidity that makes me wish we could get rid of the entire voter referendum system in this state.
I've been quoting Aristotle a lot lately (emphasis mine):
I do think this is fundamentally true. The problem arises when we live in a society that has built a shrine to ignorance and takes marketing at face value....not even getting into the blatant lies and propaganda.
I think California's referendums are quite commendable overall, the problem being that nobody has time or inclination to be properly informed about exactly what they are voting for (and why it is/isn't a problem).
I don't have a legal degree. I do my best to understand these, but I often get stuck entirely uncertain of exactly what it's trying to do.
I don't disagree with the process as an idea (although I do not believe the public is engaged enough to care). I disagree with the details of the process - there needs to be stricter regulation on how things are worded and what information is disseminated alongside it.
The whole reason we elect officials to deal with the writing of law is that it's a complicated process in the united states and you need a degree which takes a large portion of your life to even begin to understand it. Then we want them to start out somewhere small and get some familiarity with law and how it is written before promoting them onto the next position. At the point we're dealing with referendums going to the entire state, you're talking about people who are experts in writing law being hired to mislead the public in order to pass something that's beneficial to the people who hired them to write this law.
That's a whole lot stacked against your average individual.
I don't know why Prop 22 won. Maybe ads had something to do with it? But it seems like any theory should explain why it lost in the bay area and won everywhere else?
There was very little objective info, so I'm thinking people just voted based on ideological priors.
(I couldn't figure it out, so I left it blank.)
The fact that uber and lyft were willing to pour $200+ million into this showed me that there was a huge financial incentive for the investors to ensure this passed. I always vote against the financial incentives of people who have more money than they deserve or need.
As a side note, uber happens to have a large share of its ownership governed by the Saudi government. They literally have so much money that a large portion of their investment strategy is to pump and dump 'tech' IPO companies as a means to shift real financial burden onto others and what is effectively defrauding the public by avoiding typical operating fees such as the 413m they would owe in unemployment if they actually 'employed' individuals.
These companies lose money every year and yet their values keep going up because people believe there's money hiding somewhere, or lying to themselves about what 'assets' these companies have. Some just don't want to miss out on the next facebook or netflix, so they invest in anything they possibly can. These inflated stock values are a way to slowly make money off a product that is designed to lose money.
To me, the fact that they spend so much money showed that this issue means a lot to them, and they probably would lose money if the proposition failed. But whether that happens doesn't matter to me.
The thing I am uncertain about is whether drivers would be better off. Maybe some would become employees, and others would end up without a job, because Uber and Lyft would be too expensive and a lot of people would stop using them? I don't know how to predict that or figure out whether the benefits outweigh the costs.
I guess we'll never know what would have happened.
Perhaps in lower income areas, but frankly that's probably not where they make most of their money. They make money in cities, where people tend to have enough dispensable cash that they will simply regulate how often they go out to match the cost.
Although they also aren't exactly out to make money in the usual sense of the word either.
That's plausible but we are speculating. We are making big decisions about other peoples' livelihoods based on guesswork.
This wouldn't be a problem if they were classified appropriately. They'd be on the hook for unemployment.
What's the point of social support systems if we let them be abused in this manner? I say we treat these individuals as worthy by providing them with jobs that don't leave them starving. I see no issue with redirecting funding from other sources or fining these companies for their atrocious behavior.
That's avoiding the question of what to do in the world as it actually is. But I guess it doesn't matter now.
If it was unclear, I voted no. But I also vote for more taxes for more social support systems.