You are completely derailing the conversation with common discussions that have been had tens of thousands of times all over the internet. The information exists in excessive quantities for anyone to find.
Wouldn't it be better use of time to go find a discussion specifically about what you are talking about? There is a reason no one is upvoting stories about this stuff here. I imagine most people here don't find it as interesting because we've read this exact stuff so many times.
It is a policy proposal that allows them to do so without suffering the risks you identified. If they like to be an independent contractor but don't like those risks, they should ask the government for a UBI rather than a law requiring them to be reclassified as an employee, which then mitigates those risks without requiring them to indirectly overpay for unemployment insurance that suffers from an insurance fraud problem that a UBI doesn't (among other advantages).
> Wouldn't it be better use of time to go find a discussion specifically about what you are talking about?
Here's one:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20069094
Based on their comment, the person there was apparently not aware of the details of the discussions that have been had about this numerous times by other people. Which is fine -- many people really are only having these discussions for the first time. There is nothing wrong with that.
But why do you assume that no one reading this thread has never been exposed to this information before? Some people have, but no one requires that they participate in a similar discussion again.
It's not as if we're on a totally irrelevant tangent here. The fact that some people have discussed it in the past doesn't reduce its relevance as a policy alternative.
Okay, you're obviously a troll. I fell for it. Lesson learned. I'm going to disengage. Got me, nice work.
> Other side: Governments should impose restrictions and fees as society as a whole will be effected by certain actions of individuals and governments have a responsibility to look out for the people's best interest.
I feel like people are always talking past each other. In general what happens is that the policies enacted by Democrats and Republicans are both crap but in different ways, and then both sides argue for their ideal that their party doesn't actually uphold but against the other side's actual results which are in both cases terrible.
So they're both right. Markets are more efficient than governments but we don't want people starving in the streets. The Republicans' policies are terrible in practice and the Democrats' policies are terrible in practice. What now?
I tend to think the answer is a UBI, but the difficulty is in getting it passed. The right-wing objection is obvious; it's the purest incarnation of redistribution of wealth. But we already have such policies and replacing them with an equally-redistributive UBI is probably an easier sell than it is on the left, because it would evaporate their world. Unemployment insurance, disability, social security? Redundant, not required. Minimum wage? Food stamps? Housing subsidies? Same. Progressive income tax? Don't need it, flat tax plus UBI results in negative effective rates for low income people and low effective rates for middle income people.
So "employee benefits"? Bad policy, let's get rid of them all and do a UBI instead. Which is the right policy precisely because it would dismantle a century of accumulated inefficient bureaucracy -- but that very fact makes it hard to enact.
So in the meantime I end up arguing against all of this other stuff, as just more to repeal when we finally get the votes to do it properly, and more institutional inertia that makes it harder to get where we ought to be.
But I sometimes lean on the traditional arguments because, ironically, I'm less tired of those than having the same "does a UBI cause inflation" "not really but if it did that's what we need right now anyway" discussion for the hundredth time.