Re:California is cracking down on the gig economy
by momokoko on Sunday June 02, 2019 @01:38AM
(#20073681)
I was not talking about policy _at_all_. I was giving some additional info to a specific person about their specific situation. Why are you doing this? How did we now arrive at a tangent about UBI? What does UBI have to do with how that specific person I was replying to should decide about driving for GrubHub? Are you suggesting that that person should first go lobby government officials to implement UBI and see if that works before deciding to drive for GrubHub or not? This is nuts.
Okay, you're obviously a troll. I fell for it. Lesson learned. I'm going to disengage. Got me, nice work.
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.