I genuinely don't understand this position. I don't see how replacing a "bad" option with no option helps anyone, especially the people that were willing to take the "bad" option.

The missing link is that you're raising a false dichotomy. Its a sliding scale of profit margin. Instead of bad or none, the choice is more low paying options or fewer higher paying options. Some will receive higher wages, while some opportunities will not be available.

Both sides believe the net benefit backs up their stated position and there's very little compelling data one way or another.

I'm not so sure how false it is. If there were a better option, wouldn't people be using it already? And since they're not, aren't we just... firing them and leaving them to figure it out? Seems heartless. Honestly it comes across as "F the little guy, give me the policy I want." (I'm not accusing you of that, your tone came across as quite polite.)

The goal of regulation is to stop the race of the bottom at some point.

Is it? By regulating, you'll just create an artificial shortage.

This is microeconomics 101.

If you have a competitive equilibrium, you can't improve the situation for consumers and producers by just regulating prices.

the option is to provide the infrastructure for the market to figure out, but you need some baseline first, and we don't have that baseline. Decouple healthcare from having a job and you're already halfway there, like the rest of the world.

banning prostitution is the best example of this dumb line of thinking. If they could do something better they already would be doing it. Replacing a "bad" option with "no" option does not help them.

Prostitution should not be an option for anyone.

How is:

"I was so poor I had to sell my body so as to not starve to death but selling my body made me depressed and so I spent all my money on drugs leaving no money for food, throwing me into a life of starvation."

...better than:

"I was so poor I could not buy food."

...really?

"I was so poor I starved to death."

fixed that for you to make the two sentences equal. Making prostitution illegal doesn't prevent the men and women who sell their bodies from starving to death after they lost their source of income. I'm all for social programs preventing people from starving to death though, that seems like a much better solution than banning prostution.

I think you forget all of the bad things that come with not having any money. Food is critical, and that is just the start.

If the economy cannot support enough reasonable paying jobs with adequate health insurance, then the answer is to re-think how the economy works, not create more garbage jobs that earn miserable livelihoods.

If we did things like abandon employer-subsidized healthcare for a modern single payer system, then maybe it wouldn't be so disadvantageous for drivers to be classified as contractors.

> If the economy cannot support enough reasonable paying jobs with adequate health insurance

I don't see why anyone other than the person doing the work gets to define what "reasonable" or "adequate" is. It also seems completely heartless to me to put people out of work in order to push a political agenda.

Great, let's rethink how the economy works. AB5 does not do that though. It is actually a return to historical norms (in that it mandates foisting the institution of employment on something that is wholly new). AB5 is an incredibly conservative bill seeking to return to the pre-uber status quo. It is not a 'rethinking of the economy'.

I never said it was. I'm not defending AB5. I'm saying that the current situation is untenable, and neither of the solutions being provided to us do anything to solve the problem.

That's a non-existent binary. There are plenty of other options, including regulating rideshare companies to ensure drivers are paid a living wage.

Yeah and what if they won't have a job at all because Uber/Lyft suddenly became too expensive for anyone to use?

If the costs increase dramatically, demand goes down and thus fewer drivers needed, as people look at alternatives like getting their own car, public transportation, bikes, etc.

This is a pretty absurd argument to make when the alternative is quite literally these jobs not existing at all as almost just happened at midnight tonight.

Uber and Lyft shutting down is posturing. I find it quite hard to believe taxi services will become impossible and not simply a bit more expensive.

alternative is to provide healthcare as a human right?

Healthcare should be provided as a human right but this is not accomplishing that.

This jobs will exist one way or the other. If uber is out taxis(or some other third party) will pick up the slack.

> The market is not fair.

What's your definition of "fair"?

No such thing as fair in life. So why have some bureaucrat write laws to dictate fair based on their politics? The market isn’t political.

Having said that, Uber drivers exist because it does provide enough money to have people show up and provide a service. If it didn’t, no one would do the driving. Not to mention most drivers don’t want to be considered employees.