These zero sum arguments are pointless and needlessly inflammatory.

That's exactly what's going to happen, though. Uber and Lyft are not very profitable so they can't actually afford to increase wages or benefits out of their own pockets. If they increase prices, the market will shrink, so drivers won't have work.

That’s not the alternative scenario.

The alternative scenario is that either Uber/Lyft or another company abides by the rules, and deliver the same service with hired employees. The demand is there. Yes, it will become a bit more expensive for the consumer, but that price difference, is what it costs to give decent benefits and rights to workers.

> The demand is there

That's not true. The demand is there because the cost makes sense. I had a car, but after considering the cost of owning (and parking) that car, I found that I was better off not having a car and relying on Uber when I need to get somewhere that requires a car. If that math no longer makes sense, I'll probably go back to driving.

I take it as a "no". You nor California's government have no better options for them.

> The alternative scenario...

Another scenario is that Uber hikes prices, people cease to use their services because they are too expensive, and the company fails, and all these drivers lose their jobs, and customers lose the service, which will double-hurt the working class because rich people can afford their own cars and/or expensive taxis.

The drivers are not exploited. Had their have better options, they would be working elsewhere. You want to help them, give them better options, make opening business easier and so on. Not kill their options.

Ehh... I'm wasting my time... Socialists are the worst enemy of the people the claim to want to protect.

If workers get paid more in benefits and "rights," more people will become rideshare drivers. And then pay will get pushed down, until the work is just as undesirable as it is now, only differently undesirable, because the compensation is in the form of benefits and "rights," instead of cash that the driver can spend however they want.

Your alternative scenario isn't entirely correct either. Yes, the workers you see will be paid more and they will appreciate the labor protections. However, there will be a number of people whom you will not see, because they will no longer be employed at all.

Exactly. Employment and benefits requirement will completely eliminate part-time and flexible-hours workers, and other people that were really benefiting from this type of work.

> The demand is there.

I'd be very surprised if this turns out to be true. Ridesharing is competing with public transit, personal vehicles, walking, etc. If prices significantly increase, the market size will go back to what it was before Uber.

I think the more fair deal would be employing them at a more fair job, as should be the goal of a responsible government.