The "stupid system" is set up this way for a reason: to prevent employers from majorly fucking over their employees (and avoid taxes) in order to maximize profits.

The reason a lot of Uber drivers don't mind being contractors is because they already have full-time jobs that provide health insurance. But ask drivers who drive during regular business hours (they will be more likely to not have any other job) and they will probably tell you that they would rather be employees.

I think there's a stunning irony in the fact that America's privatized health system causes problems for disruptive companies like Uber.

Yeah, I hear you.

I guess one other way these things are exclusive is that they drive up costs for sharing economy companies. Some of these companies are pricing so low that they are barely making a profit as it is. If their costs are even higher, they will have to drive up prices, and at least part of their appeal immediately vanishes. At least a few of the companies will die if that happens.

> At least a few of the companies will die if that happens.

I wish people would realize this is a morally neutral outcome. Like, oh no, another company down the drain. It's not like they're a limited resource. We should be willing to sacrifice a thousand companies if they can't succeed on the profit metric under the rules we've set.

"Sharing economy" type companies are a good idea. They'll succeed, or better ones will. They don't need coddling.

If a company and its potential customers are prevented from making a mutually beneficial exchange because of some rule, that's a cost. You can argue that the cost is outweighed by the benefits of the rule, but you can't just claim that the cost doesn't exist.

Yes, labor regulations are a cost. Yes, that's because we're civilized people.

If you want a libertarian paradise where government doesn't interfere, move to Somalia.