Hillary Clinton Takes Aim At 'Gig Economy' 432
SonicSpike writes with an excerpt from Marketwatch that says at least one major candidate in the 2016 electoral fight has made the "sharing economy" epitomized by Uber and Airbnb a campaign issue. In a major campaign speech in New York City, the former secretary of state didn't mention the ride-sharing service by name. But it was pretty clear what sort of companies she was talking about when she got to how some Americans earn money. "Many Americans are making extra money renting out a spare room, designing websites, selling products they design themselves at home, or even driving their own car," she said at the New School. But that sort of work comes with its own problems, she said. "This 'on demand' or so-called 'gig economy' ... is raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future," Clinton added.
Good point, but Uber is a bad example (Score:2, Insightful)
Uber is an illegal cab company and should just be shut down. If Uber puts the cab companies out of business it most certainly take away a lot of "real" jobs. Furthermore, we'll all be slaves to "surge pricing". And make no mistake, surge pricing is going to increase drunk driving fatalities.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Uber is an illegal cab company
What makes it intrinsically illegal? Just because there is a law? I wonder how you feel about Illegal Aliens (er Undocumented residents). Gay Marriage was illegal just a few months ago in a wide number of places in the US.
So you believe that business models deserve protection from competition by creating legal loops that do not do anything except protect economic interests?
Strange world view.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
that do not do anything except protect economic interests?
Strange world view.
yes, what a strange world view it is, to avoid racing to the bottom.
Re: (Score:3)
For sure, my car was way nicer than any cab I have been in, which blows the "race to the bottom" claim out of the water.
gosh, your clean car means that taxi drivers get paid more under uber?
Re: (Score:3)
gosh, your clean car means that taxi drivers get paid more under uber?
Uber drivers don't have to pay for a medallion (which can cost over $1M), or pay to rent one. It is unlikely Uber drivers make much more than taxi drivers, since taxi drivers are not quitting to join Uber, but I don't see any reason why they would be making much less either, because the dispatchers would just raise their commissions to level the field. Both seem to be mostly recent immigrants, likely lacking green cards, that are the bottom of the economic ladder.
Disclaimer: I have never actually used Ube
Re:And who is at the bottom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You have to look at the entire cycle
Yeah, right. This is something politicians never do when enacting new laws regarding economic conditions. See "Minimum Wage Laws" and the results of fewer jobs after increasing Min Wage.
Re:And who is at the bottom? (Score:5, Insightful)
You think the consumer will continue to have a better deal if Uber is the only game in town?
Uber already has competition from Lyft, and other ride sharing services. New entrants can easily enter the market.
the loser in that scenario will be the drivers
With ride sharing, the drivers compete by providing quality and value to consumers. With taxis, the drivers compete by bidding up the price of medallions. There is no reason to believe that the latter will lead to higher wages. But there is good reason to believe that the former will lead to better service, and more people riding rather than driving and parking their own cars.
If government imposed artificial scarcity and price controls is such great idea for taxis, then why shouldn't the same model be good for other areas of the economy? Why shouldn't there be a "grocery store medallion" to limit the number of stores, jack up prices, and prevent them from having to compete? How about programmers? Should there be a "programmer medallion" to limit the number of people allowed to write code?
Re: (Score:3)
If government imposed artificial scarcity and price controls is such great idea for taxis, then why shouldn't the same model be good for other areas of the economy? Why shouldn't there be a "grocery store medallion" to limit the number of stores, jack up prices, and prevent them from having to compete? How about programmers? Should there be a "programmer medallion" to limit the number of people allowed to write code?
I suppose the difference is that taxi driving is relatively unskilled (especially if there's no route-knowledge test — less important now that there's sat nav). Supply constraints aim to give these unskilled people an adequate full-time job and wage, which may be more socially desirable than open-slather combined with welfare support. But the unintended consequences have concentrated the power and profits in pimp-like medallion owners, who sub-contract to the drivers. Perhaps the solution is an Uber-
Re:And who is at the bottom? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're a little confused.
You got together a car way better than any taxi, 'for fun', caring nothing for the depreciation of your asset you bring to the table, in order to be a dilettante scab just on a whim.
It's not automatically a race to the bottom for passengers, so long as Uber can continue to get people like you who aren't actually committed, and as long as the passengers' luck holds out.
It's a race to the bottom for that entire employment sector because any driver, either taxi or uber, has to compete with YOU 'for fun' when you don't actually have to get paid because you don't really care. You don't have to care about wearing out your resources because you'll likely just drop out if something happens to your car, you don't have to care about getting paid since you're doing it 'for fun', and as long as Uber or Lyft can get hold of enough people like you, everybody has to compete on your terms.
And you're losing money. You're the sucker, you just get to opt out before you lose everything as it's just a gig, 'for fun'. You don't have to consider wear on your vehicle, your insurance, any of that. You're doing it for some other reason and as long as the company can find more like you
It's one thing when you 'pay to play' at some Sunset Strip nightclub, in order to get your music out there. Yeah, that's no business plan but it's an ego thing and performing on stage and it's easy to see how that type of 'work' ends up for dilettantes and trust-funders, generally unable to provide a living wage to your average musician.
It's VERY WEIRD if you have to be a superstar freakin' cab driver to earn a living because everybody else is losing money on the deal. Just saying. Your activity contributes to a situation where everybody else has to match your level of interaction/committment/cashflow. Cabdriving is not meant to be a hobby you spend some money on to have an interesting experience on weekends. (of course, Uber is liable to take it to 'cabdriving is not for humans' in the relatively near future)
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine a guy who gets off on driving for Uber Black in a Ferrari F40. They get crazy tips but what they're really doing it for is the awe of the passengers and to be treated like a freaky crazy rich dude for the people. What's that (or more luxurious angles: a Rolls-Royce guy) do to the job market?
Re:And who is at the bottom? (Score:5, Insightful)
If coders contribute code in their free time to an open source project is that bad because it takes that opportunity away from corporate coders who make their living off that kind of work? Is the corporate coder disadvantaged by the open source contributors that are doing it for fun? They don't have to consider having an office, benefits, or any of that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The real question is: How would you feel if , in whatever job you do for income, someone showed up to work for $0 hour for fun on the project, and they let you go?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If the open source projects were not available, then a business needing that functionality would have to employ resources in house to do it or contract the work to some other business. I think the analogy works just fine. There is a giant pool of work that needs to be done with regards to software, but it is certainly not infinite. For an individual business, that pool of work is not likely to be all that large.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I code for fun. Am I putting paid programmers out of a job?
Re:And who is at the bottom? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, I'm coding for users, who, if they didn't have my code, would either 1) purchase software from a company that employs coders or 2) go without.
I think that's the more apt analogy. Uber drivers are not working for the cab companies for free. They're servicing customers who would otherwise patronize the employers of cab drivers.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't want government restricting options available to me, or restricting those that would provide those options to me.
we all want free money, and we don't want the government to stop us from getting it, surprise!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I want to pay market prices for everything I consume. No one suggested that anything or anyone should be free.
then why don't you pay double for your gasoline? you are getting a 50% discount thanks to government subsidies
and you should also be paying more for milk and other dairy products whose prices are artificially lowered by government actions
Re:Free? Who said anything about free? (Score:5, Insightful)
[Citation Needed] Considering close to 1/4 of the price of gas in most places in the US is ALREADY taxes, that would be a hard number to back up. Or are you comparing the price here to the even higher taxed fuel in other countries and calling that a "subsidy"?
Re:Free? Who said anything about free? (Score:5, Informative)
No, what he calls "subsidies" is actually programs that help people live. There are no "subsidies" for oil, they don't exist (at least directly). These are programs like "strategic oil reserve", and "Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program" (HEAP) are counted as ... you guessed it, "Subsidies".
And nowhere, do liberals ever talk about how much Government actually makes off Oil (Profits taxed, gasoline taxes etc), which amount to way more than what the oil companies get in profits.
IF anyone is getting "rich" off "big oil" it is government. And I can't wait till we are all on Renewable fuels that ARE subsidized, and the government loses a huge amount of their income.
And then you'll see liberals come out and want to tax "Solar Panels" and "biofuels" ....
Re: (Score:2)
If you went to a gas station and said, "I want to pay extra for my gas" the attendant wouldn't even know what to do.
Re:Free? Who said anything about free? (Score:5, Interesting)
I want to pay market prices for everything I consume. No one suggested that anything or anyone should be free.
then why don't you pay double for your gasoline? you are getting a 50% discount thanks to government subsidies
You do realize that's completely false, right?
I know some nutcases like to pretend that the oil companies get untold billions in subsidies, but when you look at the actual numbers, it's just plain false. There's an "$18 billion" subsidy number tossed around, but that's because they include regular old tax deductions. You know, the kind (and amount) that every business gets. A lot of folks are annoyed that oil companies can deduct exploration costs, but that's no different than any business expense.
The single largest "subsidy" due to direct government spending is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve - where the government buys oil - at market prices (no bonuses), and keeps it, until they can use if for things like lowering oil prices when it's politically expedient.
Currently, the US consumes about 140 billion gallons of gasoline a year. Which would mean that, at current $3/gallon prices, we'd have to subsidize by about a half a TRILLION dollars a year. Someone would notice a check that large...
No, government "subsidies" don't cut your gas prices by half - but government taxes increase them by a fairly large amount.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he's paying for the government subsidies through taxes, so why would he pay that fraction again until the subsidies are discontinued? Since the subsidies are many steps above his interaction at the retail stores, by what mechanism would he even pay the extra money if he wanted to?
In your mind, are those the only two options available to us? Have the government restrict the things that we can do for our own good or voluntarily pay extra to subsidized industries. Your argument doesn't make any sense.
Re: (Score:3)
then why don't you pay double for your gasoline? you are getting a 50% discount thanks to government subsidies
There is no such thing as 50% government gasoline subsidy in the United States, nor any combination of indirect subsidies which reduce its price by 50%. You are making up a lie to support your position.
and you should also be paying more for milk and other dairy products whose prices are artificially lowered by government actions
It is the opposite. Prices of farm commodities are artificially raisied, not lowered by the government. These are FDR-era programs, often called "price supports". It was recently the subject a U.S Supreme Court case, Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture in which the court ruled against the government. It is also
Re:Government knows best... (Score:4, Insightful)
Translation, "I want what I want as cheaply as possible, screw everyone else and damn the consequences."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Government knows best... (Score:4, Insightful)
you know what's a terrible way to live? Not being sure if you're going to die at work tomorrow because your boss, or your boss's boss decides to skimp on safety gear because it's cheaper.
It's not your decision to work an incredibly hazardous job that's on the line or not, it's the decision for your employer not to give you decent protection from mishaps.
Re: (Score:3)
Your premise is that society wants this and you do not. Fine. Your options are (1) live with it and attempt to convince society t
Internet Commenter Knows Best (Score:3)
Re:Government knows best... (Score:5, Insightful)
The funny thing is that what she calls a "Gig Economy" is what America has been doing since its founding.
You, a person, learn skills. You make things. You do things. You serve. People give you money, goods, or services in exchange. This country was built on the concept of the lone inventor making it on his own, the person who bought a horse and carriage to ferry people around, the family that built a boat to move cargo up and down the river as they pleased.
What she is calling "new" is what we have been doing all along.
I specifically said why the law is good (Score:2)
I'm sorry it was so hard to read the second and third sentences.
Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes it intrinsically illegal? Just because there is a law?
Well, yes, that is the definition of illegal; because a law says so. Perhaps you are confusing morality/immorality with legality/illegality?
So you believe that business models deserve protection from competition by creating legal loops that do not do anything except protect economic interests? Strange world view.
Where have you been since the 1890's? Millions of people in employee unions believe this quite firmly, to the point of violence and beyond.
Re: (Score:3)
What makes defeating Macrovision Copy Protection to copy your wedding tape from VHS to DVD intrinsically illegal?
"Our great Republic is a government of laws, and not of men"
So's anarchy.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because the choice is between Government enslavement and anarchy. There is no reasonable middle ground that we can debate over.
Because if it is between the extremes of Government Laws over every last aspect of my life, and anarchy, I'll happily choose anarchy and be free. You can choose enslavement if you want, just don't expect me to join you.
Re: (Score:3)
What makes it intrinsically illegal? Just because there is a law?
Uh, yeah. That's kind of how that works.
I wonder how you feel about Illegal Aliens (er Undocumented residents).
I feel that they are here... illegally?
Gay Marriage was illegal just a few months ago in a wide number of places in the US.
Yeah, there were laws against it, so it was illegal. Those laws were ruled unconstitutional, so those laws are void. Now gay marriage is legal.
So you believe that business models deserve protection from competition by creating legal loops that do not do anything except protect economic interests?
No, just that all businesses operate under the same set of rules and laws.
Is there some part of this that is confusing to you?
Re: (Score:3)
Uber isn't always cheaper. Their original "black" service was more expensive, and yet still was cleaning up. They have a nice dispatch system and their cars are clean.
Re: (Score:2)
Regulated monopolies are not good for any economy.
the us economy flourished in the 1950s with regulated telephones and regulated taxicabs and regulated airfares
Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example (Score:5, Insightful)
And this has nothing to do with the rest of the world's industrial base being completely destroyed 10 years earlier.
Re: (Score:3)
More like "oversimplification strikes again". You have to admit that it was a pretty unique circumstance, and one where the structural problems were laid bare in the 60s and 70s. Also, regarding regulation, you have to compare it to your competition. You only need to be as regulated or less regulated than your competition - there weren't many countries with a competitive telecommunications market in 1950. I think taxis are not quite as vital to the economy, but I see no reason that Uber's superior dispatchi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also the US had 90% top tax rate.
Which is deceptive and a half-truth as almost nobody actually paid those insane rates because of tax loopholes.
Remember, taxes kill the economy!
This, you got right.
Here, take a listen to one of the greatest Democratic US Presidents on the subject of taxation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Strat
US boom in 1950s a result of WW2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Regulated monopolies are not good for any economy.
the us economy flourished in the 1950s with regulated telephones and regulated taxicabs and regulated airfares
The US economy flourished because it had just modernized during World War II and many other industrial nations had their economies wrecked during the war. Plus US industry was heavily "subsidized" by the government financed reconstruction of many of those countries devastated by war.
When making such comparisons always keep in mind the caveat of the statistician and economist, "all other things being equal". In the 1950s they were not.
Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example (Score:5, Informative)
the us economy flourished in the 1950s with regulated telephones and regulated taxicabs and regulated airfares
In the 1950s, China also had regulated telephones, regulated taxicabs, and regulated airfares. Their economy collapsed, and 30 million people starved to death.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think the issue is "regulated monopolies" via cab-companies...
The issue is quasi-contractors - without overhead like Health Insurance, car insurance, retirement plans - vs actual employees. Of course other "companies" can't compete.
Run a McDonalds with all part time employees and Kiosks... against a fully staffed McDonalds with all full-time employee's. Both will provide the same "service", but the full staffed restaurant will be at a disadvantage vs the one that can cut corners by excluding full ti
Re: Good point, but Uber is a bad example (Score:5, Insightful)
Now.... do that with Cab companies. Replace full time employees with "at will" employees. Remove the need for "crap" like 401ks, health and stupid stuff like training and licensing that a "real" cab driver needs. Gee... I wonder why "real" companies can't compete. "real" jobs are replaced by part time employees with a net loss of benefits and safety.
I think you're overestimating the benefits given to traditional cab drivers by taxi companies. Next time you take a taxi, ask the driver how awesome their 401k and health insurance are. And 'training'? Give me a fucking break.
Not seeing the problem (Score:2)
Uber is an illegal cab company and should just be shut down.
It is not clearly illegal in many places and even it it is illegal in places it is not clear that it should be illegal. If Uber is providing competition in the taxi industry then more power to them. If they are innovating in an industry that sorely needs it then I see no reason to prohibit that. It sounds to me like a lot of taxi companies have had a sweetheart deal for a long time and are pissed off that they are having to compete. Not seeing why I should be sympathetic.
If Uber puts the cab companies out of business it most certainly take away a lot of "real" jobs.
If the cab companies get put out
Re: (Score:2)
It is illegal. The drivers don't have taxi medallions.
"If the cab companies get put out of business because they are inefficient and can't compete then they deserve to go out of business." No cab companies provide real jobs, Uber does not.
What I said about drunk driving is obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
The United States consists of more than New York City and Chicago, you know. There is no taxi medallion system in my city, nor in Washington DC, Minneapolis, or Denver, just to pick a few names at random. All of Uber's services are perfectly legal where I live. I don't see how you have disproven his point.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Taxi drivers are mostly independent workers, leasing a cab [chron.com] and pay a percentage back to the company that owns the cab or the medallion they're driving under. The only difference between them an an Uber or Lyft driver is that there are more people and local governments sucking on the bottle. These people aren't being paid under the table, they take pride in what they do and they're entrepreneurial, choosing when they want to work, just like regular cab drivers.
So from the standpoint of "illegal" the only
Re: (Score:2)
The only difference between them an an Uber or Lyft driver is that there are more people and local governments sucking on the bottle.
your choice of metaphor says wonders about you
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I understand how "surge pricing" will increase drunk driving fatalities. I guess you are thinking that someone gets out of a bar to go home, and because surge pricing is too expensive, they drive home themselves instead of calling a cab/Uber (or instead of someone else setting one up for them). But the limitation on the availability of cabs is because there are more people looking for cabs than there are cabs on the street. Surge pricing brings more cabs out on the street, since supply curves s
Re: (Score:3)
In Other Words... (Score:5, Insightful)
...We need to figure out how to kill it with regulations so that my big corporate donors can sleep soundly at night.
Uber is a big corporate donor (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.chicagobusiness.com... [chicagobusiness.com]
And the regulations already exist. Uber is completely illegal.
Re:In Other Words... (Score:5, Interesting)
Think. Are big cab companies among Hillary Clinton's big corporate donors? I'd say she's a lot more likely to get money from Uber than from non-existent multi-national cab companies.
I have no love for Hillary Clinton and will not vote for her, but it's reasonable to talk about what the American workplace is going to look like if the corporations have their way. Maybe you're OK with taking in peoples' wash and sewing for low pay, no benefits or sick days, and a friendly "fuck you" when you're too old to work, but most people are not.
Re: (Score:2)
All you are thinking about is Uber - and that is where you are making your mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say she's a lot more likely to get money from Uber than from non-existent multi-national cab companies.
Apparently, she didn't get enough. Let's see if she says anything about the "gig economy" a few months from now, and cross-reference that with the updated list of donors.
Re: (Score:3)
Big companies love this idea anyway. Employment without all the annoying responsibilities that normally come with it. If your "employees" are actually self employed, merely using your "service" to get their gigs and take payment, then you don't need to pay many employment taxes, don't need to provide benefits or guarantees of work, and they are totally disposable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with your freedom reflexes, instead of whining about any attempt to tackle a problem please be the one to say the sane solution(s). Because there are simple solutions. Not solving correctly our problems is what gives them the task of screwing it up. So it's our fault, not theirs.
Re:In Other Words... (Score:5, Interesting)
What regulated activity is without exploits, abuse, and scamming?
If you're trying to make a point, that's a poor way to do it.
I don't think there is anything wrong with a service like (the ever-so-popular example) Uber, or renting our a room, or renting out time on something you own, or providing a service on an on-demand basis. Is some regulation necessary? Probably. I imagine that some kind of insurance coverage would be a good idea, for example.
I just happen to know where Hillary comes from politically: Heavy handed government control and cronyism. I don't trust her, and I don't understand how anyone else can (except the insane who support her only because of her genitalia).
Re:In Other Words... (Score:5, Insightful)
I just happen to know where Hillary comes from politically: Heavy handed government control and cronyism. I don't trust her, and I don't understand how anyone else can (except the insane who support her only because of her genitalia).
Don't forget those who support her because they profit from her brand of heavy handed government control and cronyism.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I was going to say "....we need to figure out how we can tax the shit out of it" but yours works too.
Re: (Score:2)
I took a gig once (Score:5, Funny)
Whatever the problem is (Score:2, Insightful)
You can rest assured that the solution requires more laws, more government, more money, and less freedom.
Sefdom is only a generation away (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm OK with workplace safety laws. I'm not OK with laws that prop up obsolete businesses.
Republicans tell us that safe workplaces are obsolete!
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't laws that prop up obsolete businesses, it's folks that regard any business that isn't shiny and new and app and mobile friendly as obsolete. And damn the workers so long as the self absorbed class get theirs.
It's telling that you don't seem to support laws that protect employees from predatory emplo
Clinton foundation got some PAC money from Uber... (Score:2)
Rand Paul says More to disruptive technologies (Score:2, Troll)
"It's ironic someone who has been driven around in a limo for the past 30 years is giving ride sharing advice.
Hillary Clinton just chided the sharing-economy which is boosted by services such as Lyft, Uber, and Airbnb. We must advocate for innovation and disruption and need to support increased choice which leads to lower prices for all Americans."
Piece work (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If I want to do piece work, whether web sites or chauffeuring someone around, it's none of her friggin' business.
Have you read the constitution? It says the government can regulate your commercial activities.
Literacy (Score:3, Informative)
No, it doesn't. that's a supreme court assault on freedom. The constitution says the feds can regulate "interstate commerce". The Supremes decided that means they can tell you that may not grow corn in your garden but that you must buy health insurance. Neither of those are in the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
have you read your state's constitution? they can regulate commerce within your state and tax you
You are wrong on the U.S. Constitutional breadth (Score:4, Insightful)
The Constitution of the United States (not your personal constitution, not the unwritten constitutional law of Great Britain, etc.) limits the Federal government to the regulation of Interstate Commerce. It should not have the scope to regulate business that does not cross the boundaries of the many States. For example, if I sell produce raised in the garden on my land to my neighbors or at a stand on the road I live on or even to a local store, I am not engaging in interstate commerce as my reach does not cross State lines. Now the State or the County or the City/Town/Village that I live in may regulate my business; but that is not encompassed by the U.S. Constitution. I know there are people who believe that we don't live in such an environment but in a totally top down government like those in many other parts of the world. And there are those who are wishing it were that way and even those who are fighting to make it top down. But it isn't so yet. Hillary Clinton is one of the latter. She and the Democrat Party would like nothing more than turning the States into mere departments of the Federal Government wherein the big cities of the East and West coasts could suck the money, life and freedom from the rest of the country. They desire the world of the Hunger Games.
'Nuf said.
the path to success (Score:2)
Apparently the path to wealth for the common man is to pay him less
we'll all be rich (Score:2, Funny)
when we pay everyone the lowest amount possible
another win for the 1% (Score:4, Insightful)
Not long before you were born there was a system of employment called 'piece work'. If you work in a sweat shop or on a farm or in a factory, you got paid according to what you produced. Usually this meant that you worked your butt off and still got paid less than hourly workers. This has been frowned upon until recently.
People raising a family, paying a mortgage, saving for retirement or children's education need a reliable income. Corporations don't want to get weighed down with that burden--they want people that they can call when needed and dump when the need passes.
Corporations have been winning for a long time now and this 'gig economy' is the next step.
Piece work (Score:5, Insightful)
Not long before you were born there was a system of employment called 'piece work'. If you work in a sweat shop or on a farm or in a factory, you got paid according to what you produced. Usually this meant that you worked your butt off and still got paid less than hourly workers. This has been frowned upon until recently.
Piece work is still around and in many cases it is a very appropriate way to pay for services rendered. If I'm an employer and I've got two employees and one is twice as productive as the other, why should they receive equal pay? What is the less productive person doing that makes them worth just as much despite doing less work? If the piece work rate is too low that is a different issue but there is nothing inherently wrong with compensating on a piece work basis.
Furthermore piece work is used in many place you aren't really thinking about it. Doctors get paid per-procedure which is basically piece work. (it's why they have to hustle through so many patients) Truckers often get paid per delivery or per mile which is basically piece work. Lots of professions get compensated on a piece work basis that have nothing to do with making widgets and there is nothing wrong with that. Piece work incentivizes efficient deliver of services.
The problem with piece work is that it can also incentivize shoddy quality if there aren't controls in place to keep quality high. Sometimes that is not easy to do which is why piece work isn't used in some place where it might otherwise make sense.
People raising a family, paying a mortgage, saving for retirement or children's education need a reliable income.
A reliable income can be assured through having valuable skills and working hard. If you lack a valuable skill and/or are not willing to work hard then a reliable income will be hard to come by. People are not and should not be entitled to a reliable income merely for existing - they need to earn it. Your choice to have a family or buy a house isn't my problem. Work hard and develop some skills that others value and chances are you'll do fine.
Corporations don't want to get weighed down with that burden--they want people that they can call when needed and dump when the need passes.
So corporations are supposed to pay people to sit idle and do nothing? How many people do you employ so that they can sit on their ass and collect a paycheck for no work? I'm guessing you've never run a company. I do run a manufacturing company. Paying people to do nothing (read work inefficiently) is pretty much the best way I know of to put a company into bankruptcy. No company should be required to employ someone when there is no work for them to perform or if they are providing sub-standard performance.
Re:Piece work (Score:5, Interesting)
That's an interesting reply to my original '1%' post. You've taken the employer perspective as many other employers would.
But you say: " I'm guessing you've never run a company. I do run a manufacturing company. Paying people to do nothing (read work inefficiently) is pretty much the best way I know of to put a company into bankruptcy." - and that's quite wrong.
I ran my own construction company and helped run another. There is plenty of room in construction work for people to drag their feet, to slack off and take advantage of their employer. In our companies, we took a personal interest in our employees (typically around 30) and their families. During the inevitable slow periods we tried everything imaginable to keep everyone on payroll. We bid jobs below cost at times just to keep them active. The benefit was (as you suggested) quality work, but even more we learned that their loyalty paid of in monetary and other ways.
There have been companies that cared about employees, and employees who respond with loyalty. There was an entire nation (Japan) with this attitude. This is out of fashion lately but can be found to some extent at companies like Starbucks and Costco and many smaller companies. OTOH there are profitable companies like Walmart whose employees depend on welfare to survive.
You may choose how to run your company. I'd prefer to make slightly fewer millions knowing that my employees can thrive.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had this conversation with every Uber driver I've ever had: They all feel that this is an opportunity for them.
grifters gotta grift
Re: (Score:3)
Russell Brand makes a good argument (Score:3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
We don't need to shovel more money into Goldman Sachs.
Time for the old Reagan quote (Score:5, Funny)
(Hillary's) view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Isn't this more about full-time employment? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Juat another euphemism... (Score:5, Interesting)
Just another euphemism... (Score:2)
That doesn't look like much of a stance (Score:2)
nobody complains (Score:2)
when government regulation lowers prices
they only complain when government regulation raises prices
do you hear people complaining about how they pay too little for milk or wheat or butter or gasoline?
without government supports they would be paying a lot more
where are the complaints?
Screw Karma (Score:3)
A worker works for who pays them. Hillary's current gig is financed by Goldman, Citigroup, and Chase. [opensecrets.org] She'll say whatever she likes to get elected, and serve the people she works for. Biting the hand that feeds you is bad for business.
You could always vote for someone who takes money almost exclusively from unions and individuals [opensecrets.org] and talked about corporate greed and struggling workers before it was "cool", but hey, how can you get elected without at least 3 major banks funding you?
Re:Why (Score:4, Funny)
Did someone mention Donald Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
At least Donald Trump has accomplishments he can point to
please provide a link to all of his political accomplishments
Well, he filed for bankruptcy four times [forbes.com], oh wait, you said "political" accomplishments - never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. They will preferentially hire drivers using Jeeps and Humvees that can drive across post-apocalyptic terrain (or that six-wheeled Mercedes thing?).
Then, everybody else finds using private vehicles is even more difficult and expensive, making hiring an Uber Humvee more advantageous.
That's the obvious market answer. Why would they want to fix roads if that helps people not use their service?