The Next President is...

[slackline]

55 minutes ago, brabus said:

@Negatory There you go again responding without actually reading what I wrote. I never brought legality or the constitution into my statement even remotely, I simply said picking and choosing who is suppressed (e.g. double standard) is what most people are pissed about. The group who actually think Twitter did something illegal/unconstitutional is wrong (we agree there). I hope you vehemently support the Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.

 

I for one fully support him, and even feel like he was baited by the "woke" crowd just to point out there was someone who didn't agree with them. If you look into what they did, it was clear they were goading the bakery.

[ViperMan]

13 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Checking accounts are free, but often only if you maintain a certain amount of money in the account. If you're struggling to make ends meet and are living paycheck to paycheck, a checking account could be an extra expense you have to deal with. Same with ATM fees. Or buying checks. And this assumes you have a device with internet connectivity to check your balance instead of maintaining a checking ledger and going it adds up at the end of the month. And you may have to pay for paper statements.

I agree we're seeing a change due to technology, but I don't think it's so much a decentralization as it is a flattening of the system and eliminating the middlemen (which you've mentioned).

Better communications technologies and automation allows the end users more direct access to core businesses. This is great for both the consumer and for the business providing that core good or service.

However, so many businesses fill the middleman role, or employ a large portion of people acting as middlemen (just processing paperwork). What happens when those jobs are eliminated (or outsourced some where cheaper)? Where do they go to earn a living? A lot of outsourcing concerns have generally been to overseas, but the pandemic has shown US companies they can outsource within the US to cheaper cost of living areas and drive down personnel costs (much cheaper to hire an engineer living in Kansas than one in California). This can also drive significant changes in worker's lives, as they may be forced to move (without assistance) to compete for potentially their own job, or just suck up the hit on income and make it work. AI and machine learning is still in its infancy, but as those technologies mature, they risk eliminating creative work (like engineering, analysis, and design), further exacerbating technologies impact on the workforce.

The free market doesn't really care what happens to those people that are out of work due to automation or outsourcing, so long as there are consumers out there to but their products or services. And as long as the government protects the businesses from violence (though maintaining normal law and order), businesses don't have an incentive to care about what happens to their former workers or their impact on society. But desperate people will resort to desperate measures, so unless we as a society (either through government, or "ethical" employers) make changes to adapt to how technology is changing society, we probably will see more civil unrest in the future.

What we probably need to do is implement some sort of "capital control" on people who make less than a certain amount of money. No shit. I get people need checking accounts, but if you're literally that thin, and can't ever get a leg up, you may need some "forced supervision" where X% of your paycheck is held in some form of escrow until you demonstrate proficiency at bill paying and checkbook balancing.

Sorry, I intended to draw a parallel (not a distinction) between decentralization and the elimination of middlemen - those things are synonymous in my vernacular. What happens when we get rid of middlemen? Good things in the long term. Entire new industries crop up. New shit gets invented. Economic "rent" disappears. Things people never even imagined get built and created and delivered to you. Short term? Pain. It's difficult to re-invent yourself in the midst of radical upheaval or later in life. I get the gravity of the challenge, but we're not going to side-step it.

One truth about all this technology: the level of control we (in the US) think we can place on the course of technology doesn't matter one bit. Not one little bit. If we "hold back" and think we're going to "slow roll" the transition to "whatever" in the name of preserving some other industry or group of workers because "justice," we are going to be kicked square between the legs when some other group of people (China) goes and does it anyway because they DGAF about our internal problems and have no problem leaving us in the dirt while they colonize the solar system.

[pawnman]

51 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

What we probably need to do is implement some sort of "capital control" on people who make less than a certain amount of money. No shit. I get people need checking accounts, but if you're literally that thin, and can't ever get a leg up, you may need some "forced supervision" where X% of your paycheck is held in some form of escrow until you demonstrate proficiency at bill paying and checkbook balancing.

Sorry, I intended to draw a parallel (not a distinction) between decentralization and the elimination of middlemen - those things are synonymous in my vernacular. What happens when we get rid of middlemen? Good things in the long term. Entire new industries crop up. New shit gets invented. Economic "rent" disappears. Things people never even imagined get built and created and delivered to you. Short term? Pain. It's difficult to re-invent yourself in the midst of radical upheaval or later in life. I get the gravity of the challenge, but we're not going to side-step it.

One truth about all this technology: the level of control we (in the US) think we can place on the course of technology doesn't matter one bit. Not one little bit. If we "hold back" and think we're going to "slow roll" the transition to "whatever" in the name of preserving some other industry or group of workers because "justice," we are going to be kicked square between the legs when some other group of people (China) goes and does it anyway because they DGAF about our internal problems and have no problem leaving us in the dirt while they colonize the solar system.

Agreed.  You won't find many people bemoaning all the stable hands and carriage drivers put out of work by the automobile, or all the phone switchboard operators put out of work by VOIP, or all the typists in what used to be called the steno pool becoming obsolete.

Sure, people are likely to get hurt in the short-term.  But the vast majority will be made better off by the technology.  This isn't a new argument...just read up on the original Luddites to see how long people have feared these new technologies.

[Negatory]

3 hours ago, brabus said:

@Negatory There you go again responding without actually reading what I wrote. I never brought legality or the constitution into my statement even remotely, I simply said picking and choosing who is suppressed (e.g. double standard) is what most people are pissed about. The group who actually think Twitter did something illegal/unconstitutional is wrong (we agree there). I hope you vehemently support the Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.

 

You implied that suppression would lead to involvement from the ACLU. Seemed to me that implies legality. Glad to see we're on the same page.

And I do support the baker in that it’s 100% his legal right. It’s also 100% my legal right to personally hold that against him.

Edited January 15, 2021 by Negatory

[jazzdude]

Sorry, I intended to draw a parallel (not a distinction) between decentralization and the elimination of middlemen - those things are synonymous in my vernacular. What happens when we get rid of middlemen? Good things in the long term. Entire new industries crop up. New shit gets invented. Economic "rent" disappears. Things people never even imagined get built and created and delivered to you. Short term? Pain. It's difficult to re-invent yourself in the midst of radical upheaval or later in life. I get the gravity of the challenge, but we're not going to side-step it.
One truth about all this technology: the level of control we (in the US) think we can place on the course of technology doesn't matter one bit. Not one little bit. If we "hold back" and think we're going to "slow roll" the transition to "whatever" in the name of preserving some other industry or group of workers because "justice," we are going to be kicked square between the legs when some other group of people (China) goes and does it anyway because they DGAF about our internal problems and have no problem leaving us in the dirt while they colonize the solar system.

Agree that eliminating middlemen creates short term pain, but it's often necessary for long term good. But government should be proactive. As those middleman industries start to die, people will be in transition, so how does government help get them back working faster? Someone that has their basic needs met (food, shelter, security/safety) met has much more energy available to innovate or invent. And don't forget that in the US, healthcare is largely tired to employment, so how do people in transition gain access to healthcare if needed? Again, a healthy worker is a more productive worker. So you can think of things like skills training and unemployment benefits as society's investment in individual citizens, so that they can get back on their feet and contribute to the economy (which is the payback to society).

And I think you misunderstand my stance on technology and automation. It's coming, and it's going to cause change, maybe significantly. I'm not advocating for slow rolling the transition, but rather to embrace that things are going to change, possibly faster than we'd like, and to adapt our society to those changes much faster than we have been. Change is happening faster, but our policies and laws have not caught up, and are only falling further behind. This exacerbates the middleman problem, because technology can bring about changes much faster than it had in the past, and could affect a broad cross section of industries at the same time, vs a narrow slice of an industry.

Patent law probably also needs revisiting, because of the pace of change in technology, and how much faster inventions and innovations happen.

Like it or not, cell phones and internet access are essential in modern American life, and not having either places you at a distinct disadvantage for jobs. Internet should be regulated as common infrastructure-most banking is electronic and online, and much of our communication is online. Access to government services and information is largely available online, reducing the cost of government. Employers expect employees to be reachable off hours, if nothing else for schedule/shift changes.

But many people, particularly Republicans, see those as luxuries, and the older ones hold onto their experiences and say they got by fine without internet and cellphones, so the new generation can as well and just need to stop being so lazy, which completely ignores how society has fundamentally shifted online. Your cellphone is likely more important than your computer. I know the only thing I use my laptop for is going school papers-pretty much everything else is in my cellphone. A $300 smartphone gives a lot to a person: multiple communication methods, the internet (job/skills training, job hunting sites, banking, news, education), and entertainment; it's the most important device for the average person.

We also tend to not fund legacy infrastructure, much less new infrastructure. And when were do, we are bad at maintaining it, often kicking the can down the road with a waiver.

China will just steal whatever they need that they can develop at home, and it doesn't help that many companies don't see the danger in cutting corners to secure their data from a determined adversary. No one is going to call them out on it; they gave strong economic ties around the world and can use that as leverage, and can absorb hours due to their authoritarian form of government. China also has the advantage of operating from pretty much one vision and direction, allowing them to be much more responsive than we are, and to make long term investments and strategies.

[Negatory]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Agreed.  You won't find many people bemoaning all the stable hands and carriage drivers put out of work by the automobile, or all the phone switchboard operators put out of work by VOIP, or all the typists in what used to be called the steno pool becoming obsolete.

Sure, people are likely to get hurt in the short-term.  But the vast majority will be made better off by the technology.  This isn't a new argument...just read up on the original Luddites to see how long people have feared these new technologies.

Interesting argument that is legitimately making me rethink a lot of assumptions. My typical argument to post modern society is what happens to the truck drivers when trucks become automated? Why should all the money from that industry go to just a few people with automated trucks while everyone else goes out of work?

But I guess in reality the majority of profits would be dwindled down by competition and passed on via cost savings to the consumer.

Still would probably be nice if there was an easier way to switch professions in America, but modernization may not be as bad as I previously thought.

[Magnum]

13 minutes ago, Negatory said:

You implied that suppression would lead to involvement from the ACLU. Let’s not pretend you weren’t talking about legality.

https://www.newsweek.com/aclu-counsel-warns-unchecked-power-twitter-facebook-after-trump-suspension-1560248

[ViperMan]

13 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

And I think you misunderstand my stance on technology and automation. It's coming, and it's going to cause change, maybe significantly. I'm not advocating for slow rolling the transition, but rather to embrace that things are going to change, possibly faster than we'd like, and to adapt our society to those changes much faster than we have been. Change is happening faster, but our policies and laws have not caught up, and are only falling further behind. This exacerbates the middleman problem, because technology can bring about changes much faster than it had in the past, and could affect a broad cross section of industries at the same time, vs a narrow slice of an industry.

Patent law probably also needs revisiting, because of the pace of change in technology, and how much faster inventions and innovations happen.

Agree wholeheartedly that our laws are woefully under-prepared to deal with much in the modern era. Too bad we don't have a legislature that seems very interested in ensuring they keep up.

[brabus]

7 hours ago, Negatory said:

You implied that suppression would lead to involvement from the ACLU. Seemed to me that implies legality. Glad to see we're on the same page.

And I do support the baker in that it’s 100% his legal right. It’s also 100% my legal right to personally hold that against him.

I didn’t imply any legal action by the ACLU (you inferred that, incorrectly), and the ACLU has taken notice and does not support what’s going on with the tech giants.
 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/trump-capitol-riot-twitter-ban-aclu-b1785626.html.

ACLU: ”it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions...It is our hope that these companies will apply their rules transparently to everyone.”

Glad to hear you support the baker from a legal standpoint.

 

[Swamp Yankee]

On 1/14/2021 at 1:54 AM, pcola said:

Actually just a few days before you posted this. He did just that. Did you miss it because it wasn’t covered by any leftist news outlets?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

 

 

 

 

That's not a press conference in which the President himself needs to directly respond to questions.  It is a scripted speech.  As we've seen, it is nearly impossible for Trump to answer questions logically.  He instead tends to hurl pejoratives and non-sequiturs. That's the point being made by some folks on this thread.   

The above was shown on CNN, MSNBC, as well as Fox and Newsmax. 

 

[Swamp Yankee]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

I didn’t imply any legal action by the ACLU (you inferred that, incorrectly), and the ACLU has taken notice and does not support what’s going on with the tech giants.
 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/trump-capitol-riot-twitter-ban-aclu-b1785626.html.

ACLU: ”it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions...It is our hope that these companies will apply their rules transparently to everyone.”

Glad to hear you support the baker from a legal standpoint.

 

Public accommodation laws are a fine line.  I'm guessing many of us would disagree with redlining practices in which black people were denied mortgages and real estate in order to keep them out of certain areas.  On the other hand, convicts with violent records or those with severe mental illness probably shouldn't have firearms.  

In general, products (virtual and physical) should be available to as many as possible without restriction.  Where there are restrictions, they need to be applied consistently.  As much as I dislike Trump as a person and many of his policies, banning him on Twitter seems inconsistent.  

[Lord Ratner]

23 hours ago, slackline said:

We’ve worried about automation taking people’s jobs at every new innovation that simplifies/eliminates jobs people used to do, and guess what, it’s always for nothing. The market adapts, new markets/niches appear and those people find different things to do.

You sound smarter than me in this topic, so I imagine you already know about how this happens. The US has long since moved away from a production based economy to a services based economy. Maybe we’re moving a little back in that direction by bringing some of that production back to US soil, but it’s never going to be like it was in the 80’s and earlier.

It might be a rough transition, but our society will adapt and create different jobs for those middle men.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I wouldn't argue it's been for nothing. Automation and outsourcing have a strongly deflationary effect. Incidentally, printing trillions of dollars and dumping them into the system has a strongly inflationary effect.

 

It may very well be that the two forces have been hiding each other for the last 20 to 30 years. However, we are approaching a point where outsourcing is no longer the free labor it used to be. Sure, it's a lot cheaper than having American workers make t-shirts, but as the third world countries we've relied on for manufacturing modernized, their workers began commanding steeper wages.

Now automation is doing what outsourcing once did, providing the deflationary force to counter inflation from monetary policy. But for how long?

 

The deflationary effect has been so strong over the years that it has also compensated for the complete stagnation in middle-class earnings. People don't make more, but the goods kept getting cheaper because of outsourcing and automation.

 

We may be entering a period where the impact of automation and outsourcing diminishes. Given the eye watering amount of money printing, I wouldn't be surprised to see a return to '80s level inflation. Wanna guess what happens when the Federal reserve is forced to raise the interest rates that they have relied on to keep the lending markets, and as a secondary effect, the stock market afloat?

[Lord Ratner]

9 hours ago, Negatory said:

Interesting argument that is legitimately making me rethink a lot of assumptions. My typical argument to post modern society is what happens to the truck drivers when trucks become automated? Why should all the money from that industry go to just a few people with automated trucks while everyone else goes out of work?

But I guess in reality the majority of profits would be dwindled down by competition and passed on via cost savings to the consumer.

Still would probably be nice if there was an easier way to switch professions in America, but modernization may not be as bad as I previously thought.

And yet, you're on to something very important. The most prominent voice on this phenomenon on the right is Tucker Carlson. He rubs a lot of people the wrong way, but he's dead-nuts-on here.

 

Republicans, conservatives, capitalists, free market advocates, and libertarians generally stress a very hands-off approach, and usually cite creative destruction. I think the problem in the modern era is that creative destruction works exceptionally well in a closed system, and very poorly in a lopsided open system. It would be one thing if automated trucks put a few million (mostly) men into the unemployment line in a country rich with opportunity. But a phenomenal amount of labor has been sent to other countries, and while that has resulted in decades of cheaper goods (and massive economic growth for the foreign countries), eventually the accumulated wealth from previous generations runs out, and it doesn't matter how cheap your phone is if you don't have a job to pay for it.

 

I think we are hitting the point where a few decades of outsourcing is finally coming back to bite us in the ass. And the biggest impact may very well be that it has starved our country of the necessary professions and positions to absorb the creative destruction of something like automated semi trucks.

 

There's also an aspect to creative destruction that I don't often hear addressed, which is the pace. It's helpful in this case to use an extreme as a thought exercise. If automated trucks replaced all commercial drivers over the course of a hundred years, it's reasonable to assume that those drivers would be able to find other employment. But what if it happened in one day? Truck driving is the number one job for men in america, and many of them are single. The economic system may be well equipped to handle such destruction, but can the social system? I doubt it.

 

Yaron Brooks (ultra libertarian, and head of the Ayn Rand club) used this metaphor for anti-competitive behavior:

 

If there are two shoe stores, and one of those stores is able to lower their prices to absurd levels because a rich uncle is subsidizing the business, you as a consumer shouldn't care at all. As a consumer you should only care about where you get the goods for the best price, and if the other business goes under, in the long term the system will balance itself out. The subsidized company may even force the unsubsidized companies to creatively adapt and thus provide the consumer with an even better value.

 

The problem is, while we may not care about a shoe store going out of business, if you take the metaphor and apply it on a national level, where the United States is the shoe store playing by the rules, and China is the shoe store subsidized by a rich uncle, sure, in the long run the system will stabilize, but in the short run our country goes out of business. That's unacceptable.

 

Conservatives have long been against the cosmopolitan dream of one planetary society. Yet they are the strongest defendants of one planetary economic system. I'm not so sure you can have one without the other, and we're starting to see just how unsustainable it is for the world's most powerful country to rely on everyone else for their labor.

[jazzdude]

Don't forget that we can't just consider countries in this. Amazon, Google, and Facebook all yield a tremendous amount of influence around the world, as brokers of information and communications, and likely have more than many smaller countries. They can lobby for their interests in countries around the world, and are large enough to fight aggressively against any regulations not in their interests any where in the world, except for China.

And it's not just tech companies. Look at food conglomerates: there's something like 10 companies that control a significant portion of the food market. Their size again allows them to again lobby aggressively for their interests and cross international boundaries to defend their interests.

[jazzdude]

Yaron Brooks (ultra libertarian, and head of the Ayn Rand club) used this metaphor for anti-competitive behavior:
 
If there are two shoe stores, and one of those stores is able to lower their prices to absurd levels because a rich uncle is subsidizing the business, you as a consumer shouldn't care at all. As a consumer you should only care about where you get the goods for the best price, and if the other business goes under, in the long term the system will balance itself out. The subsidized company may even force the unsubsidized companies to creatively adapt and thus provide the consumer with an even better value.
 
The problem is, while we may not care about a shoe store going out of business, if you take the metaphor and apply it on a national level, where the United States is the shoe store playing by the rules, and China is the shoe store subsidized by a rich uncle, sure, in the long run the system will stabilize, but in the short run our country goes out of business. That's unacceptable.

Don't forget that burning down (or threatening to first, if you feel particularly diplomatic) your competitor's store/factory/inventory is an option to level the playing field... Hence why the US government employs many of us on this forum.

Blah blah war is politics through other means.

The problem I have with libertarians is they assume order and peace is kept through shared social norms (in your example, that a competitor won't resort to violence in response to an unfair market).

[Negatory]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/mypillow-lindell-white-house-martial-law-b1788176.html?utm_source=reddit.com

The onion is real. Also, pretty gucci cameras out there.

[SurelySerious]

Make America California Again? That’s Biden’s plan

Quote

In the case of the gig worker rules California created — and which Biden favors — activists in the state are looking to the president-elect to revive protections like those undermined by Proposition 22. Robert Reich, Labor secretary in the Clinton administration, said in an email that Biden could potentially pre-empt California’s industry-backed initiative with federal action, a move he said would be “vitally important.”

Whether Biden will go that far is unknown. Either way, the incoming administration has made clear it is looking to California as it moves to overhaul labor rules. The state has “the nation’s foremost set of laws to protect workers,” Reich wrote. Those laws, he said, give employees more rights than anywhere else in the country on issues that include overtime, employer retaliation, wage theft, discrimination and protection from sexual harassment.

Hopefully they won’t export CA’s AB5 disaster to the entire nation. 

Edited January 17, 2021 by SurelySerious

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

Make America California Again? That’s Biden’s plan

Hopefully they won’t export CA’s AB5 disaster to the entire nation. 

Yep.  There goes Uber, Doordash, Favr, Fiver...

One wonders if they'll even try to expand it to places like EBay and Etsy.

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Yep.  There goes Uber, Doordash, Favr, Fiver...

One wonders if they'll even try to expand it to places like EBay and Etsy.

I don't get why anyone supports regulations on these. Do people not like having convenience options for transportation and dining in their life? 

Yeah I get the taxi driver unions blah blah blah but you can't tell me the coal miner in Pennsylvania or the automotive part manufacturer in Michigan needs to recognize that certain jobs are not coming back due to technology, and then simultaneously stand on a hill of protecting other antiquated and obsolete jobs. Are you going to try and get rid of self checkout lines and ATMs as well? Would hate to put more cashier's and tellers out of work. 

[SurelySerious]

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

Yep.  There goes Uber, Doordash, Favr, Fiver...

One wonders if they'll even try to expand it to places like EBay and Etsy.

To be fair, the people of California passed Prop 22 in response to reverse AB5 (which, if you’re a political elite how is that not a sign that your platform was way off). What the political elites behind that AB5 platform seem to latch onto is that (predictably) Uber and Lyft put a lot of money behind Prop 22. What I thought was notable was the wide range of professions affected and against AB5. Freelance writers, wedding DJs, etc. 

[jazzdude]

I don't get why anyone supports regulations on these. Do people not like having convenience options for transportation and dining in their life? 
Yeah I get the taxi driver unions blah blah blah but you can't tell me the coal miner in Pennsylvania or the automotive part manufacturer in Michigan needs to recognize that certain jobs are not coming back due to technology, and then simultaneously stand on a hill of protecting other antiquated and obsolete jobs. Are you going to try and get rid of self checkout lines and ATMs as well? Would hate to put more cashier's and tellers out of work. 

Technology displacing jobs can be an overly simplistic explanation, hence why all three examples have drastically different debates. Convenience is great, but should I support (or the government allow) businesses that exploit others? At the extreme (though not technology), should companies be allowed to use slave labor/indentured servitude where it's legal or ignored to deliver cheaper products to consumers (a clear benefit for consumers in a capitalistic world, though morally wrong)?

Uber undercuts prices of legacy taxi companies, driving competitors out of business. They don't use technology to change or disrupt the underlying fundamental business-it's still a car, driven by a driver, transporting you from point A to B, on demand. Their primary method is to not have employees, and rather have "independent contractors", which circumvents many protections for workers. It also doesn't really create jobs, just shifts them (while placing the burden of employee benefits such as commercial car and health insurance). Technology and automation hasn't really caused jobs to be lost in this case (though you could argue that taxi dispatchers lost out, and we're replaced by software engineers), denying employee benefits is what drives costs down.

Conversely, coal miners are being driven out of work by technology causing a fundamental shift in the underlying business of providing electrical energy. They aren't being displaced by other coal companies using gig workers to drive down costs, rather they are being replaced by other sources of electrical power such as wind/solar/etc.

A parts manufacturing job loss is a straight forward replacement by automation. This increases individual workers productivity, at the cost of needing fewer workers. So this job loss is normal business: a company is seeking ways to become more efficient, and there's no fundamental shift in the core business. However, it differs from Uber because the parts manufacturing company still employs the remaining employees, and doesn't contract the work out and solely pay "independent contractors" per widget produced, or require them to provide our rent their own tools like Uber does.

Though I guess if you're fine with unbridled capitalism/libertarianism, Uber's model is fine. But that has impacts within our society, and allows those with resources/power/influence to accumulate more, creating a divide between the haves and have nots.

[SurelySerious]

1 minute ago, jazzdude said:

 

Technology displacing jobs can be an overly simplistic explanation, hence why all three examples have drastically different debates. Convenience is great, but should I support (or the government allow) businesses that exploit others? At the extreme (though not technology), should companies be allowed to use slave labor/indentured servitude where it's legal or ignored to deliver cheaper products to consumers (a clear benefit for consumers in a capitalistic world, though morally wrong)?

Uber undercuts prices of legacy taxi companies, driving competitors out of business. They don't use technology to change or disrupt the underlying fundamental business-it's still a car, driven by a driver, transporting you from point A to B, on demand. Their primary method is to not have employees, and rather have "independent contractors", which circumvents many protections for workers. It also doesn't really create jobs, just shifts them (while placing the burden of employee benefits such as commercial car and health insurance). Technology and automation hasn't really caused jobs to be lost in this case (though you could argue that taxi dispatchers lost out, and we're replaced by software engineers), denying employee benefits is what drives costs down.

Conversely, coal miners are being driven out of work by technology causing a fundamental shift in the underlying business of providing electrical energy. They aren't being displaced by other coal companies using gig workers to drive down costs, rather they are being replaced by other sources of electrical power such as wind/solar/etc.

A parts manufacturing job loss is a straight forward replacement by automation. This increases individual workers productivity, at the cost of needing fewer workers. So this job loss is normal business: a company is seeking ways to become more efficient, and there's no fundamental shift in the core business. However, it differs from Uber because the parts manufacturing company still employs the remaining employees, and doesn't contract the work out and solely pay "independent contractors" per widget produced, or require them to provide our rent their own tools like Uber does.

Though I guess if you're fine with unbridled capitalism/libertarianism, Uber's model is fine. But that has impacts within our society, and allows those with resources/power/influence to accumulate more, creating a divide between the haves and have nots.

 

Alternatively, there seems to be a large section of Uber/Lyft drivers that enjoy the decreased commitment to that versus full employment, weighing that decreased benefits package vs flexibility. 

[jazzdude]

To be fair, the people of California passed Prop 22 in response to reverse AB5 (which, if you’re a political elite how is that not a sign that your platform was way off). What the political elites behind that AB5 platform seem to latch onto is that (predictably) Uber and Lyft put a lot of money behind Prop 22. What I thought was notable was the wide range of professions affected and against AB5. Freelance writers, wedding DJs, etc. 

Can an Uber driver or door dash delivery person set it negotiate their own compensation for providing their service, like a freelance writer or wedding DJ can? Same with etsy or ebay?

That's the difference between when independent contractors are appropriate or inappropriate.

[SurelySerious]

12 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

Can an Uber driver or door dash delivery person set it negotiate their own compensation for providing their service, like a freelance writer or wedding DJ can? Same with etsy or ebay?

That's the difference between when independent contractors are appropriate or inappropriate.

 

And AB5 did a terrible job of making that distinction. Uber driver can always accept or reject a particular fare if they don’t think the compensation is worth the effort. 

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

Are you going to try and get rid of self checkout lines...

I actual have a personal jihad against self checkout at stores, especially grocery stores when I always seem to have a ton of items in the cart. I do not work at the grocery store, nor do I want to!

Self checkout in grocery stores is more convenient for the store, not for me. FFS, I do not want to self checkout at a tiny kiosk when I have a week's worth of family groceries, but usually all but 1 of the "normal" lanes will be closed. I want to see the Grocery Store Clerks Full Employment Act (GSCFEA) of 2021 passed post-haste!