7 ms·

"personal risk" This is kind of the state of the country really. Ridesharing is an OK gig until you get into an accident, you're fine without health insurance

"personal risk" This is kind of the state of the country really. Ridesharing is an OK gig until you get into an accident, you're fine without health insurance until you get injured, you don't really need a union until you start getting treated unfairly, you can pay for college as long as you consistently have a good salary... we're being statistically gaslit with the idea that most people can scrape by without higher wages and better general protections.

macinjosh 6y ago
I think you're gas lighting us by ignoring the fact that this personal risk is taken at personal choice. If someone wanted the arrangement that comes with an employee/employer relationship there are jobs that offer that. But not everyone wants that, some people prefer, for their own reasons that are really none of your business to be an independent contractor. This is about choice plain and simple.
- vore 6y ago
  Not everyone has that choice, which is why so many people depend on gig economy jobs as their livelihood. If you do not have in-demand skills for the market, have a family to feed, and the cost of training exceeds your expenses, Uber/Lyft might be one of your only job options.
- RangerScience 6y ago
  We make choices within contexts other people create.
  - macinjosh 6y ago
    And your solution is to take away more choices from people?
    - Klinky 6y ago
      The solution is to ensure the worker's employment status is within the legal definition as it's defined. Gig economy could usher in a new era of worker flexibility, but it could also usher in a new era of worker exploitation. The gig economy keeps pushing risks and cost down the chain, while also showing signs that it may not be a sustainable model as a whole without venture capital to burn through or an end game of predatory monopolist behavior within the market region.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      The choice to not have important types of insurance hurts the chooser and it hurts everyone else. There are many situations where it's best if the societal bargain restricts the options available.
      - macinjosh 6y ago
        who gets to decide what's best?
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        Is that a real question? The government, of course. Hopefully an elected one, but no laws of physics force fair representation to happen.
    - EllyFant 6y ago
      Yes, we've removed lots of choices. Like for example, it's illegal to sell yourself into slavery or indentured servitude. That's a choice you are not legally allowed to make.
    - asdasfasdfasdf 6y ago
      Do you think people are really walking around thinking "I don't want health insurance because I prefer being destitute in the event of an injury"?
      - macinjosh 6y ago
        No, but there are people who would rather keep more of their paycheck than spend it on premiums or taxes for socialized medicine and take on that risk. Those folks are usually younger people who are more likely to work at these entry level jobs. On the flipside there are people who will risk life and limb doing something unnecessary (skiing, rock climbing, parachuting, etc.) and maybe some of them even feel safer because they know they are insured. Why should we outlaw one form of risk and not another? People take risks. Life is all about risk and choices. I will never believe it is moral to take those choices from anyone.
        asdasfasdfasdf 6y ago
        That's complete nonsense. We all take on risk. One could argue driving a car or drinking is more risky than skydiving. When you can't pay for your risk, everyone else does. Do you think the uninsured should be refused medical care when their life is in danger? Do you think it's moral that someone who gets hit by a car is suddenly thrust into bankruptcy?
    - RangerScience 6y ago
      Y'jumped to a lot of conclusions, there. I suggest you try asking some genuine questions, instead.
- Daishiman 6y ago
  Personal risk isn't an isolated thing. Thousands of people taking personal risk have systemic effects, and these companies aren't paying into it, even though everyone around these "risk-takers" suffer the consequences.
  - macinjosh 6y ago
    > Thousands of people taking personal risk have systemic effects How do you know the personal situation of each of Uber's/Lyft's drivers? How do we measure risk for each person in an objective way? Some people might be at no risk, some higher. We can't know! What right is there in taking away options that benefit some people because it might possibly not work well for someone who voluntarily signed a contract? This is not liberal policy. This is paternalistic, state-controlled economic oppression.
    - InitialLastName 6y ago
      > Some people might be at no risk, some higher. All rideshare drivers are (by definition) participating in the most dangerous activity (western) humans do on a daily basis. Every non-utilized minute they spend on the road adds risk to them as well as to other members of society.
    - Daishiman 6y ago
      The fact that in most places in the world there's legislation that defines requirements and responsibilities for professional drivers, from qualifications, to insurance, alcohol intake, maximum working hours, minimum rest hours, etc., Implies that it totally does exist.
- matmann2001 6y ago
  I think you're gas lighting us by ignoring the fact that these types of choices aren't fully unconstrained. People aren't assuming this risk because they prefer to, but rather they have limited choices available to them given their resources and background.
  - macinjosh 6y ago
    > but rather they have limited choices available to them given their resources and background. So let's take one more choice away!? Not every person looking to make some money is looking for something with as much commitment as employment. Not every business needs people to work according to their schedule at a specific place. While you think you're giving full-time employment and benefits to all of these people what you're really doing is taking certain kinds of opportunities away.
    - matmann2001 6y ago
      Yes! If the free market results in employers offering shitty choices that take advantage of workers with limited options, the government should step in and attempt to correct the power-imbalance that puts the workers at life- and liberty-threatening disadvantages. Extrapolating from your logic, indentured servitude would still be allowed to exist.
      - username90 6y ago
        Banning a form of work where workers owns the means of production doesn't seem to be in the workers interest. I'd rather they regulate it in a better way, for example rewrite union laws to make it possible for gig workers to unionize.
        matmann2001 6y ago
        Where did I mention the banning of a form of work?
        sudosysgen 6y ago
- asdasfasdfasdf 6y ago
  When's the last time you've worked a minimum wage contract job? At that level of employment you're not exactly shopping around for better offers. Uber and Lyft can offer benefits to contract workers. Do you think they don't because they want to give people the right to choose?
dang 6y ago
Could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0&query=by:dang%20community%20identity https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

macinjosh 6y ago

I think you're gas lighting us by ignoring the fact that this personal risk is taken at personal choice. If someone wanted the arrangement that comes with an employee/employer relationship there are jobs that offer that. But not everyone wants that, some people prefer, for their own reasons that are really none of your business to be an independent contractor. This is about choice plain and simple.

vore 6y ago
Not everyone has that choice, which is why so many people depend on gig economy jobs as their livelihood. If you do not have in-demand skills for the market, have a family to feed, and the cost of training exceeds your expenses, Uber/Lyft might be one of your only job options.
RangerScience 6y ago
We make choices within contexts other people create.
- macinjosh 6y ago
  And your solution is to take away more choices from people?
  - Klinky 6y ago
    The solution is to ensure the worker's employment status is within the legal definition as it's defined. Gig economy could usher in a new era of worker flexibility, but it could also usher in a new era of worker exploitation. The gig economy keeps pushing risks and cost down the chain, while also showing signs that it may not be a sustainable model as a whole without venture capital to burn through or an end game of predatory monopolist behavior within the market region.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    The choice to not have important types of insurance hurts the chooser and it hurts everyone else. There are many situations where it's best if the societal bargain restricts the options available.
    - macinjosh 6y ago
      who gets to decide what's best?
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        Is that a real question? The government, of course. Hopefully an elected one, but no laws of physics force fair representation to happen.
  - EllyFant 6y ago
    Yes, we've removed lots of choices. Like for example, it's illegal to sell yourself into slavery or indentured servitude. That's a choice you are not legally allowed to make.
  - asdasfasdfasdf 6y ago
    Do you think people are really walking around thinking "I don't want health insurance because I prefer being destitute in the event of an injury"?
    - macinjosh 6y ago
      No, but there are people who would rather keep more of their paycheck than spend it on premiums or taxes for socialized medicine and take on that risk. Those folks are usually younger people who are more likely to work at these entry level jobs. On the flipside there are people who will risk life and limb doing something unnecessary (skiing, rock climbing, parachuting, etc.) and maybe some of them even feel safer because they know they are insured. Why should we outlaw one form of risk and not another? People take risks. Life is all about risk and choices. I will never believe it is moral to take those choices from anyone.
      - asdasfasdfasdf 6y ago
        That's complete nonsense. We all take on risk. One could argue driving a car or drinking is more risky than skydiving. When you can't pay for your risk, everyone else does. Do you think the uninsured should be refused medical care when their life is in danger? Do you think it's moral that someone who gets hit by a car is suddenly thrust into bankruptcy?
  - RangerScience 6y ago
    Y'jumped to a lot of conclusions, there. I suggest you try asking some genuine questions, instead.
Daishiman 6y ago
Personal risk isn't an isolated thing. Thousands of people taking personal risk have systemic effects, and these companies aren't paying into it, even though everyone around these "risk-takers" suffer the consequences.
- macinjosh 6y ago
  > Thousands of people taking personal risk have systemic effects How do you know the personal situation of each of Uber's/Lyft's drivers? How do we measure risk for each person in an objective way? Some people might be at no risk, some higher. We can't know! What right is there in taking away options that benefit some people because it might possibly not work well for someone who voluntarily signed a contract? This is not liberal policy. This is paternalistic, state-controlled economic oppression.
  - InitialLastName 6y ago
    > Some people might be at no risk, some higher. All rideshare drivers are (by definition) participating in the most dangerous activity (western) humans do on a daily basis. Every non-utilized minute they spend on the road adds risk to them as well as to other members of society.
  - Daishiman 6y ago
    The fact that in most places in the world there's legislation that defines requirements and responsibilities for professional drivers, from qualifications, to insurance, alcohol intake, maximum working hours, minimum rest hours, etc., Implies that it totally does exist.
matmann2001 6y ago
I think you're gas lighting us by ignoring the fact that these types of choices aren't fully unconstrained. People aren't assuming this risk because they prefer to, but rather they have limited choices available to them given their resources and background.
- macinjosh 6y ago
  > but rather they have limited choices available to them given their resources and background. So let's take one more choice away!? Not every person looking to make some money is looking for something with as much commitment as employment. Not every business needs people to work according to their schedule at a specific place. While you think you're giving full-time employment and benefits to all of these people what you're really doing is taking certain kinds of opportunities away.
  - matmann2001 6y ago
    Yes! If the free market results in employers offering shitty choices that take advantage of workers with limited options, the government should step in and attempt to correct the power-imbalance that puts the workers at life- and liberty-threatening disadvantages. Extrapolating from your logic, indentured servitude would still be allowed to exist.
    - username90 6y ago
      Banning a form of work where workers owns the means of production doesn't seem to be in the workers interest. I'd rather they regulate it in a better way, for example rewrite union laws to make it possible for gig workers to unionize.
      - matmann2001 6y ago
        Where did I mention the banning of a form of work?
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
asdasfasdfasdf 6y ago
When's the last time you've worked a minimum wage contract job? At that level of employment you're not exactly shopping around for better offers. Uber and Lyft can offer benefits to contract workers. Do you think they don't because they want to give people the right to choose?

dang 6y ago

Could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0&query=by:dang%20community%20identity https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...