|
Morroque posted:What would be the research or body of knowledge that such a course would be based off of? Honest question. I'm sure we could get the ball rolling on that if the information was accessible. We could probably just roll it into an actual home economics course. The budget balancing, tax explaining, credit warning, kind of home economics. Informing people about their rights as workers and how to watch out for predatory employers/companies. I'd imagine there's a whole lot of examples that can be found to explain the dangers of not getting a contract, getting a terrible contract, or outright getting an illegal contract. But like Absurd said, doing that is not in anyone's interest but employees and potential employees.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 02:20 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:We have to be pretty close to the 'startup bubble' popping, right? Even the darlings of startups like Airbnb and Uber are basically making money off of breaking the law, which as we see with Uber is costing them an insane amount in litigation and lobbying. Airbnb is only making waves because Disney was pissed off that people were making a ton of money "renting" their lovely Anaheim homes and apartments to people rather then them having to stay at the area hotels, so they pushed the City Council to make Airbnb's business plan much, much harder to operate. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-airbnb-anaheim-20160728-snap-story.html It turns out things like Uber and Airbnb are only good for their direct customers and loving terrible for everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I came to the US for a visit almost two decades ago, long before I moved here. I distinctly remember the signs at JFK warning you: "Don't get hustled." Maybe they need to put these signs up all over Silicon Valley. Those might actually make it easier to get hustled similar to how "Beware of pickpocket" signs actually help pickpockets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Morroque posted:What would be the research or body of knowledge that such a course would be based off of? Honest question. I'm sure we could get the ball rolling on that if the information was accessible. My union offers a program for "labor management" ie union stuff. I think it would be useful to lots of people though, not just fellow union members. If someone comes out of college familiar with labor and contract laws in their area it means they're not going to let themselves get fleeced by sketchy business practices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:My union offers a program for "labor management" ie union stuff. I think it would be useful to lots of people though, not just fellow union members. If someone comes out of college familiar with labor and contract laws in their area it means they're not going to let themselves get fleeced by sketchy business practices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
You can go unbelievably far with little more than "get all promises in writing and read every word of fine print" coupled with "a $500 visit to a lawyer over a complex contract is probably going to lose you less than getting screwed out of $10,000 in compensation." Plus that little life rule of "if it looks to good to be true then it probably is." Anybody guaranteeing that you'll be super ultra rich is probably a liar that is using you. Startup culture is just so rampant with blatant law breaking and exploitation right now from the looks of things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Also, "don't work for free." If you're working for someone, you should be getting paid. Period. Full stop. Options and RSUs can be part of the payment, but they shouldn't be all of the payment unless you're already too rich to care. Any startup that tells you otherwise isn't legit. There's an infinitesimally small chance it might become legit someday, but for the time being it's not a real company and you should treat it as such.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Stop with the Uber Chat again because Vanity Fair has a nice big new article on the demise of Theranos: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-exclusive?mbid=social_facebook
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
pentyne posted:Airbnb is only making waves because Disney was pissed off that people were making a ton of money "renting" their lovely Anaheim homes and apartments to people rather then them having to stay at the area hotels, so they pushed the City Council to make Airbnb's business plan much, much harder to operate. I don't see why AirBnB is so bad. I stayed in a rented home to go to Disneyland, and it was gorgeous and much nicer than a hotel would have been. Just because hotels are pissed that they don't have a monopoly anymore doesn't mean that it's a 100% Bad Thing. Laws should be updated to *reflect* the new system, not to ban it because hotels don't want competition. Competition is good. It means that people can get into the hospitality business without enormous sums of money to start up with, and I can see why the big hotels don't like that. Why spend millions to build a dreary concrete monstrosity with 500 dark little rooms when people would prefer to rent a house or a room in a house? Deal with the problems with noise and trash by all means. If the AirBnbs are hovels, make a procedure for shutting them down. Fine the gently caress out of AirBnbs who encourage partying. But screw the protectionism that says I have to cram my family into a tiny hotel room when a proper house or apartment makes the trip so much nicer. Hotels are good for business travellers who just need a place to rest their heads between meetings and flights, but suck for families.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I don't see why AirBnB is so bad. I stayed in a rented home to go to Disneyland, and it was gorgeous and much nicer than a hotel would have been. Just because hotels are pissed that they don't have a monopoly anymore doesn't mean that it's a 100% Bad Thing. Laws should be updated to *reflect* the new system, not to ban it because hotels don't want competition. Competition is good. It means that people can get into the hospitality business without enormous sums of money to start up with, and I can see why the big hotels don't like that. Why spend millions to build a dreary concrete monstrosity with 500 dark little rooms when people would prefer to rent a house or a room in a house? -AirBnb listings are not subject to the same anti-discrimination policies that hotels are subject to -same as health and safety standards -if someone completely trashes your house AirBnb leaves you out to dry -hotel suites are a thing that exist bro, how many family members do you have airbnb isn't universally bad but it also has some big problems and i lol every time someone's house gets wrecked because a website convinced them it's a good idea to turn your house keys over to a stranger for a weekend
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
also we don't really want wildcat hospitality popping up. these are called flophouses, and they are generally not good, for a variety of reasons that apparently society has forgotten about because every 80 years we have to make the same mistakes because we literally did that thing about forgetting history and then repeating ourselves re: sanitation regulations
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
yeah there's a reason why hotels require zoning living next to one sucks
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
You can already rent houses, cabins, etc instead of just hotel rooms. Vacation rentals using sites like VRBO or a dedicated agency are a thing and have been for ages. They follow the law and pay taxes tho so they're not disruptive enough. I'm a fan of couch surfing so I like that AirBnB has made that easier, but I'm also weird in that I like crashing at stranger's places while they live there. duz fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I don't see why AirBnB is so bad. I stayed in a rented home to go to Disneyland, and it was gorgeous and much nicer than a hotel would have been. Just because hotels are pissed that they don't have a monopoly anymore doesn't mean that it's a 100% Bad Thing. Laws should be updated to *reflect* the new system, not to ban it because hotels don't want competition. Competition is good. It means that people can get into the hospitality business without enormous sums of money to start up with, and I can see why the big hotels don't like that. Why spend millions to build a dreary concrete monstrosity with 500 dark little rooms when people would prefer to rent a house or a room in a house? Popular Thug Drink raised a lot of good points, but I also want to point out that it takes dwelling units off of the market. In areas with high demand/low availability it's actively taking affordable units off the market. http://katu.com/news/local/study-portland-has-hundreds-of-illegal-airbnbs
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Hopefully this doesn't make me seem to be defending them, but doesn't Airbnb cover property damage? They certainly can afford to, and the high-profile cases I remember of homes getting wrecked all ended with repairs and replacements getting covered.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I don't see why AirBnB is so bad. I stayed in a rented home to go to Disneyland, and it was gorgeous and much nicer than a hotel would have been. Just because hotels are pissed that they don't have a monopoly anymore doesn't mean that it's a 100% Bad Thing. Laws should be updated to *reflect* the new system, not to ban it because hotels don't want competition. Competition is good. It means that people can get into the hospitality business without enormous sums of money to start up with, and I can see why the big hotels don't like that. Why spend millions to build a dreary concrete monstrosity with 500 dark little rooms when people would prefer to rent a house or a room in a house? I think the question is more whether AirBnB can survive if it's regulated like it's a hotel business. The same goes for Uber -- right now the only reasons they're cheaper than regular cab companies are a combination of flouting labour laws and burning through investor capital. Basically their only hope to be successful is that they can kill off their competitors and establish a monopoly before they run out of money (the Amazon strategy). They definitely won't be able to maintain their current employment practices indefinitely, and it seems somewhere between possible and likely that they'll be sunk by litigation costs as a result.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
why stop with taking a cut off renting private housing? try NetWife, my new app which allows competition-minded entrepeneurs to rent their spouses to out of town travelers for a weekend of domestic care and home cooked meals - no more worrying about how your laundry, meals, and other needs will be taken care of!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Hopefully this doesn't make me seem to be defending them, but doesn't Airbnb cover property damage? They certainly can afford to, and the high-profile cases I remember of homes getting wrecked all ended with repairs and replacements getting covered. they imposed this policy retroactively because of continual bad press but from what i hear it's still like pulling teeth to get them to pay and that doesn't really help if any heirlooms or anything get stolen. which works out better if you're using airbnb to fill rentals (makes sense) rather than your own private residence (christ no)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:The same goes for Uber -- right now the only reasons they're cheaper than regular cab companies are a combination of flouting labour laws and burning through investor capital. Basically their only hope to be successful is that they can kill off their competitors and establish a monopoly before they run out of money (the Amazon strategy). They definitely won't be able to maintain their current employment practices indefinitely, and it seems somewhere between possible and likely that they'll be sunk by litigation costs as a result.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:they imposed this policy retroactively because of continual bad press but from what i hear it's still like pulling teeth to get them to pay and that doesn't really help if any heirlooms or anything get stolen. which works out better if you're using airbnb to fill rentals (makes sense) rather than your own private residence (christ no) my fav bad press is the airbnb hidden camera sex video swaps that are apparently going on often enough to prompt articles about detecting them
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:-AirBnb listings are not subject to the same anti-discrimination policies that hotels are subject to These could all be fixed with proper regulation. The hotel companies pretend they are concerned about these things, but in actual fact they are just pissed that they don't have a monopoly any more. So they want to use people's sympathy for the above problems to blanket-ban renting out whole homes for short periods of time. Hotel suites exist (in some hotels) but are mind-bogglingly expensive for the most part. Aimed more at luxury travelers than families.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:These could all be fixed with proper regulation. The hotel companies pretend they are concerned about these things, but in actual fact they are just pissed that they don't have a monopoly any more. So they want to use people's sympathy for the above problems to blanket-ban renting out whole homes for short periods of time. yeah i'd be pissed too if people had a business model that was the same as mine but juuust slightly different enough to skip out on regulations. that doesn't make me bad or greedy also i googled "vacation rental house near disneyland" and got tons of hits that had nothing to do with airbnb so i think uh you're grossly overstating the extent of the problem here also that's not what the term monopoly means, don't use words if you dont know what they mean thanks. thousands of companies from big multinationals to regional chains to mom and pop motels all competing in the same space does not constitute a monopoly
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
i mean sure my bed and breakfast has to comply w/ existing laws and regulations and taxes but airbnb's new policy is that owners absolutely must disclose any hidden cameras now
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:These could all be fixed with proper regulation. The hotel companies pretend they are concerned about these things, but in actual fact they are just pissed that they don't have a monopoly any more. So they want to use people's sympathy for the above problems to blanket-ban renting out whole homes for short periods of time. Those regulations already exist for rental houses, etc. AirBnB doesn't follow them because they're "disruptive".
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:These could all be fixed with proper regulation. The hotel companies pretend they are concerned about these things, but in actual fact they are just pissed that they don't have a monopoly any more. So they want to use people's sympathy for the above problems to blanket-ban renting out whole homes for short periods of time. You keep talking about convenience to travellers without looking at the other side, the convenience of city residents. There are studies showing that AirBnB has taken a lot of housing in San Francisco off the market and converted it to short-stay hotels. If I tried to turn even a three-bedroom building into a hotel, I'd have to go through a clunky (I admit that) process that looked at environmental impact, impact on neighbors and traffic, and impact on the city's housing stock. It is not fun for the neighbors of an apartment that is rented only to AirBnB customers. When you complain to your next-door neighbor, they might change their behavior; when you complain to the landlord they can enforce controls. When somebody's only there for a weekend, they have no incentive to quiet down the party, put the recycling where it belongs, clean up their pet's poop, or do any of the things that a normal resident to maintain harmony.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:It means that people can get into the hospitality business without enormous sums of money to start up with, and I can see why the big hotels don't like that. Unless everyone you know that's AirBnB-ing also reports that income as business profit/starts up little LLCs to manage the ABnB income. Oh they don't? What a surprise. They could be fixed with regulation, yes. We could also ensure that they pay a tax for their semi-hoteling, and ensure that every homeowner carries accident and liability insurances (so that when the next time someone's dad beans themselves with a dead tree swing, they don't lose the house) and -- what's that? No one wants to do it anymore because it's too much like being an actual hotel and not cutesey disruptive?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
duz posted:You can already rent houses, cabins, etc instead of just hotel rooms. Vacation rentals using sites like VRBO or a dedicated agency are a thing and have been for ages. They follow the law and pay taxes tho so they're not disruptive enough. VRBO and the others are no less or more legal than airbnb. Airbnb is just such a huge player and illegal rentals have flown under the radar for years. I understand the problem with Airbnb from both a cost of living persepective and a safety perspective, but I guess I've countered it with how great they are as rentals. They tend to be fair more centrally located generally and certainly more so than hotels with kitchens and the like. Yes, they have negative externalities, but they also means I don't have to rental a car and drive in a congested city. I live next to an dedicated airbnb apartment, and I wouldn't know except for that I found it listed on airbnb. May even suggest that friends who visit stay there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
nm posted:Yes, they have negative externalities, but they also means I... Stop. This right here. You're an rear end in a top hat. Who cares if it impacts other people, because it also means I... Congratulations on being exactly what's wrong with this county. edit: Idgi... I don't live in the bay area, if that's what you're suggesting... HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
xrunner posted:Stop. This right here. You're an rear end in a top hat. Who cares if it impacts other people, because it also means I... San Francisco County? Alameda County? Definitely Marin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I'm just thinking out loud here, but I would be willing to pay more for Uber. I've had several bad experiences with cab companies that I've never had with Uber. If Uber could follow applicable labor and other regulations while still providing the same service, I'd be willing to pay more for it. As cab companies implement calling apps, and Uber starts to comply with regulations, Uber becomes just another cab company (albeit one that spans cities and continents). I doubt there'll be any differences in service at that point either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
xrunner posted:Stop. This right here. You're an rear end in a top hat. Who cares if it impacts other people, because it also means I... Sorry, I was just riffing on your typo. Alameda County contains Berkeley and Oakland; San Francisco contains (duh) San Francisco; Marin is where the insanely rich go to pretend they're still hippies. Santa Clara is Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara (duh), San Jose, ... so it's a big sprawling conglomeration.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Sorry, I was just riffing on your typo. Alameda County contains Berkeley and Oakland; San Francisco contains (duh) San Francisco; Marin is where the insanely rich go to pretend they're still hippies. Santa Clara is Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara (duh), San Jose, ... so it's a big sprawling conglomeration. Oh, gotcha, I didn't even notice my mistake. I figured it was a comment on my self-righteous indignation, and the propensity of those places to get self-righteously indignant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I'm pretty sure Holmes is a supervillain. The movie should end with Ben Affleck throwing her in Arkham Asylum for the rest of her natural life. The worst part is its the stereotypical story: Clueless Management who don't understand the technology they are trying to invent/market, who just try to hush up their actual employees who know anything, all while giving presentations and songs and dances about something that they don't even grasp.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
xrunner posted:Stop. This right here. You're an rear end in a top hat. Who cares if it impacts other people, because it also means I... FYI, me and other people driving cars create pollution and congestion and create another negative externality. Perhaps learning to read more closely before you call people assholes might help. Guess I have to spell it out for people like you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
nm posted:FYI, me and other people driving cars create pollution and congestion and create another negative externality. FYI, other people who short term rentals have displaced have to commute every day into the city driving cars create pollution and congestion and create another negative externality. But wait, they do it every day. So no, the negative externality created by your convenience is not canceled out by carbon emissions. Perhaps learning to think about things on a scale greater than my convenience might help. I guess I just have to shame people like you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
nm posted:FYI, me and other people driving cars create pollution and congestion and create another negative externality. Congratulations on lowering emissions by renting closer to city centre so you don't need a rental car, without having to pay the premium of a city centre hotel. You're still an arsehole who's justifying the problems of AirBnB because it personally benefits you. quote:I understand the problem with Airbnb from both a cost of living persepective and a safety perspective, but I guess I've countered it with how great they are as rentals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
xrunner posted:FYI, other people who short term rentals have displaced have to commute every day into the city driving cars create pollution and congestion and create another negative externality. Meh? Long term renters suck up more housing stock than short term from the point of view of people looking to rent in an area. gently caress those established residents keeping people out of their neighborhoods amirite?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
xrunner posted:FYI, other people who short term rentals have displaced have to commute every day into the city driving cars create pollution and congestion and create another negative externality. Does it though? Has anyone actually done a study of the impacts of airbnb on driving people out of neighborhoods? I know it is a popular boogie man, but what is the actual impact. I understand that in theory, it will raise costs, but how much? Will a resident drive more or less than a tourist living in the same place, even factoring in the lower occupancy rate? Tourists are likely to travel significantly more and may be less likely to use public transit if it seems hard (or maybe not that's why we look at these things). The problem is that you assume, without any actual facts, that airbnb's negative externalities are greater than the offset of staying at remote hotels. It's possible that it is, but I'm not convinced that it is the parade of horribles everyone says it is. The problem with your argument is that you buy that airbnb is this big scary monster. The point of my post is that airbnb has both pros and cons. Whether the pros outweigh the cons, I don't know, but not not acknowledge any pros is just too simple. Marenghi posted:
On the other hand, I'm not certain that airbnb is a major contributor to inflated rents (it is a contributor). nm fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Sep 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
nm, a study covering one of the points you're looking for was linked further up the page. Yes, these externalities exist, yes they are a problem. The entirety of the benefits and advantages these companies are using to their benefit exist through evading extant regulations. Those regulations exist for a reason. These "disruptors" are trying to take advantage of the naive and solipsistic preference for immediate convenience that can give them a lasting market share and support base among the entitled and self-centered. They are counting on people not noticing or caring about the harms that the evasion of these regulations causes, especially when the harms are delayed or transposed to others. What would an ethical, legal AirBnB look like? It would look like a hotel. What would an ethical, legal Uber look like? It would look like a taxi company.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 02:20 |
|
|
my biggest problem with airbnb is that it exploits legal loopholes to encourage specific illegal behavior and then takes a cut short term rentals are one of those things where it's not immediately obvious that what you're doing is socially harmful, but if the practice is widespread enough then it does start to cause social problems - hence why it's banned i dont even care if someone wants to rent their property out to someone under the table, but it's not cool for unlicensed housing or unlicensed jitneys or unlicensed cooking to operate in a widespread for profit model - especially not when these companies exploit the language of leftist idealism and talk about 'building community' when it's entirely possible for these communities to function without a remote startup middleman if people just cared enough like imagine if there was a wink-nod app startup where people would deliver you 'greens' which might be vegetables or it might be marijuana! we don't know, we just made the app, how people use it is up to them. oh this isn't exploitative of local law or our 'independent contractors' at all, we're actually aiming to connect people in local communities and empower people to raise funds so that they can pursue their passions etc and ultimately the only reason these companies exist and function is because they're breaking laws other companies try to adhere to. we really shouldn't encourage the erosion of health and safety regulations in the name of capitalist innovation, that's how you end up with soylent consumers getting heavy metal poisoning (this is a joke) boner confessor fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Sep 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 00:18
|
|