|
Deteriorata posted:Actually, Airbnb Drives Up Rent Costs in Manhattan and Brooklyn, Report Says I didn't say it was harmless, but speaking for the likely majority of voters, I don't really care. Whatever minor harm it may cause is worth it. Its similar to the stories of hardship from taxi drivers about Uber. It may suck for them, but you are not going to stop people from offering a ride or a room on the internet for a fee, and I'm not going to support blocking progress to preserve an outdated system.
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 10:56 |
|
|
Rigel posted:Its similar to the stories of hardship from taxi drivers about Uber. No, not at all. Regular people needs housing more than rich people need cheap vacation pads. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 16:23 on May 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I didn't say it was harmless, but speaking for the likely majority of voters, I don't really care. Whatever minor harm it may cause is worth it. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that you may not live in one of the neighborhoods getting hosed by airbnb, where the local voters have a significantly different opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I'm not going to support blocking progress to preserve an outdated system.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
The context in which I brought it up was that my city passed an ordinance banning AirBnB altogether for housing unoccupied by the owner, so the state level pre-empted with a compromise bill, and I figure that if the state level can overrule the city level, and I figure if red states with major cities are going to keep doing this, it's "turnabout is fair play" to take it to the federal level at least for the parts that don't directly have to do with zoning laws
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 16:31
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I didn't say it was harmless, but speaking for the likely majority of voters, I don't really care. Whatever minor harm it may cause is worth it. Its similar to the stories of hardship from taxi drivers about Uber. It may suck for them, but you are not going to stop people from offering a ride or a room on the internet for a fee, and I'm not going to support blocking progress to preserve an outdated system. There's nothing "progressive" about either AirBnB or Uber. They exist by exploiting loopholes in labor laws and zoning regulations.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:There's nothing "progressive" about either AirBnB or Uber. They exist by exploiting loopholes in labor laws and zoning regulations. Not only that, but their entire profitability comes from regulatory arbitrage, because these loopholes are not available to their main competition. In cities where uber drivers are required to be licensed and are treated like cab drivers uber is far less profitable and most people treat it as indistinguishable from regular cabs. Airbnb, uber, and most of this gig economy would essentially disappear if there was regulatory parity with the sectors they want to "disrupt."
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 16:49
|
|
Rigel posted:I didn't say it was harmless, but speaking for the likely majority of voters, I don't really care. Whatever minor harm it may cause is worth it. Its similar to the stories of hardship from taxi drivers about Uber. It may suck for them, but you are not going to stop people from offering a ride or a room on the internet for a fee, and I'm not going to support blocking progress to preserve an outdated system. The "progress" you refer to consists entirely of social harm.
|
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
perhaps arguing over uber isn't a supreme court issue
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
It’d be great if it were, though.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
It's also loving amazing in rural areas where there's no public transit and the cabs, if they even go there, either charge you out the rear end or take forever to actually show up. Blanket federal restrictions aren't really appropriate for this sort of heavily local issue.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:There's nothing "progressive" about either AirBnB or Uber. They exist by exploiting loopholes in labor laws and zoning regulations. "Loopholes" is a bit of a strong word - it's more that they're just breaking laws and use their massive amounts of money to dodge and delay consequences as long as possible.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:perhaps arguing over uber isn't a supreme court issue However, in a tangentially related issue, the California Supreme Court just issued an opinion in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S222732.PDF In that opinion, California adopted the ABC test for determining if a worker is an independent contractor. It starts with a presumption that the worker is an employee, which can be rebutted only if the hiring entity establishes all three of: quote:(A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact; This essentially means that Uber et. al will have to classify all of their drivers as employees now in California - and also means it's very difficult to have any independent contractors as staff augmentation in California. Further, CA follows Massachusetts and New Jersey in this, which may start more dominoes falling. Subjunctive posted:It’d be great if it were, though. It essentially just was a California supreme court issue, and it will likely be a US Supreme Court issue eventually. There's a case that is about to be appealed to the 3rd Circuit on the issue that came out the opposite way as the CA Supreme Court. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-lawsuit/u-s-judge-says-uber-drivers-are-not-companys-employees-idUSKBN1HJ31I
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
ulmont posted:It essentially just was a California supreme court issue, and it will likely be a US Supreme Court issue eventually. There's a case that is about to be appealed to the 3rd Circuit on the issue that came out the opposite way as the CA Supreme Court. Can't wait for Gorsuch's take.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I didn't say it was harmless, but speaking for the likely majority of voters, I don't really care. Whatever minor harm it may cause is worth it. Its similar to the stories of hardship from taxi drivers about Uber. It may suck for them, but you are not going to stop people from offering a ride or a room on the internet for a fee, and I'm not going to support blocking progress to preserve an outdated system. Both can only exist by exploiting systems in the most regressive ways possible. But congrats on your entry to the Republican party, I guess? ulmont posted:However, in a tangentially related issue, the California Supreme Court just issued an opinion in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S222732.PDF I have zero faith that the SCOTUS would uphold that ruling if/when it gets to them. In the meanwhile, congrats to Californian workers having one less way of being completely hosed over by parasite economy companies like Ube.?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I have zero faith that the SCOTUS would uphold that ruling if/when it gets to them. In the meanwhile, congrats to Californian workers having one less way of being completely hosed over by parasite economy companies like Ube.? The California ruling was under state law, so won't go to SCOTUS. The PA case will eventually go to SCOTUS for a federal determination. In the meantime PA or similar could adopt or pass a corresponding ABC test for use under their state laws.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:This sort of local property use is the sort of thing that's generally reserved to local governments (not even state governments), there's no reason to regulate it on a national level.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
Developing my new Shrtwaistr app to disrupt the sclerotic red-tape laden textile manufacturing industry with e-innovation.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:There's nothing "progressive" about either AirBnB or Uber. They exist by exploiting loopholes in labor laws and zoning regulations.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:I don't think we want to call zoning regulations progressive, or even local. Many have a deeply racist history intertwined with federal mandates for redlining. Cities without zoning regulations tend to be regressive shitholes, so I disagree. That they can be abused does not make them bad in general. Zoning is fundamentally about me giving up the right to process hog manure at my house in exchange for making sure you can't, either. It keeps residential, commercial, and industrial areas separate. Without zoning, poor people end up with a petroleum refinery next door and can't do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 04:18
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Cities without zoning regulations tend to be regressive shitholes, so I disagree. That they can be abused does not make them bad in general. Requirements that houses be detached with giant lawns and ample parking and never affordable are the sorts of things that got put into place because of redlining, and they largely remain.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
SCORUS Thread: continued local issues
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 12:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:"Loopholes" is a bit of a strong word - it's more that they're just breaking laws and use their massive amounts of money to dodge and delay consequences as long as possible. How presidential of them.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 13:19
|
|
|
Which is more regressive: not having zoning, or banning apartment buildings from an entire neighborhood?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 13:34
|
|
|
On the one hand uber sucks, on the other cab companies had forever to get their loving heads out of their asses and join the 21st century. I mean you can say that their only value came from dodging regulation but that's nonsense, cab companies loving sucked to a remarkable degree.ShadowHawk posted:I don't think we disagree here. Those are all reasonable things. The biggest impetus is that homeowners have strong financial intensives to keep values high, most everything else flows from that in some way. It's much harder to want cheap housing if it means you lose tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Both can only exist by exploiting systems in the most regressive ways possible. But congrats on your entry to the Republican party, I guess? You want to use the power of the government, to forbid ordinary people backed by the force of law, from offering a room or a ride for money. This isn't a political issue, and saying that supporting uber and/or airbnb is somehow republican or conservative is.... well, its loving weird. It also sucked for weavers when automation took their jobs and made clothing less expensive. The luddites were wrong then, and you are wrong now. Uber works because taxis relied on a monopoly that did not offer the price or service people demand. If taxis cant adapt and they go out of business from competition, then so be it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 04:56
|
|
|
Rigel posted:You want to use the power of the government, to forbid ordinary people backed by the force of law, from offering a room or a ride for money. No one's going to come after you for giving your buddy a ride to the airport for 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 05:08
|
|
|
Rigel posted:You want to use the power of the government, to forbid ordinary people backed by the force of law, from offering a room or a ride for money. This isn't a political issue, and saying that supporting uber and/or airbnb is somehow republican or conservative is.... well, its loving weird. Uber didn't invent jitney cabs, nor did Airbnb invent illegal hotels. Simply ignoring local laws and regulations while throwing huge piles of money at the consequences isn't what I'd call "innovation". These rules and regulations exist for a reason, and more often than not it's a pretty drat good reason. I'm not sure how "deliberately breaking the law is the greatest corporate invention since automatic weaving machines" belongs in a thread about courts and law, anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 05:26
|
|
|
Uber isn’t “ride-sharing” but rather a jitney cab company that exploits its workers to extremes and pays a far sub minimum wage. There is nothing novel about what they do except it was the first big one with an app.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 06:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:These rules and regulations exist for a reason, and more often than not it's a pretty drat good reason. Such zoning rules are usually made to suppress college students or the poor from living in a neighborhood (as it effectively bans roommates), however the family challenged such zoning rules under a constitutional theory. It looks like it resolved with the city backing down rather than fighting it out in federal court, so it seems this theory may have some potential: http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-hartford-scarborough11-withdrawal-1028-20161027-story.html
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 07:30
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Uber isn’t “ride-sharing” but rather a jitney cab company that exploits its workers to extremes and pays a far sub minimum wage. There is nothing novel about what they do except it was the first big one with an app. Uber wouldn't be nearly as popular around here if Philadelphia cabbies weren't assholes and didn't try to refuse to a) take people some places or; b) take credit cards. It's less common now that Uber is around as an alternative, but you'll still far-to-frequently run into one who won't start driving unless you say you're going to pay cash. Uber drivers are also great if you want to go from center city out to the suburbs, since they can also pick up rides outside city limits. I tip the poo poo out of them for that, though, just for the convenience of not having to wait for the next regional rail (or deal with drunken jerkwads on regional rail on game nights or, well, every other night).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 13:34
|
|
|
I’m not saying that cabs are perfect by any means. There are massive problems in the transportation industry. Uber’s flexibility is it’s hallmark, and i can get why you appreciate the wide variety of availability and service. The problem with Uber is they are massively exploiting labor to provide that service in wanton violation of federal, state, and local laws. Those drivers, once expenses and all are sorted out are making a sub minimum wage in most cases. If uber actually paid it’s employees, properly background checked drivers, and didn’t do everything in it’s power to fight any regulation that rightfully applies, i could support them. As they are now, they exploit the people left behind in this country to benefit the wealthy. The entire gig economy is a symptom of the 1% leaving the rest of us to scramble for their scraps.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 13:43
|
|
|
Y'all want the infamous tech nightmare thread: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3763277
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 14:54
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Y'all want the infamous tech nightmare thread: I thought that was the self-driving cars thread.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 14:57
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:I thought that was the self-driving cars thread. On a long enough time frame, all threads in D&D are self driving car threads.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 15:02
|
|
exploded mummy posted:I thought that was the self-driving cars thread. It's the thread to quarantine all the arguments about disruptive Silicon Valley tech companies. Uber, AirBnB and Theranos being monstrous, unethical and contrary to public and social policy is pretty much the only thing the thread agrees on. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 16:05 on May 6, 2018 |
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 15:58
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:Uber wouldn't be nearly as popular around here if Philadelphia cabbies weren't assholes and didn't try to refuse to a) take people some places or; b) take credit cards. It's less common now that Uber is around as an alternative, but you'll still far-to-frequently run into one who won't start driving unless you say you're going to pay cash. This is illegal in most jurisdictions I've ever heard of, and mentioning the local taxi regulator is often enough for them to discover that oops, it turns out their card reader actually does work after all!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is illegal in most jurisdictions I've ever heard of, and mentioning the local taxi regulator is often enough for them to discover that oops, it turns out their card reader actually does work after all! And in fact better-regulated localities have requirements for posting highly-visible notifications to passengers about their right to things like that. Cabbies are always just a blind eye away from being scam artists.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is illegal in most jurisdictions I've ever heard of, and mentioning the local taxi regulator is often enough for them to discover that oops, it turns out their card reader actually does work after all! Do you not just say 'I have no cash, sucks for you eh?' Then you just leave.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 10:56 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's the thread to quarantine all the arguments about disruptive Silicon Valley tech companies. Uber, AirBnB and Theranos being monstrous, unethical and contrary to public and social policy is pretty much the only thing the thread agrees on. ah, i see someone has Owl of cream cheese on ignore
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 18:17
|
|