Good for Uber. California has its hands on too many things. It has so many ethics it has destroyed the middle class. I want much less regulation.
The seeming less-regulated employment is in fact supported by a great deal of government safety net programs taxpayers. Many of these low paying / independent contractor / "gig economy" jobs are really only feasible due to government support. Given that, it seems more reasonable for the government to regulate.
IMO I would argue California's new law is not about protecting workers, who are actually able to earn more money as independent contractors, but about protecting higher tax revenues collected on employees.
In San Francisco where I live, we have almost no middle class primarily because it's so expensive to live. Thats right no middle class. We have effectively outlawed housing with 7 year approval cycles, and exclusionary zoning. It's nearly impossible to develop in California.
What does the data show? People are leaving California to move to states like Texas. Half of Californias are thinking of leaving the state. Poverty is shrinking everywhere except California where 18% of the population is living in poverty.
How many homeless people did they have to ignore to win a cheap political argument? (a lot)
My housing costs have gone from $700 to $3950 in 10 years.
If I wasn't one of the lucky few, I would be priced out. Hence my point we need much less regulation so that middle class people can afford to live in California.
We could 10x pay, but with the same stock of housing, the poor will do no better.
Middle class people can afford to live in plenty of California, just not in certain places like the bay area. The problems with housing are mostly caused by local NIMBYism not statewide regulation, which is an issue that doesn't have a specific political affiliation.
An unintended consequence.
A new ballot measure, sponsored by progressives on the board of supervisors this year, will further limit construction and tie commercial development to these affordable housing mandates. The result will be less overall development and increased cost of living. Sponsored by progressives.
What I see locally is progressives fighting development, and this hurts us all. Yes there is a NIMY component, but with a super majority in the state legislature - Democrats could easily overrule local laws. But they do not.
Japan is an example of a place with housing decisions made at the state level.
San Francisco is geographically limited. But San Francisco doesn't want to build up because of NIMBYism. That's the primary problem. It's not a left vs right thing.
> Democrats could easily overrule local laws.
The state government moving in and overturning local control is a big government progressive position. You are criticizing California for not being progressive enough.
This hurts us all. The economy would grow if people from poorer areas could participate in more productive economies such as the Bay Area. It's sad that the most productive cities consider themselves "fully developed" - when we are far from it.
You said California. Not San Francisco. The point is that it isn't the left leaning government of California that is making San Francisco expensive. It's a local problem.
https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20...