Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

The public would vote for indentured servitude if it kept their Amazon retail and Uber services cheap (and in California, they did, with Prop 22 [1]). That’s why it’s important to have checks and balances to prevent the tyranny of the majority [2]. The public voting themselves overly generous government benefits is no different than the public voting themselves consumer excess on the backs of gig workers.

Sure, unions have problems and labor rights are inconvenient for businesses. At the end of the day, people deserve dignity and a less miserable work experience than they getting today.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_22

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

View on HN

If it makes you feel any better about the public, according to a poll shortly after[1] ~40% of people voting Yes on Prop 22 self-reported that they thought they were voting for the option that would classify drivers with more benefits. This means a majority of people voting intended to give or maintain more regulations and benefits. However, Uber/Lyft ran the most expensive campaign in California history, burning through 200+ million dollars to confuse the issue, and causing many voters (23%) to vote Yes instead of No.

This is a clear corporate-money-dictating-politics thing. I used to joke that if the self-driving car thing doesn't pan out, there's a always a consultancy pivot ready for Uber. "Don't like a law? Have some taxes due? No sweat, for $20/vote we can make those pesky taxes disappear!"

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/17/uber-ly... - Anecdotally confirmed to me with some canvassing last year as well, many (easily more than 23%) were going to vote "Yes" since they misinterpreted the question to be the exact opposite

That's a bit of a malicious characterization. Prop 22 was about trade-offs: more drivers each taking a smaller piece of the pie vs less drivers each taking more. The caveat is that this trade-off has different levels of impact on consumers (less drivers means less availability, slower pick up times and higher prices).

A bunch of Uber drivers I've spoken to do it as a side thing, to supplement income from other sources. The conundrum is that there are a lot of casual drivers and fewer full time ones, and those two groups generally sit on opposite ends of the debate (casuals don't want to be forced to choose between driving and their other income sources, and full time ones want employee benefits)

Ultimately, it doesn't boil down to something as sinister as a secret desire for indentured servitude, it's simply a matter of everyone being selfish. Unions are also a form of people being selfish (though collectively). IMHO, the answer isn't in bickering on whose selfishness is more warranted, it'd be more apt to question why isn't a social net provided by the government itself in the first place (in the form of public healthcare, unemployment insurance, etc) if they deem it important enough to legislate?

Lol tyranny of the majority keeps Uber cheap?

You know drivers can just stop working if they don't like the wage right?

I've lived long enough to quickly suss out humans with a lack of empathy and life experience. The life experience I can forgive, the lack of empathy I cannot. I hope you embrace the opportunity to grow as a human.

The essence of democracy is majority rule... Anyway, you are missing some empathy with other humans right to choose where and how they work.

I get a sense you haven't experienced enough suffering for the conclusion you're arriving at. It is easy to project onto others that "they should be able to choose to work for a pittance if they want", when they don't want but have no other options. I'd argue, in a developed country with aspirations of being a civil society, you set a solid floor for those with the least power instead of making excuses that "this is their choice." But, as you mention, we all vote and see how it goes.

> The essence of democracy is majority rule.

Which is why there aren't many large-scale pure direct democracies out there. Most governments are set up to have at least some checks and balances to protect minority components from majority rule.

The essence of democracy is balancing minority rights against majority wishes.

You didn’t answer their question. You just have a paternalistic “do better” response.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com