[Barrin92]

>Lots of people don't want a stable job

yeah, don't you just know tons of people who love to have no job security, don't know how much they'll make on any given day or whether they'll be unemployed in a month?

Of course people love stable jobs, some people however are dependent on gig work because of institutional failure on several fronts within California in particular. The solution to this is, as Russ Ackoff put it, not to do the wrong thing right, which will only will have you end up in a situation that is even wronger, and not to solve problems, but to dissolve them by changing the environment in a way such that the problem does not exist any more.

In pratictal terms this means for California, reform zoning laws and actually build housing, build mass transit, create good jobs. Don't build the UBI white collar welfare dystopia that the 10% of the state love who happen to own Uber stock.

[username90]

> whether they'll be unemployed in a month?

Unemployment is a nonsense term for gig work. The fact that you view people as "employed" or "unemployed" speaks so much how damaged you are. I don't want to be "employed", I want to be a person who can work when I want instead of being forced to be a stable worker who predictably clocks in half of my time every week. Gig work moves us in this direction and is therefore a good thing. Americans instead want to force even more people to go full time and get tied down to a job, isn't that the horrible dystopia we all want to avoid?

> dependent on gig work because of institutional failure on several fronts within California in particular.

Those aren't most drivers though, and hurting most drivers just so that you can take the last lifeline of these poor drivers you speak of away since it doesn't meet some arbitrary standards you think these people should have makes you a horrible person imo. Also, Prop 22 actually ensures gig workers gets health benefits and minimum wage, so I am not sure why you are against it except you wanting to force people to tie themselves to a company via employment contract.

[josefx]

> I want to be a person who can work when I want instead of being forced to be a stable worker who predictably clocks in half of my time every week.

My job mostly requires me to be there for meetings and that my hours match up at the end of the year. As long as I can get my work done nobody really cares (except for laws against overwork).

> except you wanting to force people to tie themselves to a company via employment contract.

What kind of employment contract comes with a life time slavery clause?

[xboxnolifes]

I think " not wanting stable work" was a poor choice of words, and the previous commenter meant more along the line of "people want more flexible work". There is a great deal of people who are happy working jobs that allow them to pick their hours, days worked, or even just stop working for weeks at a time with no notice.

Having healthcare tied to full-time employment is almost entirely incompatible with this type of employment, as it is priced at half-time / full-time employment, not super flexible gig jobs.

[maerF0x0]

> yeah, don't you just know tons of people who love to have no job security, don't know how much they'll make on any given day or whether they'll be unemployed in a month?

parent probably meant something like "consistent and mandatory" more than "uncertain.