[alkonaut]

> It's incredibly hard for me to consider this exploitation when people are freely entering into these agreements.

But then

> they have an entire labor market of other options and they have decided that this is their best option

So obviously the problem was that the labor market was broken if the best they could find was that?

> Surely our legislature is to blame for allowing people to have such a low standard of living that they feel forced to accept such terrible jobs.

Agree, this is definitely a 2 way problem. But I think it should be attacked from both sides: Unemployment benefits, healthcare for unemployed and so on should be so good that people don't take the worst jobs. But also: employers should be forced to offer such good employments that the worst jobs simply don't exist. The end result, and a measure of success here would be a higher unemployment. Having a low single-digit unemployment isn't a mark of success.

[brian_cloutier]

> employers should be forced to offer such good employments that the worst jobs simply don't exist?

But why? Two people come to an agreement. Who are you to say that you know what they want better than they do?

I don't want to claim that this argument applies to all situations, there are some genuinely non-consensual or otherwise exploitive arrangements that the government ought to ban, but if someone wants what looks to me like a bad job why should I stop them from taking that job?

Before COVID I used to frequent a coffee shop where everyone needed to bus their own tables. The cost of labor in SF is so high that it's not reasonable to pay someone to bus the tables. While there I would frequently see a man outside who was clearly homeless. I'm sure he would have happily accepted less than minimum wage to bus the tables, but it's a moot question because that kind of relationship is banned, it's "exploitive". I'm not sure he's happier being unemployed than he would be being "exploited".

> A measure of success here would be a higher unemployment

I'm roughly with you on this. Technically, unemployed means looking for a job and unable for find one so high unemployment will always be a bad thing. But yes, when fewer people accept bad jobs we'll know that everyone is being taken care of.

[alkonaut]

> But why? Two people come to an agreement. Who are you to say that you know what they want better than they do?

That's an idea that is centered around individual freedoms rather than maximizing the utility for the most people. This is simply a political/ethical conflict.

My reasoning works like this: I want a functioning labor market, where "functioning" means that the worst jobs are good jobs. So I want my lawmakers to ensure it. I'm happy for them to severely reduce my freedom to make agreements as an employer or employee in that process.

> The cost of labor in SF is so high that it's not reasonable to pay someone to bus the tables. While there I would frequently see a man outside who was clearly homeless.

This problem has 2 solutions 1) let people take worse jobs 2) make social security nets better. Both are required. I can't stress this enough: any change to the labor market laws must come with corresponding changes to welfare.

My view that even the worst jobs should be good jobs is of course coupled with an understanding that this potentially raises the equilibrium unemployment by a lot, so it it obviously follows that I also believe society (i.e. my tax money) should take care of everyone in society who is unemployed. There is an inconsistent viewpoint here: and that would be the one where you think there shouldn't be a massive social safety net but also people shouldn't be allowed to take low-paying jobs. To be clear, that's not what I think. I think the idea of "the worst jobs being good jobs" is a good goal, and that it also must be coupled with a large social safety net.

I realize that social safety net isn't in place in California - so arguing for the change to labor laws is, at least, arguing the for the inconsistent state - but it's hopefully something that can be addressed next. One thing would have to come first.

[brian_cloutier]

Thanks for elaborating, I think we're mostly in agreement.

In the current world where there is no good safety net I'm saddened by laws like AB5 which do not seem to maximize utility for the most people, they only maximize utility for the people who are valuable enough to their employers, leaving a large class of people unemployable. But it sounds like we actually agree about this.

We disagree slightly in that I think even in the world where everyone is taken care of people should be allowed to accept bad jobs. It's actually useful for us to allow this! If more people start accepting bad jobs again it's a sign that the safety net is failing and should be improved.

But if that world was not an option I would mostly happily live in the world you're describing, where bad jobs were banned but there was a robust safety net.

[qeternity]

> So obviously the problem was that the labor market was broken if the best they could find was that?

How does this imply that it's broken? Economies at their core are systems to distribute scarce resources. It's entirely possible (bordering on likely given pandemic) that this is the best employment opportunity for many drivers.

> The end result, and a measure of success here would be a higher unemployment.

Uh, ok...right.

[alkonaut]

> that this is the best employment opportunity for many drivers.

The best opportunity being a bad one was my reason for calling it "broken".

> Uh, ok

Unemployment alone wouldn't be a measure of a good labor market, but a good labor market can have high unemployment as an expected side effect. It's only a "better" situation, if the unemployed people are better off in that labor market too (i.e. social safety nets exist).