[jahaja]

> The regulations created an artificial scarcity

Is the classification as an employee, with attached benefits, artificial scarcity in a negative sense? If so, we got quite a few industries that would also love to remove this "artificial scarcity" and allow the use of day labourers.

[syshum]

Many taxi drivers, like uber drivers, are also classified as Independent contractors

Employment classification was not what I was referring to, I am talking about the endless regulations around taxi medallion system that puts a government regulated cap on the number of taxi's

[jahaja]

Alright, but that's not the case in the majority of the places where Uber have, and have tried to, introduce day labourers.

[throwaway201103]

There are taxi owner/operators, but since the owner cannot drive 24/7, and since the cost of a medallion is more than one can afford by working only 8 hours a day, most (all?) of them sublease their cars to several drivers in shifts. That way the car and medallion can be producing income around the clock. Those subcontracted drivers are not employees of the taxi company, they might be considered employees of the car/medallion owner but if they work for several different owners, maybe they are considered independent.

[syshum]

>>Alright, but that's not the case in the majority of the places where Uber have

I would love to see your source on that, most cities with any kind of taxi system have some permitting or medallion system that limits the number of taxis

>>and have tried to, introduce day labourers.

Do you view this as a negative? because I do not

[jahaja]

> I would love to see your source on that, most cities with any kind of taxi system have some permitting or medallion system that limits the number of taxis

It's an assumption because the medallion system is very US-centric. Permits/taxi drivers license, if that's what you mean, isn't much more than a minimum qualification requirement and not a hard limit.

> Do you view this as a negative? because I do not

Yes? Because that's a ~100 year regression in most developed nations and I empathize with the people on the receiving end of that kind of hat-in-hand relationship. To not see this as a negative suggests to me a worryingly low empathy with the less fortunate and perhaps even nostalgia to a strict class-society, because that's the end result of a race-to-the-bottom unfettered capitalism.

[syshum]

So your position is that Day labor and/or independent contracting is only predatory?

That people are incapable of looking at a situation and making a choice for themselves if the situation is good for them or not? They must always be protected by the government "for the greater good", and that government regulation is inherently good and noble?

Really?

because after the state of CA passed a law prohibiting independent contracting for a whole host of jobs, many lost 100% of their income, many others lost flexibility in the jobs and other adverse consequences from moving from Independent contracting to employee

Many people PREFER to be independent as it affords them flexibility and well independence they could not get if they were employee's

it is foolish and ignorant to claim that I have "low empathy with the less fortunate" simply because I prefer less authoritarian government, less regulation and more personal freedom (and responsibility)

[jahaja]

> So your position is that Day labor and/or independent contracting is only predatory?

Yes, especially when the primary USP is just to lower labour costs compared to having them as employees.

> That people are incapable of looking at a situation and making a choice for themselves if the situation is good for them or not? They must always be protected by the government "for the greater good", and that government regulation is inherently good and noble?

Yes. People in a shite economic position and without any support from a welfare state are rarely in a position to refuse an exploitative relationship.

And yes again, the government is most likely far more "good and noble" than an employer in day labourer relationship - whose primary motive is not one's well-being but profit.

> because after the state of CA passed a law prohibiting independent contracting for a whole host of jobs, many lost 100% of their income, many others lost flexibility in the jobs and other adverse consequences from moving from Independent contracting to employee

A lot of people would lose their job in the insurance industry if universal health care was adopted. But it's still the right thing to do. Furthermore, the only reason why you can use that argument "Ah, it's horrible! They're losing their income!" is because there's no welfare state to help them out in between jobs and/or (re-)education.

> Many people PREFER to be independent as it affords them flexibility and well independence they could not get if they were employee's

Maybe some, sure. Not sure why that's relevant or mutually exclusive to not regress to day labourers.

> it is foolish and ignorant to claim that I have "low empathy with the less fortunate" simply because I prefer less authoritarian government, less regulation and more personal freedom (and responsibility)

A hand-in-hat existence has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, if anything it's its opposite. Freedom for capital, or market freedom etc, does not automatically translate to freedom in its literal sense to the willing or unwilling participants.

The boss is usually the most authoritarian relationship that most people experience from day to day, worsening the less fortunate one are. This would only increase the intensity of that.