[toomuchtodo]

Violating labor and transportation laws to drive demand isn't being a disruptor.

Are we so tone deaf in the HackerNews bubble that we don't realize that labor rights aren't a four letter word? I'm not for regulator capture with regards to taxi medallions, but I am supportive of regulations that permit people to have an acceptable quality of life.

Or do we need to wait for the next bubble to burst and devs on the street with signs saying "will develop in React for food" to see that? Shall we look down on them as people look down on these protests? (Note: I DO NOT condone property damage or violence)

[davnicwil]

Hypothetically, if overnight the earning potential of a developer was significantly reduced because some competitor could suddenly provide software development services better and cheaper than I currently can, would I expect the government to force the consumers of my services to pay my inflated rates and be less happy with the service - of course not!

I'd be in a pretty bad situation, but I'd just have to accept reality, retrain, specialise, or find a new way to be competitive that sustained my existing lifestyle or at least didn't have it drop off a cliff.

Of course in reality it's not overnight that these things happen, and it's not a sudden decision that people have to make because as yet, technological and societal progress isn't fast enough that people can't see change coming a few years off if they have their ear to the ground and follow what's going on in an industry.

It's a really bad position to be in and I understand the instinct of wanting to fight it and looking to regulation for protection when it doesn't feel like there are many other choices. However, to continue to support the idea that taxi services the way they are currently operated and priced are needed, or even wanted, by the majority of people who know that a better way exists (i.e. Uber etc) is absurd. It's just denying reality.

If a majority of customers know there is a better option, and want that better option, it will happen. The same will be true when driverless cars come along, are even cheaper and more convenient, and are therefore what people want more than a car with a driver.

The choice then becomes: are you going to embrace change by changing yourself and trying to ride the wave, or put up an exhausting fight, ultimately lose and be left behind.

[toomuchtodo]

> Hypothetically, if overnight the earning potential of a developer was significantly reduced because some competitor could suddenly provide software development services better and cheaper than I currently can, would I expect the government to force the consumers of my services to pay my inflated rates and be less happy with the service - of course not!

No, I'd expect the government to force consumers to pay you a minimum wage. What's the problem with that?

> If a majority of customers know there is a better option, and want that better option, it will happen. The same will be true when driverless cars come along, are even cheaper and more convenient, and are therefore what people want more than a car with a driver.

I agree! And as long as you're following the relevant labor and transportation laws, feel free to provide said services to a customer base.

[JoshTriplett]

> No, I'd expect the government to force you to pay minimum wage. What's the problem with that?

Have you seen any indications that either Uber or taxis are failing to meet minimum wage laws?

Not all "labor laws" are equivalent and useful. Some are bought and paid for by the current set of companies to stifle competition, because it's easier for them to comply than a new company, or because the laws outright ban competition.

[toomuchtodo]

> Have you seen any indications that either Uber or taxis are failing to meet minimum wage laws?

Yes. Uber is violating the guidelines set out for classifying workers as independent contractors. Based on Uber's requirements, they should be properly categorized as employees, with the taxes paid by employers for their employees properly paid.

> Not all "labor laws" are equivalent and useful. Some are bought and paid for by the current set of companies to stifle competition, because it's easier for them to comply than a new company, or because the laws outright ban competition.

And its not up to the tech industry to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore because its convenient for their VCs. Want to change the law? Go change the law.

[JoshTriplett]

> Yes. Uber is violating the guidelines set out for classifying workers as independent contractors. Based on Uber's requirements, they should be properly categorized as employees, with the taxes paid by employers for their employees properly paid.

I specifically asked about minimum wage laws, which are what you held up as being important for protecting workers.

As for contractors versus employees, that's under widespread debate, and is not nearly as clear-cut as you're suggesting.

> And its not up to the tech industry to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore because its convenient for their VCs. Want to change the law? Go change the law.

Sometimes the most effective way to change a bad law is to demonstrate that the world doesn't end when it's ignored. As long as you're willing to accept that you might well get penalized for doing so. (Which in turn can spark critical evaluation of whether such penalty is right or wrong.)

And as long as we're talking about deciding which laws to obey, how about the taxi folks setting fires and other violent acts? Perhaps those much more serious crimes ought to get addressed, as well.

[toomuchtodo]

> And as long as we're talking about deciding which laws to obey, how about the taxi folks setting fires and other violent acts? Perhaps those much more serious crimes ought to get addressed, as well.

In my original post, I specifically mentioned:

(Note: I DO NOT condone property damage or violence)

Violent crimes and property damage should be prosecuted, just as Uber should be fined and prohibiting from operating unless they follow the law.

[bopf]

> Yes. Uber is violating the guidelines set out for classifying workers as independent contractors. Based on Uber's requirements, they should be properly categorized as employees, with the taxes paid by employers for their employees properly paid. I agree. Uber should play fair and hire the drivers, as they have been ordered to do in California. But France is fighting the Uber model to protect and outdated establishment. That in my view is not the job of a government.

[toomuchtodo]

Luckily, our views don't matter and France has taken action.

[dheavy]

You summed up what happened to senior Flash/Flex developers who chose to turn to JS when smartphone came to be mainstream.

[UK-AL]

But you have to remember. This is one group of people(taxi drivers), not allowing another group of people(Uber drivers) not to earn a living driving cars.

There is no free lunch. If you introduce regulation to protect a group of people, another group of people loses out.

[claudius]

> There is no free lunch. If you introduce regulation to protect a group of people, another group of people loses out.

And the correct way to change that in a modern democracy is to lobby for better laws in parliament and/or found your own party and then win the population’s votes to fix your issue.

Wilfully ignoring existing laws implies a fundamental lack of respect for society and democracy.

[wskinner]

Why shouldn't people willfully ignore unfair laws? Isn't there quite a bit of that sort of behavior in the history people fighting for civil and economic rights?

[toomuchtodo]

Immoral? Yes. Unfair? Laws will sometimes be unfair. Citizen's rights trump consumer demands.

[wskinner]

Who gets to decide what's immoral and what is only unfair? And just because a French person puts on his consumer hat, does he suddenly cease being a citizen? By granting monopoly rights to one group (the taxi industry) you limit the rights of another group (everyone who wants to get from point A to point B). If the war on drugs, gay marriage, and free love teach us anything, it's that violence can't stop consenting adults from transacting with each other.

[toomuchtodo]

> Who gets to decide what's immoral and what is only unfair?

A government, as governed by its citizens. That's what laws are for.

[asift]

Why should people respect a system that doesn't respect them? Disrespect for immoral laws is valuable for the continued evolution of liberal societies.

[claudius]

> Why should people respect a system that doesn't respect them?

The people are the system, it is impossible for the system “democratic society” to disrespect “the people”. I also did not say that one must respect immoral laws, I said that breaking laws implies disrespect for the way by which these laws were put into place – namely the free democratic society.

You can disrespect immoral laws all day long and I encourage you to do so, just don’t break them unless absolutely necessary (because the alternative would be much worse). Taxi transportation is such a triviality that it certainly doesn’t qualify for that.

[toomuchtodo]

Labor laws aren't (EDIT: intended to be) immoral.

[asift]

A sweeping statement such as this is almost certainly false. Of course, some labor laws are perfectly moral, but some are immoral as well.

In general terms, labor laws such as wage prohibitions and occupational licensing tend to give relatively economically advantaged workers artificial advantages over lower skilled workers. In this respect, they serve as upwards redistribution of wealth and opportunity. At the same time, they restrict consumer sovereignty and the ability for people to freely engage in commerce. Of course, there are counter arguments to these as well. My intent here is not to make any overly simplistic sweeping claims, but to point out that there are some thoughtful and powerful lines of reasoning that call into question the morality of many existing labor regulations.

[toomuchtodo]

> My intent here is not to make any overly simplistic sweeping claims, but to point out that there are some thoughtful and powerful lines of reasoning that call into question the morality of many existing labor regulations.

I don't believe we disagree on this. Labor laws are a balance between the right of a citizen to earn a living wage and the right of a consumer to engage in commerce permitted by the State.

With that said, I believe that consumer sovereignty should never take precedence over labor rights.

[UK-AL]

Huge chunk of them have unintended bad effects.

French labour laws in general overwhelmingly advantage the older(as in already employed), and established workers and disadvantage younger workers and new entrants.

[toomuchtodo]

Unintended bad effects != immoral.

[igrekel]

Uber and Über drivers were already illegal, even before the protests.

In part because they not pay social security like everyone else and that is part of how they drive the prices down.

[toomuchtodo]

So the solution is to allow everyone to compete until wages are driven down to 0?

[UK-AL]

By the time wages are driven down to that level, people would have left the profession for better jobs paying more.

Software developers have deal with unregulated competition and do quite well.

[toomuchtodo]

We'll agree to disagree.

EDIT (to respond to your EDIT):

> Software developers have deal with unregulated competition and do quite well.

The level of knowledge and critical thinking required to develop (quality) software is a bit greater than that required to drive a vehicle. I'd argue that as additional resources are developed/released to aid people learning to code, along with resources that make writing code remotely with a team more painless, the value of software developers as a whole will drop.

[UK-AL]

Yes.

Why should someone be paid quite a high salary, for job that in your words requires a lower education? Shall we mandate all jobs should be paid well? If low skill jobs pay almost as well as high skill/high paying jobs, where's the economic incentive in increasing your skills? In many ways its a trap, because you won't go out of your way to increase your skills.

And when people say Taxi driving is actually quite a high skill job. I say you should have no problem fighting off the competition then.

"software developers as a whole will drop." And on that day, I'll get an MBA instead proving that the incentives work.

[toomuchtodo]

I didn't say they should be paid quite a high salary. They should be paid at least minimum wage.

Regarding your MBA:

“A degree has value only if the degree is scarce, and the MBA is completely unscarce,” says Jeffrey Pfeffer, professor of organisational behaviour at Stanford Graduate School of Business.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/2313a2f8-7c81-11e3-b514-00144feabd...

[UK-AL]

Taxi drivers earn a lot more than minimum wage, if your competent.

"Regarding your MBA:" Or whatever degree pays.

[tolmasky]

> but I am supportive of regulations that permit people to have an acceptable quality of life.

This is the same reasoning as DMCA btw. I'm curious, have you NEVER gotten ahold of media illegally? Even if you haven't, if artists were to riot on the streets and put people's lives in danger, only have the government make even STRICTER internet laws, would you consider people being concerned by this tone deaf?

If you think the instances are different, what makes it different? Your own personal judgement that taxi laws are actually necessary for taxi drivers but DMCA laws aren't necessary for artists? Both are ultimately "THE LAW". If you have the ability to make a subjective decision, then shouldn't I be able to make it in reverse?

[toomuchtodo]

I do by chance consume all of my media in legal ways (I just don't consume that much; Netflix, Spotify, Hulu for the occasional Daily Show, that's it).

Content providers need to get paid just as much as taxi drivers, taxi drivers even moreso. Content providers can take advantage of the zero marginal cost of them distributing their product, taxi drivers are stuck working at an hourly wage, and for them not to receive at least an hourly wage is tantamount to theft.

[tolmasky]

> Content providers need to get paid just as much as taxi drivers, taxi drivers even moreso. Content providers can take advantage of the zero marginal cost of them distributing their product, taxi drivers are stuck working at an hourly wage, and for them not to receive at least an hourly wage is tantamount to theft.

This is ultimately just your reasoning. It is either 1) our place as individuals to decide which laws are more necessary (and thus it is fine for some of us to think transportation laws are disruptable or not), or 2) to hold a strict view of regulations and be as unsympathetic to people that write DRM evaders (regardless of the purpose).

[toomuchtodo]

You're right, it is only my reasoning.

I continue to talk to my legislators to explain why Uber shouldn't be allowed to operate in the jurisdiction(s) where I take up residence. I encourage you to do the opposite if that's how you feel.

That's how democracy and government is intended to function.

[dimino]

You'd willfully do something that's objectively worse so people could maintain their jobs?

[toomuchtodo]

Not paying your taxes on your employees is "better"? What needs to change for current taxis to provide an "Uber" level of service beyond a ratings system and an app?

[dimino]

You say that like it'd take a weekend and a bunch of Red Bull to get done...

[toomuchtodo]

6-9 months and $<5 million in capital. Redbull optional.

There is nothing special about Uber's backend or mobile apps that couldn't be replicated by another tech team, and we'll find out how easy it is as self driving cars get here.

[dimino]

I totally agree with the sentiment -- which makes it all the more frustrating that they'd rather riot than compete.

[asift]

Why should labor rights supercede consumer rights? By trying to regulate an "acceptable quality of life" for drivers, protectionism is imposing a lower standard of living on everyone else.

[toomuchtodo]

Because society has collectively agreed on what an acceptable quality of life is defined by.

Frankly, consumer's demands and rights take a backseat to the rights of citizens of a country.

[dimino]

The rioting tells me that we haven't agreed, at all.

[asift]

>Frankly, consumer's demands and rights take a backseat to the rights of citizens of a country.

What? Consumers are citizens as well...