HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA etc.

[DanRydell 799]

Yeah, that and they have gas taxes 3x what Arizona collects.

Which amounts to less than 25% of that $1.75 difference

[Incredulity 11861]

30 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

 

Because the market will support $4.50 gas in LA but not in Phoenix.

 

Ummm... no.

[DanRydell 799]

Ummm... no.

So you think the market will support $4.50 gas in Phoenix but gas companies are just feeling charitable?

[Incredulity 11861]

Just now, DanRydell said:

 

So you think the market will support $4.50 gas in Phoenix but gas companies are just feeling charitable?

 

You think gas companies make the difference in profit?

Taxes and state mandated additives are the difference.

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

9 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

OP seems to have no direct concern for the people harmed by idiotic do gooder laws, but neither do any of the other people in this thread. 

As a practical matter, you can only ban things. Laws cannot create jobs. Laws can only ban them. And that's exactly what they did in CA.

It's a perfect example of why you have to be realistic about the outcome of goverment intervention, because if you aren't then you hurt people. And this outcome was completely predictable.

I was in CA for the first time in many years recently. Man, literally everything is a sticker shock. Gas, lunch, car rentals man it was all like a 50% premium to reality. $15 for every lunch. I mean I ate pretty good, poke bowls are awesome, but come on. 

How do you go bankrupt? Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.

Just stopping in to say this post is stupid.  No reason to go beyond that.  Anyone who isn't stupid knows how stupid this post is.

[workswithseed 2201]

20 hours ago, BradInATX said:

 

"Vox Media will end contracts with about 200 people, including non-California freelancers who cover teams based in the state, and replace them with 20 new part-time and full-time staffers, according to a source familiar with the decision."

 

This was the entire point of the law. It's almost a certainty that the 20 new "real" jobs created will pay more in total comp than the 200 freelancers made. Oh noez - the law is forcing companies to stop exploiting loopholes and give people real jobs with benefits!!! California economy will collapse any day now.

tl;dr: EMAW is an idiot with the intellectual rigor and curiosity of a tree stump.

Post this on your Facebook, dumb fuck. We aren't your stupid hick friends.

 

I don't understand this, do you think freelancers are just doing work for VOX? Your paragraph shows that 180 people lost an income, but it gives them benefits now so its all good since it'll hopefully those 180 in the long run.

It's forcing companies to employ fewer people, which you seem to think is okay.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

You think gas companies make the difference in profit?

Taxes and state mandated additives are the difference.

And yet the _very_ free market concept of "you're welcome to live in any state you'd like" seems to be functioning perfectly fine, and California remains not only our nation's most powerful state, but a global superpower.

 

[BradInATX 9208]

Just now, workswithseed said:

I don't understand this

I've seen a few of your other posts. I wouldn't expect you to understand.

[wildcat09 29561]

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I don't understand this, do you think freelancers are just doing work for VOX? Your paragraph shows that 180 people lost an income, but it gives them benefits now so its all good since it'll hopefully those 180 in the long run.

It's forcing companies to employ fewer people, which you seem to think is okay.

It is.

[hayden_horn 11402]

4 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I don't understand this, do you think freelancers are just doing work for VOX? Your paragraph shows that 180 people lost an income, but it gives them benefits now so its all good since it'll hopefully those 180 in the long run.

It's forcing companies to employ fewer people, which you seem to think is okay.

define "employ"

[Brisketexan 106642]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

 

Yeah, that and they have gas taxes 3x what Arizona collects.

Hmmmmm....how could California be different from Arizona when it comes to gas taxes, additives, and the like? 

Hmmmm.....could California have 394,000 road miles, but Arizona only have 145,000?  Could California have multiple dense population centers that suffer from vehicle-caused pollution, whereas Arizona just has one, and it's significantly smaller than L.A.?  Gosh, I do wonder.....

What I love is that "conservatives" have a raging boner for FEDERALISM, and STATES RIGHTS!....mostly when that principle could be used to allow a state to be a dick to a minority group or somesuch.  But when the real reason for Federalism comes into play -- different states have varying issues, needs, and approaches they need to take, well, that's just mismanagement!  I mean, look at how much money those idiots in Taxachussetts waste on snowplows!  Here in Texas, we hardly spend anything on them!  We're super brain geniuses!

 

[BradInATX 9208]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Hmmmmm....how could California be different from Arizona when it comes to gas taxes, additives, and the like? 

Hmmmm.....could California have 394,000 road miles, but Arizona only have 145,000?  Could California have multiple dense population centers that suffer from vehicle-caused pollution, whereas Arizona just has one, and it's significantly smaller than L.A.?  Gosh, I do wonder.....

What I love is that "conservatives" have a raging boner for FEDERALISM, and STATES RIGHTS!....mostly when that principle could be used to allow a state to be a dick to a minority group or somesuch.  But when the real reason for Federalism comes into play -- different states have varying issues, needs, and approaches they need to take, well, that's just mismanagement!  I mean, look at how much money those idiots in Taxachussetts waste on snowplows!  Here in Texas, we hardly spend anything on them!  We're super brain geniuses!

 

Almost like Republicans are only in favor of states rights when the federal law is something they don't like.

*pikachu face*

[workswithseed 2201]

7 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

And yet the _very_ free market concept of "you're welcome to live in any state you'd like" seems to be functioning perfectly fine, and California remains not only our nation's most powerful state, but a global superpower.

 

Someone said that those people are able to take thier wares elsewhere, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt more people than helps. There is a reason poorer people are leaving the state, or just living as a bum while the state subsidize them till they die on the street.

Ain't nothing wrong with what Cali is doing, but doesn't mean it's good.

7 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

define "employ"

Merriam Webster

to provide with a job that pays wages or a salary.

[BradInATX 9208]

Just now, workswithseed said:

Someone said that those people are able to take thier wares elsewhere, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt more people than helps. There is a reason poorer people are leaving the state, or just living as a bum while the state subsidize them till they die on the street.

Ain't nothing wrong with what Cali is doing, but doesn't mean it's good.

Merriam Webster

to provide with a job that pays wages or a salary.

What's better?

200 people making $5,000/year

or 

20 people making $50,000/year plus benefits

[workswithseed 2201]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

What's better?

200 people making $5,000/year

or 

20 people making $50,000/year plus benefits

As I asked before, do you think they're only doing one job as is?

I agree with washpark that jobs shouldn't be your source of insurance.

[hayden_horn 11402]

5 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Someone said that those people are able to take thier wares elsewhere, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt more people than helps. There is a reason poorer people are leaving the state, or just living as a bum while the state subsidize them till they die on the street.

Ain't nothing wrong with what Cali is doing, but doesn't mean it's good.

Merriam Webster

to provide with a job that pays wages or a salary.

employment in today's world means much more than a simple wage, and i think you know that. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Hmmmmm....how could California be different from Arizona when it comes to gas taxes, additives, and the like? 

Hmmmm.....could California have 394,000 road miles, but Arizona only have 145,000?  Could California have multiple dense population centers that suffer from vehicle-caused pollution, whereas Arizona just has one, and it's significantly smaller than L.A.?  Gosh, I do wonder.....

What I love is that "conservatives" have a raging boner for FEDERALISM, and STATES RIGHTS!....mostly when that principle could be used to allow a state to be a dick to a minority group or somesuch.  But when the real reason for Federalism comes into play -- different states have varying issues, needs, and approaches they need to take, well, that's just mismanagement!  I mean, look at how much money those idiots in Taxachussetts waste on snowplows!  Here in Texas, we hardly spend anything on them!  We're super brain geniuses!

 

Jesus do you leap to these kinds of collusions in your field ?  Cause if you do you must suck at it. I point out a higher gas tax has an effect on the price and you jump to some lame ass partisan conclusion (typical).  If you're as omniscient as you think you are, you should be in the investment industry.

For the record I believe gas taxes are woefully low as they've been basically the same since sometime in the 70's, based on gas mileage at that time. Our infrastructure issues could be paid for with an increase in that tax , if the funds actually went strictly for infrastructure improvement.

[Brisketexan 106642]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Jesus do you leap to these kinds of collusions in your field ?  Cause if you do you must suck at it. I point out a higher gas tax has an effect on the price and you jump to some lame ass partisan conclusion (typical).  If you're as omniscient as you think you are, you should be in the investment industry.

For the record I believe gas taxes are woefully low as they've been basically the same since sometime in the 70's, based on gas mileage at that time. Our infrastructure issues could be paid for with an increase in that tax , if the funds actually went strictly for infrastructure improvement.

Oh.  So you were pointing out the fact that Ca. has higher gas taxes as a totally neutral thing, and not as an indictment on how the state manages its affairs?

If so, my apologies -- I jumped to a conclusion.

If, on the other hand, you were pointing out Ca.'s higher gas taxes in a manner consistent with the conservative narrative of "California is taxing itself to death!" -- you know, the narrative we hear from "conservative' leadership over, and over, and over -- then I stand by my points.

You tell us what your point was, and then categorize my response/apology as appropriate.

[BradInATX 9208]

18 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

As I asked before, do you think they're only doing one job as is?

I agree with washpark that jobs shouldn't be your source of insurance.

Of course they're not only doing one job.

That doesn't change anything about the concept or the math.

Which is better?

A) 200 freelancers all work for ten companies a piece. They make $5k from each company for a total of $50k annually per freelancer.

B) The ten companies each hire 20 freelancers, meaning they're all employed, and the freelancers each  make $50k plus benefits.

What you and washparkhorn think about insurance is irrelevant. This is a simple math question.

Edited December 18, 2019 by BradInATX

[Nice Guy Eddie 13710]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

Of course they're not only doing one job.

That doesn't change anything about the concept or the math.

Which is better:

A) 200 freelancers all work for ten companies a piece. They make $5k from each company for a total of $50k annually per freelancer.

B) The ten companies each hire 20 freelancers, meaning they're all employed, and the freelancers each  make $50k plus benefits.

Your take on healthcare is irrelevant. This is a simple math question.

I don't see how one option is better than another.  In some ways, option A produces less risk for all and increases flexibility but option B can provide more stability for the employer and employee.

Personally I'm not a big fan of the multi-gig economy.  Seems like many get screwed in the long run by this model.  But not all.

[BradInATX 9208]

5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don't see how one option is better than another.  In some ways, option A produces less risk for all and increases flexibility but option B can provide more stability for the employer and employee.

Personally I'm not a big fan of the multi-gig economy.  Seems like many get screwed in the long run by this model.  But not all.

There are absolutely situations where freelancing makes sense. But:

1) This is not one of them
2) Our low-information Trump voters here are not interested or capable of a nuanced discussion around employment types, how corporations are exploiting loopholes and abusing "contractors", etc. They're in this thread literally saying that we "lost 180 jobs!!". As if Vox is just going to shutter their business and stop paying people to work.
3) People can still freelance just fine if they start an LLC, which they should have done already for tax purposes. So this is much ado about nothing anyway. 
4) End of day, companies are still going to expect the same output for the same amount of spend, and it will have basically a zero impact on employment and work. But it will stop a lot of companies, particularly in tech, from outright abusing the loopholes in the way contractors are classified. Which is 100% a good thing.

Edited December 18, 2019 by BradInATX

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh.  So you were pointing out the fact that Ca. has higher gas taxes as a totally neutral thing, and not as an indictment on how the state manages its affairs?

If so, my apologies -- I jumped to a conclusion.

If, on the other hand, you were pointing out Ca.'s higher gas taxes in a manner consistent with the conservative narrative of "California is taxing itself to death!" -- you know, the narrative we hear from "conservative' leadership over, and over, and over -- then I stand by my points.

You tell us what your point was, and then categorize my response/apology as appropriate.

No I was pointing out that it's not strictly a competition issue.  But you keep doing you.

[Incredulity 11861]

19 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

There are absolutely situations where freelancing makes sense. But:

1) This is not one of them
2) Our low-information Trump voters here are not interested or capable of a nuanced discussion around employment types, how corporations are exploiting loopholes and abusing "contractors", etc. They're in this thread literally saying that we "lost 180 jobs!!". As if Vox is just going to shutter their business and stop paying people to work.
3) People can still freelance just fine if they start an LLC, which they should have done already for tax purposes. So this is much ado about nothing anyway. 
4) End of day, companies are still going to expect the same output for the same amount of spend, and it will have basically a zero impact on employment and work. But it will stop a lot of companies, particularly in tech, from outright abusing the loopholes in the way contractors are classified. Which is 100% a good thing.

For the record 20 full time employees are not going to produce the same amount of work done by 200 freelancers. 

 

 

[Texas73 422]

Gas prices should be the same everywhere. Home prices should be the same everywhere. Socialism wins. 

[BradInATX 9208]

8 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

For the record 20 full time employees are not going to produce the same amount of work done by 200 freelancers. 

 

 

As someone who spends his entire work week looking at employment and productivity data, I'd love to hear you expand on this.

Which group do you think will produce more? Please, share all of your thoughts.

Edited December 18, 2019 by BradInATX

[lemonlime 5503]

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

As someone who spends his entire work week looking at employment and productivity data, I'd love to hear you expand on this.

Which group do you think will produce more? Please, share all of your thoughts.

I'd love to hear what they want to do for health insurance for these 200 freelancers?  These are the same people who want to gut the ACA, now arguing that we should be encouraging freelancing, i.e. employment without health benefits.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5854]

43 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

If, on the other hand, you were pointing out Ca.'s higher gas taxes in a manner consistent with the conservative narrative of "California is taxing itself to death!" -- you know, the narrative we hear from "conservative' leadership over, and over, and over -- then I stand by my points.

 

That's fucking interesting man. I've been told for as long as I can remember that the rich are fleeing California in droves, but now workswithseed is saying it's the poor leaving the state. Something is going to take California down, just wait. 

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

I'd love to hear what they want to do for health insurance for these 200 freelancers?  These are the same people who want to gut the ACA, now arguing that we should be encouraging freelancing, i.e. employment without health benefits.

Darwin bro

Edited December 18, 2019 by BradInATX

[workswithseed 2201]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

Of course they're not only doing one job.

That doesn't change anything about the concept or the math.

Which is better?

A) 200 freelancers all work for ten companies a piece. They make $5k from each company for a total of $50k annually per freelancer.

Depends on the person

B) The ten companies each hire 20 freelancers, meaning they're all employed, and the freelancers each  make $50k plus benefits.

Depends on the person

What you and washparkhorn think about insurance is irrelevant. This is a simple math question.

 

29 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

That's fucking interesting man. I've been told for as long as I can remember that the rich are fleeing California in droves, but now workswithseed is saying it's the poor leaving the state. Something is going to take California down, just wait. 

Who gets hurt more when taxes are raised, the rich man who controls employment, or the poor man who has to find a job? There has to be a reason people are leaving California in droves. 

 

[BradInATX 9208]

4 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

 

Who gets hurt more when taxes are raised, the rich man who controls employment, or the poor man who has to find a job? There has to be a reason people are leaving California in droves. 

 

*realizes he's over his head... changes subject to something even more inane and wrong*

 

 

IN DROVES!!!

Edited December 18, 2019 by BradInATX

[hayden_horn 11402]

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

 

Who gets hurt more when taxes are raised, the rich man who controls employment, or the poor man who has to find a job? There has to be a reason people are leaving California in droves. 

 

california's population continues to grow year on year. while the growth is slowing, it's not like the state is in the negative on population growth.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/california-population/

[workswithseed 2201]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

*realizes he's over his head... changes subject to something even more inane and wrong*

 

I never changed subject, why. Also people moving in still have to pay those taxes. If only there was a way to do extra side jobs to help pay for it. Now that just got a little harder. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/growing-number-of-californians-considering-moving-from-state-survey.html

The online survey, conducted last month by Edelman Intelligence, found that 53 percent of Californians surveyed are considering fleeing, representing a jump over the 49 percent polled a year ago. The desire to exit the nation’s most populous state was highest among millennials, the survey noted.

[zzzz 39]

California mandates cleaner gas with fewer emissions, which makes California gas more costly to refine. One thing I've enjoyed during my visits to California is that there are fewer large pickup trucks on the road.

[EMAWesome 101]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Hmmmmm....how could California be different from Arizona when it comes to gas taxes, additives, and the like? 

Hmmmm.....could California have 394,000 road miles, but Arizona only have 145,000?  Could California have multiple dense population centers that suffer from vehicle-caused pollution, whereas Arizona just has one, and it's significantly smaller than L.A.?  Gosh, I do wonder.....

What I love is that "conservatives" have a raging boner for FEDERALISM, and STATES RIGHTS!....mostly when that principle could be used to allow a state to be a dick to a minority group or somesuch.  But when the real reason for Federalism comes into play -- different states have varying issues, needs, and approaches they need to take, well, that's just mismanagement!  I mean, look at how much money those idiots in Taxachussetts waste on snowplows!  Here in Texas, we hardly spend anything on them!  We're super brain geniuses!

 

Kansas has the third highest highway miles in the country, behind only California and Texas.  The price of gas where I live is around $2.35 a gallon.  A couple of months ago a ranking came out where Kansas had the 2nd best roads in the country.  

[wildcat09 29561]

6 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I never changed subject, why. Also people moving in still have to pay those taxes. If only there was a way to do extra side jobs to help pay for it. Now that just got a little harder. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/growing-number-of-californians-considering-moving-from-state-survey.html

The online survey, conducted last month by Edelman Intelligence, found that 53 percent of Californians surveyed are considering fleeing, representing a jump over the 49 percent polled a year ago. The desire to exit the nation’s most populous state was highest among millennials, the survey noted.

The reason a lot of millennials are considering leaving California is they can't afford housing in California. The reasons for the housing crisis are numerous and complex, but perhaps the largest factor is Proposition 13, which was passed by a bunch of anti-tax idiots who refused to think through the logical consequences that would result.

[JimmyJames 12271]

9 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Kansas has the third highest highway miles in the country, behind only California and Texas.  The price of gas where I live is around $2.35 a gallon.  A couple of months ago a ranking came out where Kansas had the 2nd best roads in the country.  

If true. What a waste of good roads. 

[BradInATX 9208]

18 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I never changed subject, why. Also people moving in still have to pay those taxes. If only there was a way to do extra side jobs to help pay for it. Now that just got a little harder. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/growing-number-of-californians-considering-moving-from-state-survey.html

The online survey, conducted last month by Edelman Intelligence, found that 53 percent of Californians surveyed are considering fleeing, representing a jump over the 49 percent polled a year ago. The desire to exit the nation’s most populous state was highest among millennials, the survey noted.

Well of course. When determining whether or not people are leaving a state, we should look at how many people say they are "considering leaving" instead of looking at whether or not people are leaving a state.

Naturally.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

12 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

How do you go bankrupt? Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.

LOFUCKINGL LOOK FISCAL CONSERVATISM!

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

22 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Kansas has the third highest highway miles in the country, behind only California and Texas.  The price of gas where I live is around $2.35 a gallon.  A couple of months ago a ranking came out where Kansas had the 2nd best roads in the country.  

is this the part where i decry all the pork funding being allocated to a low population state based purely on an elected official's rank (no doubt a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE DUURRRRRR!)?

[Doc Sam Beckett 5854]

18 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The reason a lot of millennials are considering leaving California is they can't afford housing in California. The reasons for the housing crisis are numerous and complex, but perhaps the largest factor is Proposition 13, which was passed by a bunch of anti-tax idiots who refused to think through the logical consequences that would result.

Considering leaving California? Meanwhile.... 

"Almost half, 44%, of the millennial millionaires are concentrated in California. That's "consistent with the general millionaire population," the report says, adding that "the Golden State also has the highest percentage of business owners (23%) and the highest percentage of real estate investors."

New York ranks No. 2. It's home to 14% of the millennial millionaire population."

[ChickenSandwich 9921]

16 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The reason a lot of millennials are considering leaving California is they can't afford housing in California. The reasons for the housing crisis are numerous and complex, but perhaps the largest factor is Proposition 13, which was passed by a bunch of anti-tax idiots who refused to think through the logical consequences that would result.

That and the middle class. They are rapidly approaching a two percent economy.  The top 1% and the bottom 1%.  Who knew rich people would prefer to live in one of the best locations in the country (natural beauty, beaches, mountains and the WEATHER)?

"

Since 1970, California’s share of the middle class fell from 60 percent to just over half the population, according to the Pew Research Center. The trend is similar around the country as well-paying manufacturing jobs give way to lower-paid service employment, but it has a particular twist here:

In California, some have risen to the upper class, others have slid down. And some have left the state.

“The key group leaving is basically in their 30s, 40s and 50s tending to be making about $100,000 to $200,000 a year,” Kotkin said, citing Internal Revenue Service data.

Between 2007 and 2016, California lost 1 million more domestic residents than have come into the state, according to the IRS. Many are moving to Texas, Arizona, Nevada and Oregon.

“California opened their doors and basically kicked us out,” Kelly Rudiger said. “We couldn’t afford to live there with almost half of our income paying for our housing, our property taxes, our utilities so my husband and I both being full-time employees, we could keep up but we could never get ahead.”

Rudiger and her husband, Tony, moved their two children to Texas last year.

The Public Policy Institute of California classifies middle income earners as those making between $49,716 and $174,006 based on 2017 calculations.

Kotkin said California families used to pay three times their income for a home in 1970. Sometime over the next decade, it changed and now that figure has jumped to as high as 10 times.

 

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/11/despite-californias-immense-wealth-the-middle-class-is-in-decline/

 

 

[Brisketexan 106642]

39 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Kansas has the third highest highway miles in the country, behind only California and Texas.  The price of gas where I live is around $2.35 a gallon.  A couple of months ago a ranking came out where Kansas had the 2nd best roads in the country.  

Fantastic.  Now do the traffic analysis on those roads (I've driven a good number of them in KS).  Roads that see 500 vehicles a day get a lot less wear-and-tear than roads that get 50,000 vehicles a day passing over them.

Lots of roads. Lots of traffic.  And a lot of the roads that need be built and maintained are not smaller 2-lane roads (much cheaper to build and maintain), but larger, multi-lane freeways, with significant elevated portions. Oh, and they also have to be engineered for earthquakes.

How's the smog problem in Topeka?  Not an issue?  Hmmmm....interesting.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Kansas has the best roads because no one lives there and the entire state is flat AF.

[seven 1368]

The roads are one of those weird state specific pride points. Kansans are told since birth that they have great roads (and we do 😎). Being a free state is the other. Both are mostly just digs at Missouri being a slave state with horrible roads. 

Similar to how Mississippi is proud of being fat and stupid. 

Edited December 18, 2019 by seven

[High Plains Drifter 11162]

 

4 hours ago, workswithseed said:

I don't understand this, do you think freelancers are just doing work for VOX? Your paragraph shows that 180 people lost an income, but it gives them benefits now so its all good since it'll hopefully those 180 in the long run.

It's forcing companies to employ fewer people, which you seem to think is okay.

 

I'd rather have ten people employed with a good wage and health insurance, who aren't on the dole, than 20 people with a shitty wage and no benefits who are on the dole.

A) 10 people working, 10 on the dole

or

B) 20 people working, all 20 on the dole

 

 

 

2 hours ago, workswithseed said:

 

Who gets hurt more when taxes are raised, the rich man who controls employment, or the poor man who has to find a job? There has to be a reason people are leaving California in droves. 

 

 

Yes, sales taxes like gasoline tax are steeply regressive. That is why the federal (and any state) income taxes should be steeply progressive. You are for a steeply progressive income tax, aren't you?

[Incredulity 11861]

3 hours ago, BradInATX said:

As someone who spends his entire work week looking at employment and productivity data, I'd love to hear you expand on this.

Which group do you think will produce more? Please, share all of your thoughts.

That would depend on the specific scopes of work that needed to be done.

I wouldn't believe that 20 full time employees can produce as broad a scope of work in journalism as 200 freelancers. 

I am sure there is a counter argument that the quality of journalism from the 20 full time employee journalists could be "better".

 

[BradInATX 9208]

16 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

That would depend on the specific scopes of work that needed to be done.

I wouldn't believe that 20 full time employees can produce as broad a scope of work in journalism as 200 freelancers. 

I am sure there is a counter argument that the quality of journalism from the 20 full time employee journalists could be "better".

 

Fair enough. Quantity, and probably quality will be better with the regular employees. 

And the question about variety is fair. But all Vox (a very specific use case, BTW) would have to do is either:

1) Have the freelancers start an LLC and continue business as usual, except checks going to the LLC and not the employee. Again, a 30 minute process.

or

2) Hire a firm that has a wide pool of subject matter expertise (for example a firm that has content creators for all 32 NFL teams). In this case, the company (Vox) gets the same result, without the "employees" getting exploited (because the content creation firm would be paying them a real wage).

 

But let's be real. This law was not meant for a company like Vox. There are plenty of workarounds for them. The article is nothing but click bait. They'll be fine. The article is meant to stop Facebook, Google, etc. from employing THOUSANDS of people who are essentially doing full time work whilst being exploited as contractors. And yeah, the burden that Facebook would take on to change Payroll and Accounting infrastructures to support 5,000 LLCs instead of 5,000 "contractors" is burdensome. Which is the point.  Fuck you, Facebook. Stop using loopholes to get around employment law. You aren't struggling. Pay your employees and give them benefits.

[wildcat09 29561]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

Fair enough. Quantity, and probably quality will be better with the regular employees. 

And the question about variety is fair. But all Vox (a very specific use case, BTW) would have to do is either:

1) Have the freelancers start an LLC and continue business as usual, except checks going to the LLC and not the employee. Again, a 30 minute process.

or

2) Hire a firm that has a wide pool of subject matter expertise (for example a firm that has content creators for all 32 NFL teams). In this case, the company (Vox) gets the same result, without the "employees" getting exploited (because the content creation firm would be paying them a real wage).

 

But let's be real. This law was not meant for a company like Vox. There are plenty of workarounds for them. The article is nothing but click bait. They'll be fine. The article is meant to stop Facebook, Google, etc. from employing THOUSANDS of people who are essentially doing full time work whilst being exploited as contractors. And yeah, the burden that Facebook would take on to change Payroll and Accounting infrastructures to support 5,000 LLCs instead of 5,000 "contractors" is burdensome. Which is the point.  Fuck you, Facebook. Stop using loopholes to get around employment law. You aren't struggling. Pay your employees and give them benefits.

I suppose as an alternative Facebook workers might accept Peter Thiel's head on a plate and his wealth redistributed to the "contractors."

[jimmyjazz 46986]

My take on gig VS reality:  as a salaried employee, I get paid whether I am (in the moment) productive or not.  On balance, I add a ton of value.  When I consult, I am loathe to report any hours in which I did not produce work of tangible quality and value.

Maybe I'm fucked up, but I think a lot of people work that way.

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

My take on gig VS reality:  as a salaried employee, I get paid whether I am (in the moment) productive or not.  On balance, I add a ton of value.  When I consult, I am loathe to report any hours in which I did not produce work of tangible quality and value.

Maybe I'm fucked up, but I think a lot of people work that way.

Well yeah. But when you consult you're typically billing 3-4x what your "hourly rate" would be based on a full-time salary. Or at least I hope you are.

Edited December 18, 2019 by BradInATX