I genuinely don't understand this position. I don't see how replacing a "bad" option with no option helps anyone, especially the people that were willing to take the "bad" option.
The missing link is that you're raising a false dichotomy. Its a sliding scale of profit margin. Instead of bad or none, the choice is more low paying options or fewer higher paying options. Some will receive higher wages, while some opportunities will not be available.
Both sides believe the net benefit backs up their stated position and there's very little compelling data one way or another.
I'm not so sure how false it is. If there were a better option, wouldn't people be using it already? And since they're not, aren't we just... firing them and leaving them to figure it out? Seems heartless. Honestly it comes across as "F the little guy, give me the policy I want." (I'm not accusing you of that, your tone came across as quite polite.)
the option is to provide the infrastructure for the market to figure out, but you need some baseline first, and we don't have that baseline. Decouple healthcare from having a job and you're already halfway there, like the rest of the world.
banning prostitution is the best example of this dumb line of thinking. If they could do something better they already would be doing it. Replacing a "bad" option with "no" option does not help them.
"I was so poor I had to sell my body so as to not starve to death but selling my body made me depressed and so I spent all my money on drugs leaving no money for food, throwing me into a life of starvation."
fixed that for you to make the two sentences equal. Making prostitution illegal doesn't prevent the men and women who sell their bodies from starving to death after they lost their source of income. I'm all for social programs preventing people from starving to death though, that seems like a much better solution than banning prostution.
If the economy cannot support enough reasonable paying jobs with adequate health insurance, then the answer is to re-think how the economy works, not create more garbage jobs that earn miserable livelihoods.
If we did things like abandon employer-subsidized healthcare for a modern single payer system, then maybe it wouldn't be so disadvantageous for drivers to be classified as contractors.
> If the economy cannot support enough reasonable paying jobs with adequate health insurance
I don't see why anyone other than the person doing the work gets to define what "reasonable" or "adequate" is. It also seems completely heartless to me to put people out of work in order to push a political agenda.
Great, let's rethink how the economy works. AB5 does not do that though. It is actually a return to historical norms (in that it mandates foisting the institution of employment on something that is wholly new). AB5 is an incredibly conservative bill seeking to return to the pre-uber status quo. It is not a 'rethinking of the economy'.
I never said it was. I'm not defending AB5. I'm saying that the current situation is untenable, and neither of the solutions being provided to us do anything to solve the problem.
