This whole explanation smells of "late capitalism". But even so, we have to judge companies ethically, because how else would new regulation be conceived of?
My point here (I got a rain of negatives, but I got used to, my opinions seem to be very particular) is that we need objetive law to judge.
But the fact of creating laws
in large sectors of people's lives creates evil incentives and dependence on people who did not take part in creating wealth for others.
Yeah, actually, I bring this topic up with almost every uber driver whose car I get into, and they tell me they do NOT want to change the freelance arrangement. My brother in law drives for Uber and tells me virtually no one he knows wants it changed either.
I think Uber might be right here. EU labor laws protect a few but over a certain salary they are not very appealing. In Italy paying a net salary of 2,000 euros will cost the company 6000+. Things included like pension are not worth their cost, a private pension is better and cheaper, same for health services. It’s unfortunate but it’s true.
I have paid the ridiculous charge from Rome's airport to the city, it's interesting how many measures airports like Rome, Madrid, Barcelona have to take to keep Uber out as good as possible.
I still agree with the Dutch court.
First, EU has a goal to somewhat harmonize some laws and taxes.
Europe should not simply allow any company to come along and undermine everything.
If Europe let's this happen, the consequence is very simple, in case the drivers don't make ends meet, they will claim it from social services, making me the guy who pays for that.
So taxpayers are subsidiaries to uebers shenanigans, no thanks.
I support the European tax system and social policies, but I am not gonna pay the SV salaries for some "wise guys", I prefer the taxes invested in infrastructure, health care, the useful things, including pensions.if I would prefer the US model, I would go and live there.
It's probably worth noting that the EU has nothing to do with this. These are policies of individual countries, EU has very little if anything to do with taxes, pensions or health care.
It's true that the EU has no federal executive body, however, no country can simply go and set corporate taxes to 0 without an uproar. the cross border phone network is unified for example.
The were Cyprus and Malta selling passports to the highest bidders without due diligence done,kickbacks and honey traps, you name it, it happened.
https://euobserver.com/justice/149810
There is a limit on how much can and can't be done within the EU, it's not a gravy train buffet.
There is peer pressure and potential, let's call it cascading effect.
Some lawmaker will hear about this and try to get it passed in another country as well.
I struggle to think of one state which would simply accept Uber as some great Enterprise idea, look at the history here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_ridesharing_comp...
Most places banned and this bit.
In December 2017, the European Court of Justice ruled that Uber is a transport company, subject to local transport regulation in European Union member states, rather than an information society service as Uber had argued.[99]
So at best, tolerated for the time being.
In Europe, working without full compensation is typically called illicit work(instead of side gig), not extremely frowned upon, but the main job has to have proper compensation.
It very normal and expected to get 4 weeks paid holidays or more, sick days covered, insurance in most places, pension contributions etc.
Uber tells you to get a car, petrol, pay insurance and take jobs when available, and get none of the above, who are they kidding.
A bit off-topic, but why would you take a taxi for that trip? A train to the city leaves evert 15 minutes and costs you only €14. By car it's a 30km ride!
This is true for basically every single European city. Public transport is of such high quality that taking a taxi simply doesn't make sense.
Was cold after cross continent flight and just missed the train by a few minutes, was also pretty late, place looked abandoned, had a bit too much luggage and had no idea how to get to my destination.
Any other circumstances, I would take the train.
Why yes let's just remove the ability of people to take a market-priced car ride... Have you considered the private space that a car affords? (albeit shared with the driver)
You say it like they just walk in, ask for money and get it. It's really much harder, practically impossible if you're not on some priority list (with kids, disability, single mother, etc).
I know, it takes time to claim it, and this actually infuriates me even more, because all the cla procedures are handled by expensive government staff, of course this is due to security checks, to exclude fraudulent claims. All paid for by taxpayers so Uber can burn another buck(they're still never profitable are they, tells me everything about the business model).
The good thing is, once it works, it works.
I've never heard anyone here in the EU argue this. Including people over a certain salary. It is, after all, in the interest of the wealthy too that everyone is OK and doesn't need to live in the streets and cause crime, necessitating guns and whatnot as they do in the US.
Paying your tax and premiums is way cheaper and much more pleasant.
Yes this.. We don't want ultracapitalism here. I make more than average but I'm totally fine with paying taxes. The safety net is there for me too. Capitalism is good but there must be a balance.
To an American it may sound communist (though technically it's more socialist) but it's our country, we can choose the system we want. And we've done an OK job IMO (In fact I wish things were a bit more socialist - this abuse of the ZZP concept has been going on for far too long).
Decades of cold war propaganda have confused the issue in the US. When you say socialism, they think you are talking about USSR-style authoritarian communism. It's asurd and exasperating, but it won't go away until the boomer generati on loses political influence. It's also highly partisan, and in today's atmosphere of cultural warfare, that makes it a non-starter. Half the country won’t wear a mask because Donald Trump wanted to deny the pandemic during his reelection campaign. What hope is there for something as radical as changing the entire foundation of society?
For the company it costs more money, but for the employee, you are way better being employed than contractor.
This is not a surprise, this extra money is effectively bringing the employee health insurance, pension, invalidity pension, unemployment benefit, maximum number of hours to work per week, paid vacations, etc.
If you need to pay it out of your pocket, it turns out to be the same.
In the "old" Europe, the net salary is basically 50% of the cost for the company, sometimes a bit more, sometimes less depending of marital status, country, etc. But this is a good rule of thumb.
From the strikes of train driver's unions in Germany, I think that's where it is headed. "You can automate trains if you like, but the whole current workforce still must stay employed."
Well, maybe something more along the lines of a contribution towards UBI, or similar. This is a concept I first heard come out of the US, from Musk maybe?
Please don't take HN threads into political or ideological flamewar, and especially not religious or race flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
Edit: when an account crosses into using HN primarily for ideological battle, that's when we ban it - regardless of which ideology it's battling for or against. So please don't do that. Again: it's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
I don't know much about Italy but should be pretty similar to Germany where we generally say the employer pays double. Example person unmarried, no kids, 35.
What gets neglected in these discussions though is that everything employer pays is counted as a cost he can write off from revenue to decrease his profit taxes (assuming company makes profit!). So, the effective cost on employer side is lower than 7200 PLN - naive calculation, assuming 15% profit taxes, would make it 0.85 * 7200 PLN = 6100 PLN.
Salaries are always considered the cost of doing business, so I'm not sure what your point is here. What is important is that many people can't wrap their head around the fact that this additonal 1200 PLN which is labeled as "employer contribution" to social security is in fact part of their salary. So people do not realize that their tax burden is 40%, they think it is just 29%.
Also, to make it worse, once you get your 4300 PLN salary into your bank account, you pay on average 16% VAT on every purchase (8-23%, depending on the item bought). So in reality your net salary is 4300*0.84 = 3612, making total tax burden almost 50%.
Social security fees are added on top of gross salary (and normally not visible on your payslip) so it's not a tax per se but still a cost for the company.
It isn't (only) about what the actual drivers want. I'm sure they also want more money, but Uber isn't going to give it to them. It's also about fair competition, health and unemployment insurance, pension, etc.
You're protecting your own interests. The state has to protect everyone's interests; and there's always an international aspect, at least in the EU. That goes beyond than what short-sighted and possibly "primed" employees might think they want.
i don't think this is correct. the state only protects their own interests. do these align with the general populace? sometimes they do, other times they don't.
I read an econ paper describing how uber drivers were making much less than they thought after taking into account gas and maintenance costs. I'm usually pretty against paternalism, but they made a really compelling case that uber drivers who were actually making less than minimum wage thought they were making $15-20. I'm not sure they know what's best for them.
I had such trouble getting Ubuntu to run in 1920x1080 in my VM, which I found absolutely puzzling, but maybe this is because linux people find 16:9 passé.
That's true, but then it is surely better to cut out the middle-man and just not use fossil fuels for static generation in the first place.
The energy needs which are hard to meet with renewables (aviation, other large-scale transport) are the same places where CCS is non-viable due to the efficiency hit.
The best we can do is decarbonise as quickly as possible, and live with the fallout of our failure to act this far - unless a significant use for captured CO2 is identified, atmospheric capture technology will always struggle with commercial viability.
The best we can do is to do everything we can.
It might also be interesting to start burning biomass and capturing the CO2, which would be net negative.
Hands down, seeing people face to face. I have really discovered how much it means to me. I have been ambivalent about it because of social anxiety and low self esteem, but I have realized that in reality nothing else comes close in terms of raising my mood and giving me good feelings.
I've worked from home for nearly 6 years now, and since coming to the same realisation as you, my general happiness has grown substantially. It's as Marcus Aurelius says often, we are fundamentally social animals.
"If any action of yours, then, does not have direct or indirect relation to the social end, it pulls your life apart and destroys its unity."
I'm also on an i5-2500K from 2012, I only upgraded the GPU so far. I recently ordered a new pc for roughly the same price as the one i built in 2012, curious to see how much of a difference I will notice day-to-day.
Not sure if there is any benefit to stripping back to raw radio. You can almost always build on top of other protocols to get a pipe that you can then build your protocol on.
