Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Hillary Clinton Takes Aim at Uber

posted by takyon on Wednesday July 15 2015, @12:57AM   Printer-friendly
from the sharing-criticism dept.

c0lo writes:

CNET, Business Insider, techcrunch and many others report on Hillary's beef with "on-demand/gig economy". Specifically:

"Many Americans are making extra money renting out a small room, designing websites, selling products they design themselves at home, or even driving their own car," Clinton said during a speech at the New School in New York City. "This on-demand, or so-called 'gig economy,' is creating exciting opportunities and unleashing innovation. But it's also raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future."

"Fair pay and fair scheduling, paid family leave and earned sick days, child care are essential to our competitiveness and growth," the former secretary of state said, referring to benefits not accorded to independent contractors such as drivers at Uber.

Meanwhile, others are quick to point that her "main super PAC decisively favored Uber over conventional cabs by a 25:1 margin" (doh, she didn't say Uber is bad, only that it is evil toward its empl... err... contractors) and Rand Paul tweets: "America shouldn't take advice on the sharing economy from someone who has been driven around in a limo for 30 years." (yeah, Dr Paul, zillions of male gynecologists were never pregnant, of course they know nothing about giving birth).

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Hillary Clinton Takes Aim at Uber | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 56 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @01:07PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @01:07PM (#209353)

    wealth redistribution done well

    now there's an oxymoron if ever i saw one

    you can try to sugarcoat is all you like, but what you're really advocating is theft

  • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @01:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @01:18PM (#209357)

    you can try to sugarcoat is all you like, but what you're really advocating is theft

    Ok, "theft done well" if you so like. Does it change the truth value of the rest?

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 15 2015, @02:32PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 15 2015, @02:32PM (#209386) Journal

      You presume that people actually have a "right to live". The "right to life" that people talk about, is simply the right not to be killed by government, or another person. There is no "right" to life's necessities, much less life's niceties. A person who is to stupid, or to lazy, or whatever to actually PRODUCE SOMETHING simply doesn't deserve to eat.

      Theft done well.

      Theft done well, or otherwised, earns you a bullet in the head, where I come from. If you need a pound of flour, and you know that I have ten pounds in my pantry, you don't have the right to waltz in and take it. But, I, on the other hand, DO HAVE THE RIGHT to blow you into eternity when I catch you in the pantry. You, and all your socialist friends who encouraged you to take what is mine.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:34PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:34PM (#209682) Journal

        But, I, on the other hand, DO HAVE THE RIGHT to blow you into eternity when I catch you in the pantry. You, and all your socialist friends who encouraged you to take what is mine.

        (I like your certitude of an attack on your pantry. Not if but when, eh?)

        All I said is "others chose to share their wealth by redistribution through taxes and it works quite well for them".
        If you don't like it, then all it follows is that you don't like it * [xkcd.com]; it's not like the reality changes because of that.

        (now, wipe that foam on the corner of you mouth and sleep well: no Finnish people is going to attack your pantry tonight, nor will I)

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford

  • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday July 15 2015, @05:28PM

    by TheRaven (270) on Wednesday July 15 2015, @05:28PM (#209465) Journal
    Really? The wealth redistribution that happens automatically in a capitalist economy from the people who were born inheriting less capital to those who were born inheriting more is fine and not theft though?
    --
    sudo mod me up

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @10:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @10:21PM (#210194)

      inheritence has nothing to do with capitalism

      wtf are you smoking dude?

      • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday July 17 2015, @08:52AM

        by TheRaven (270) on Friday July 17 2015, @08:52AM (#210352) Journal
        One effect of capitalism is that it's easier to acquire capital if you start with capital. If you inherit a significant amount of capital, then over your lifetime wealth will be redistributed to you. But I guess you're fine with that, it's only when wealth is distributed towards those born with fewer advantages that you object.
        --
        sudo mod me up