Extreme concentration of wealth in US economy has led to central planning - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/107033731246200681024/posts/D6SwChze4Vd <comment><USER3> Central planning isn't bad just because it's bad, there's reasons for its badness. Here's a few -

First, you get people who don't know about a profession trying to dictate to people who do know about it. EX: Hitler and Stalin managing farm production, even though they didn't know anything about farming - agricultural production goes down leading to famines.

Second, you lose the price signal which says what people really want enough to act on, given scarce resources. This leads to a feedback loop where goods priced below the equilibrium have demand far in excess of supply. EX: Everyone would love to buy a subsidized steak instead of a hamburger, so if steak is subsidized to hamburger prices, there'll be shortages and you'll need to impose rationing and coupons and things (which becomes a dual currency system where the coupon/ration becomes the real constraint currency, and then those become blackmarketed until an equilbrium is reached - but only with a lot of hassle).

Third, central planners generally have incentives that diverge widely from the people they're supposed to be planning for - ex, making sure those new centrally planned jobs go to your political supporters. This has happened in the majority of centrally planned economies.

You wouldn't expect a high concentration of wealth to have these same problems. Steve Jobs having central planning ability over Apple, and by extension, over a lot of the high quality glass and semiconductor industries isn't the same as Brezhnev having that power. Jobs, of course, is much more competent at building high end consumer technology than Brezhnev and not prone to make some of the common errors.

<comment><USER4> So in effect the main problem with the Soviet system was that the wrong managers were in charge? What if they were selected meritocratically, e.g. if the Soviets had put the best scientists in charge of central-planned science/tech companies, instead of party stalwarts? You might argue that that's hard to do, but is that really the only problem with the Soviet system, that they didn't do a good job picking the right technocrats to put in charge of a command economy? Most critiques argue that command economies are inherently inefficient. But if it's really just a matter of doing a better job picking the technocrats to head a command economy, maybe communism can work after all, if it just develops a better assessment method for picking technocrats...

<comment><USER5> This is definitionally backwards. It assumes that it can be known ahead of time who the "best" are.

"Picking better technocrats" is impossible a priori. We don't know who the best are until they have been selected by the market. It's like determining ahead of time what the best species are.

"Best" is not defined, it is discovered. Until then, we don't even know the meaning of the term.

<comment><USER4> We _could_ define it, if you define what you want your outcomes to be. For example, if we want to scientifically manage steel production in a way that maximizes steel output per given cost, then we need highly skilled statisticians and logistics supply-chain people in charge. Presumably it's possible to develop objective tests for someone's skill at statistics or supply-chain management (that's why we have technical education, right?), and then put those skilled people in charge, rather than someone like Brezhnev. Or, if you want to develop electric cars, then put the country's top engineers on the project, rather than someone who happens to be the brother of the oblast governor's wife.

(I'm not sure I actually believe that. But I'm not sure I believe the market answer either, since on the scale of large companies, there are so many factors involved, that luck and timing more than skill tend to be huge ones determining who ends up in top management positions of successful companies.)

<comment><USER5> Well, I think that the most objective test is a market. Efficiency only matters if we know what the goal is, and we don't. Why are electric cars the correct outcome, a priori? Our choice of electric cars as a goal is instinctual.

This is why we have ethanol subsidies. We "knew" the right outcome and tried to make it so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The G+ link just lifts out some choice paragraphs. It links to the full article at the end. For your convenience: [http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2011/07...](http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2011/07/journal- central-planning-and-the-fall-of-the-us-empire.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> Good arguments but limited interpretation in this article - namely the fact that growth in Soviet bureaucracy correlated strongly with a decline in overall (real) productivity, while growth in US bureaucracy comes during a time in continued GROWTH in productivity, not decline. Then the author mixes in this observation/fact that the US experiences a quickly growing income gap between rich and poor, and it's hard for most readers to realize that that fact doesn't necessary support the idea that central planning is taking place. Central planning is top-down (the central leaders have most say over what industry does) and I'd argue that it's the opposite in the United States - namely business has more political sway than our elected officials when it comes to making policy and changing laws.

<comment><USER8> _...and I'd argue that it's the opposite in the United States - <USER2> business has more political sway than our elected officials when it comes to making policy and changing laws._

I think you missed the main point of the article. This isn't about business vs. government having more power, it's about few vs. many.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, it's actually a fairly old (but still interesting) observation that very large corporations are a form of top-down central planning. In fact many old- school communists first got inspired by late-19th-century capitalism's trend towards managed technocracy. There was a large movement in business that argued that production could be scientifically optimized using statistics, data collection, scientific management, etc. The communists just took it to its logical conclusion and asked, why not organize all of society in the optimal manner, using principles of technocratic scientific management? Even _that_ argument was more or less originated by capitalists; some of the large industrial trusts argued that there was no problem with monopolies, because they were simply the most efficient, scientifically managed form of industrial production, unlike the messy, inefficient web of competing small businesses they had replaced. So really the only thing they disagreed on was how the profits of the centrally managed monopoly should be distributed.

There's an odd amount of borrowing in the other direction, too. Many large businesses _do_ realize that they internally are basically inefficient, bureaucratic command economies, mirroring some of the problems with the Soviet system. So they introduce some of the same attempted solutions that the Soviets tried: intra-corporation pseudo-markets, competition and awards, recently the trend of "gamifying" workplaces, etc. (At the risk of self- promotion, I recently wrote a bit on the latter similarity: <http://www.kmjn.org/notes/soviet_gamification.html>)

<comment><USER9> Well, there are also companies that use full on market based systems internally. For example Alcoa has an 'internal market structure' for sourcing materials, and shuttering inefficient subsidaries if they cannot compete on price internally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I like the central theme, but there's not really a lot of facts and I would argue the details. For example, he claims there has been a simultaneous growth in wealth concentration and government control, resulting in misallocation of resources. But it was deregulation and lack of government enforcement in the financial markets that allowed them to misallocate capital so egregiously.

I would say that the checks and balances that kept our country strong have been steadily eroded, with the result that he describes.

<comment><USER11> Deregulation is not the problem. The financial industry is highly, highly regulated. The Federal Reserve, a corrupt union of government and big banks, controls the money supply, which is always used to bail out big banks. To suggest that "deregulation" is the problem is to ignore the corrupt regulations at the very heart of the financial system--and indeed the entire free market in the US, and even the world--in the form of Federal Reserve Notes.

<comment><USER10> It's true there's a great deal of corruption. But many kinds of activity that lead to the financial crisis were impossible under the Glass-Steagall Act. You might argue that corruption is the root cause, and lead to the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (key enablers that were deregulatory in nature). But it was still the rolling back of a successful regulatory system that paved the way.

BTW, It's interesting to look at the environment in which Glass-Steagall was enacted and compare it to our own times.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's called The New Industrial State and JK Galbraith wrote about in 1967. It's also why companies hoard cash, so their managers can stay in control.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Industrial_State>

</comment><comment><USER13> It's certainly true that a lot of central planning plays a role in US housing. The income tax mortgage deduction and Fannie Mae are the two striking examples. It seems they did play a role in the housing bubble -- however, I don't see that specific example as a result from a concentration of wealth.

<comment><USER14> The concentrated wealth that influenced the housing bubble came from a variety of places:

\- the building trade (obvious)

\- the defense industry (less obvious... in order to "sell" an expensive war, the masses have to feel rich, thus there was pressure on the Fed to let the housing market heat up, and on the SEC to ignore Fannie and Freddie so that Joe Homeowner felt rich enough not to worry too much about extremely high gas prices. There was virtually no talk about the actual cost of the war (short or long term) other than deliberately misleading statements by the leaders trying to sell the war.

\- financial services industry (heat in the housing market improves consumer credit ratings and ends up giving free money to banks (b/c the homeowner whose house appreciated now has A+ credit and lots of collateral... and the boom created lots of such homeowners)... all the while the losses are socialized b/c the government will try to prevent large scale housing market price declines.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> A large chunk of international free trade is actually centrally managed transfers within multinational corporations.

The bigger they get, the more central planning we have... And they're gettin' pretty big.

</comment><comment><USER14> One very glaring example of this phenomenon is how entrenched power (mostly those getting rich from prisons, law enforcement, alcohol and tobacco, etc.) have managed to create drug laws so at odds with the free market forces that the entire country of Mexico is profoundly unstable... and it may come crashing down.

<comment><USER16> Umm, Mexico's border city stability has such more more to do with our illegal immigration policies than our war on drugs. Sure these thugs are funded by our addictions, but should we legalize drugs tomorrow, they'll just find a new revenue stream.

<comment><USER17> > they'll just find a new revenue stream

I find it interesting to model gang violence as a market. If drugs are made legal, the demand for thugs will go down. If the supply of thuggery is elastic, then former gang members will leave gangs and find other work. If it's inelastic, they'll find other revenue streams.

<comment><USER18> I've heard that simply _decriminalizing_ weed in many states has had a material, and in some cases profound negative effect on revenue for mexican drug cartels. Furthermore, many consumers of narcotics are "moving upstream" to prescription drugs. But with less revenue, comes _more_ violence initially as the factions squabble fiercely over a bigger slice of a smaller pie. Eventually this will reach an equilibrium and enough producers will drop out or realize it's not worth it and we'll end up with a few kingpins for the CIA to take out (a la Noreaga, Escobar, et al.).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> For reference, here's a study that was recently conducted that compares Americans' perception of the wealth distribution against the actual wealth distribution. Surprisingly, participants of all stripes badly estimated the current distribution and proffered an "ideal" distribution even more out of whack with reality.

Before clicking, take your guess. What percent of total American wealth does the top quintile control?

Summary: <http://danariely.com/2010/09/30/wealth-inequality/>

Paper: [http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20pre...](http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf)

<comment><USER7> I saw this a while back - REALLY interesting! I definitely give this a +1 to anyone who has time to read it.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Intriguing... if true, I wonder if the 'central planners' could use this for good, as China did in <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2875800> ?

</comment><comment><USER20> The Taxpayer Theorem

The finding that extreme concentration of wealth within the United States in the hands of a few thousand people amounts to central planning is empirical evidence in favor of the application to the US economy of a theorem in the Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.

In Chapter 11 of The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (TGEB), Morgenstern and Von Neumann attempt to reduce the general theory of n-person games to the theory of (n+1)-person zero-sum games through the introduction of a fictitious (n+1)-st player. The payoff to the fictitious (n+1)-st player in the new game equals the negative of the sum of of the payoffs to the n players in the original n-player game. This defines the (n+1)-player zero-sum extension of a general n-player game. In the discussion, Morgenstern and Von Neumann observe that the introduction of the fictitious (n+1)-st player requires some analysis to ensure that the zero-sum extension of an n-player game does not create additional possibilities for interaction among the original n players–that the '"fictitious" player does not influence the game in any way. They rule out the absurd possibility of receiving payments from a fictitious player, but have to consider the possibility of self-denial among the n real players in the zero- sum extension.

In the reduction of a general n-player game to an (n+1)-player game in which a fictitious (n+1)-st player is introduced with no ability to form coalitions with the n real players, and whose losses pay for the winnings of the real players, Morgenstern and Von Neumann captured the plight of the lower 99.5% of the population (the "taxpayer"), which collectively serves as the fictitious (n+1)-st player in modern capitalism. The taxpayer is unable to influence the outcome of the games of the real players–the upper one half of one percent of the population (the "central planners"). The taxpayer's role is to passively fork over whatever funds are needed to ensure the maximum winnings for the real players, and the least for himself.

This outcome is established in a proposition on page 513 of TGEB, in which the possibility that the n players may choose self-denial to exploit some coalitional advantage is ruled out. The real players will never deny themselves in any imputation to the advantage of the fictitious (n+1)-st player, who always receives the minimum.

We might call that proposition the Taxpayer Theorem. Its application to contemporary capitalism, in which the taxpayer insures the central planners against losses, seems not to have been noticed.* In the case of the taxpayer, unlike the fictitious player of the (n+1)-st zero-sum extension of a n-player game, there is some slight possibility of influencing the n real players, but in practice this effect is negligible, and in the strict terms of cooperative game theory, irrational. In the case of the lower 99.5%, side-payments to the upper 0.5% are ruled out because taxpayers are effectively unable to form coalitions, since the concentration of wealth in the upper 0.5% is too extreme. To almost any approximation, the taxpayer is the fictitious player in the zero-sum extension of whatever game the important players in the upper one half of one percent happen to be playing.

*It is inconceivable that Von Neumann would not have foreseen this application, but it is conceivable that he would chose to leave its rediscovery to posterity.

</comment><comment><USER16> Umm, this "central planning" theory always comes after a great economic boom period. It's just a collection of wealth at the top that will take a lot of political might to break up and distribute more evenly. I think we all hoped Obama was going to be the president to do it and unfortunately we will just have to wait for the next guy.

<comment><USER21> I don't foresee any future guy doing any better. The reality is the president doesn't have much power to improve it but as we've seen with the last president they do have a great amount of power in making it worse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Good insight. I would just add that the concentration of wealth has a lot to do with fractional reserve banking and the Federal Reserve. Since these are highly regulated institutions, it's not as simple as saying the concentration of wealth created the central planning. The central planning also created the concentration of wealth.

</comment><comment><USER22> Non logarithmic graphs of money, how I hate them!

This entire premise would go out the window if he only knew how to graph money correctly.

<comment><USER23> A logarithmic graph is the right way to graph money? Why is that?

<comment><USER24> Because you almost always care about proportional changes not absolute changes. If you buy at stock a $1 and it goes to $10, you have made a ton of money. But if I then buy in at $10 and it goes to $20, I have merely doubled my investment. Logarithmic graphs convey this clearly. Linear graphs make our returns look too similar.

It is very common for inflammatory articles to use absolute numbers that (intentionally or not) ignore inflation, changes in GDP, etc... because it is both simpler to explain and more effective for inciting outrage.

<comment><USER25> ?I don't understand why there would be a need for a logarithmic graph in this case. The author is not discussing proportional changes or even absolute changes, unless you want to consider income as a change in wealth, but that's not quite accurate and adds an unnecessary layer of complexity.

The author's main goal is to show how a proxy for decision making power (viz. household cash income) is highly concentrated.

I don't think the author's graph is the best visualization of his point. I would like to see a graph of the proportion of national wealth owned by households at each percentile. The would deliver the point the "power is highly concentrated" in the top percentiles. Wealth is a better proxy than income and understanding the proportion of wealth each percentile holds claims to is better than seeing the absolute amount of wealth held by that group.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Unfortunately, this is the beauty and the beast of a capitalistic economy. One the one hand, you have incredible opportunity to achieve success. While on the other, you end up with a concentration of wealth and power to a small group of individuals or corporations.

<comment><USER11> Every industry in the US is highly regulated. The worsening economy has correlated with more regulations and bigger government. I don't think this is a coincidence. It is the decrease in capitalism due to an expansion of government that is creating our present problems. Capitalism is not the problem. Government is.

<comment><USER27> Don't forget about the bailouts. The wealth conentration in the finance industry would be much lower without the government bailout of AIG and others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> What the country really needs now, more than ever, is coming together to solve problems and less hyperbole, or convenient political rhetoric.

There is no central planning in the US. There is nothing even close to central planning. Our politicians cannot agree on anything - the political parties are almost as divided as they've ever been - and we are only beginning to see the effects of that. How is this central planning? The examples the author gives at the very end of the article (the main article on globalgorillas), is the result of the free market at work. The political situation we were in in 2008 and we are in today, is the response to that. That's democracy and, as gut wrenching as it seems right now, it will eventually work itself out.

</comment><comment><USER29> On a side note there is Cybersyn

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersyn>

The Chilean attempt at realtime computer controlled planned economy.

</comment><comment><USER30> If anyone is interested in this stuff try reading Hayek's "Road to Serfdom."

He wrote it in the 30s as a response to the push for more central planning.

</comment><comment><USER31> It's an interesting idea but ultimately weakly supported with very few numbers. Just another ideologically driven fact-less polemic.

</comment><comment><USER32> Images of smoke-filled rooms secretly steering our lives may speak to the imagination, but it all sounds a bit too much like silly conspiracy theories to me.

There are simpler models if you want to explain the current economic malaise. Just look at the fundamentals: we've run out of cheap energy!

<comment><USER25> ? Who mentioned "images of smoke-filled rooms secretly steering our lives"

Again, who?

How is this relevant to the article above? Did you read O'Reilly's article?

It would be really cool if folks read the article before commenting. Sehr kool.

<comment><USER32> Yes I did read the article.

The article doesn't literally mention "smoke-filled rooms". It is an expression: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke-filled_room>

The article does show a graph of the concentration of wealth according to a power law. It also mentions that "All it will take is is one extremely bad decision and the cascade of failure that follows will catch everyone off guard."

So the article is suggesting that the decisions of a small group of a powerful elite have a large influence on our lives. Unless you are saying that these people don't talk to each other, that's what the "smoke-filled rooms" expression is all about.</comment></comment></comment>


Coroutines in C (2000) - <AUTHOR> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/coroutines.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Acknowledgments to NoodleIncident: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6244489](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6244489)</comment>


Relationship between the ABO Blood Group and the Covid-19 Susceptibility - <AUTHOR> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.11.20031096v1 <comment><USER2> Some quick points:

\- Reported odds ratios[0] of 1.2 for A and 0.67 for O.

\- This is a preprint, so it has not been peer reviewed.

\- They compared blood type of patients with that of the general population in the region.

\- Data is from 2,173 patients at three hospitals. The data varied between them, but Wuhan had the overwhelming majority (1,775, or 81%) of cases.

\- Since these are all patients, they presumably are weighted toward the more extreme responses. There were minimal age and gender differences, though.

\- A similar response for type O was apparently reported for SARS.

0: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds_ratio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds_ratio)

<comment><USER3> Did they list an odds ratio for having a severe/critical case?

<comment><USER2> No, they didn't look at severity. They did report ABO distributions for 206 deaths in Wuhan, which could be considered a proxy for severity but likely has a lot of confounding variables, such age, wealth, etc. Those data were in-line with the top-line results, but that's a small sample.

<comment><USER4> They are looking at data from hospitals, so I'd expect mild cases to be excluded.

Semantic nuances seem to be very relevant to the applicability (or not) of this selection to the exact wording of the result: is a SARS-CoV-2 infection that remains harmless because it is overcome before spreading from throat to lungs classified as a light case of Covid-19 or is that label reserved for more serious forms of infection?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Because this is the next thing you're going look up:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type_distribution_by_cou...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type_distribution_by_country)

</comment><comment><USER6> Not as dramatic difference as the title suggests... Pulling numbers from the article.

3694 Control (Wuhan area)

A: 1188 (32.16%)

B: 920 (24.90%)

AB: 336 (9.10%)

O: 1250 (33.84%)

COVID-19 1888 patients

A: 715 (37.87%)

B: 494 (26.17%)

AB: 193 (10.22%)

O: 486 (25.74%)

The difference may be related to triaging criteria. E.g. different ethnic groups overrepresented in given hospital.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd be happy to change the title, though it is basically quoted from the article conclusion.

Not peer reviewed, but an interesting observation nevertheless. There will be more data soon.

<comment><USER7> Given the fact SARS had a similar profile, this should be a reasonable assumption.

I'm not saying it's at the same standard as being peer reviewed, though it's more likely than not that the conclusions from this data will remain true based on both the data and the correlation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This has no more value than being a "fun fact" (sorry for the word 'fun' in the context of a pandemic and death numbers).. a) it is something you don't have any control b) the diff (odds, bayes factor or any similar definition) is not that great to have an effect on public policy (something like, let's focus our resources on region A, since region B has less risk kind of change)

So, let's all enjoy this study as food for our curiosity, and move on with all the usual measures of social distancing, extra hygiene control and all.. Especially dangerous, if even one crazy person goes out because he has a certain blood type and helps the disease spread

<comment><USER9> no, it means type O can do riskier jobs.

<comment><USER10> Because they have 1/3 less chance of death? Not enough difference to convince me (I'm O+)

<comment><USER9> Of course not. But when you're knee deep in the situation and it's time to draw straws it's good to know risk tolerance. (I'm O-).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Assuming the equal distribution of homo- and heterozygotes, it looks like the numbers (A/AB +20%, B +3%, 0 -33%) _suggest_ the following:

• 00 (homozygote 0, but that's the only way someone is a 0) is at -33% "chance" of catching SARS-Cov-2

• B0 (heterozygote B) is at -10%

• BB (homozygote B) is at +5%

• AB (well, heterozygote, obviously) is at +20%

• A0 (heterozygote A) is at <17%

• AA (homozygote A) is at ~33%

Basically, the hypothesis would be that presence of an A allele contributes significantly to increased risk (~17%), B is mostly neutral (+1-2%), a 0 allele contributes to decreased risk (-17%).

Considering the distribution in healthy individuals (I haven't run the numbers but only used roughly 30% for each group except AB which is at 10% — I've only done the math in my head so I am way more off than that, and it would be quite unlikely for the effect to be so linear as my breakdown above suggests) from the study, everything roughly lines up.

It would be interesting if a study could confirm that, but they'd need parents blood types for every individual to be able to get that.

I've seen mention of open data sets that include research articles, but is there any data set to look at? It would be quite interesting since the distribution of blood types supposedly differs strongly among "ethnicities" if [https://www.livescience.com/36559-common-blood-type- donation...](https://www.livescience.com/36559-common-blood-type- donation.html) is to be trusted — their "Asian" number for AB is also at 7% compared to 9% in their "health population" number.

If there was data just documenting whatever findings there are for patients, it would help in independent "researchers" find correlations that might not be obvious to others.

</comment><comment><USER12> I am a little rusty on my probability basics now but I was trying to remember how one would go about answering the following question regarding Wuhan numbers cited in this study:

"Given a person has type A blood type, what is the probability of that person having covid19"

I remember this being something like P(E1 intersection E2)/P(E2) where E2 = event that a person has type A blood and E1 = event that the person has covid19.

In case of Wuhan 32.16% of the population has type A blood. So E2=0.3216. To get E1 we would need total infections/total population for the city. We don't have that number but is this thinking correct?

<comment><USER13> Yes.

In particular, as you describe it, you'd then need to solve for P(E1 ∩ E2) by extrapolating from the existing result of P(E2 | E1) present in the article, then plug it into that formula you've provided.

(Bayes' law streamlines the whole process by combining the two-step calculation into one.)

edit: a slight nitpick: E2 is an event ("this person has type A blood"); P(E2) is a number.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I recommend reading the review below on known effects of blood groups on infection. Not super surprising in that blood group may have general effects. I can't think how this would work mechanistically without knowing the glycans on ACE2/TRMPSS2 or the spike, and if they carry antigen (I would expect not).

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26085552](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26085552)

</comment><comment><USER15> How can blood type matter? What's the mechanism of action?

<comment><USER14> Excellent question!

Here's the answer: We have no idea!

Blood type antigens are complex carbohydrates, and A/B/O is the difference between N-acetyl-Galactosamine/Galactose/nothing at the end of a sugar chain.

So let's talk about Coronavirus and sugars. SARS-COV-2 (and the prequel for that matter) are relatively unique for viruses because they don't (as far as we know) use sugars (sialic acids to be specific) to bind to cells, unlike all of our other favourite viruses (e.g. influenza).

BUT that's not the only place it could matter. Maybe sugars help organise the membrane to increase multivalent reactions, and there's some galectin that binds to B antigen.

Or the virus itself somehow carries the antigen, and A/B protects against furin processing?

Lots of possibilities. First thing I would check for is co-expression of ABO with ACE2. If it's not in the same cells, then I have NO idea how it works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Slight nitpick: I find the use of 'normal people' in the article a bit distracting. I appreciate the fact that the authors are not native English speakers but using 'the general population' was more appropriate here. However, being a blood type 'O', I am not sure whether this consoles me.

</comment><comment><USER17> Assuming this result holds... Perhaps anti-A antibodies that may be produced by non-A blood types have some cross-reactivity with the virus?

</comment><comment><USER18> Well.. I don't know what blood type I am but it is somehow comforting to know that there are at least some people out there who have a better chance at not getting sick.

</comment><comment><USER19> Odds ratios between 0.5 and 1.5 are not exactly considered strong evidence. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes_factor#Interpretation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes_factor#Interpretation)

<comment><USER20> If you're referring to the odds ratio between group A control and group B covid, then that's not a Bayes factor AFAIK. A Bayes factor is to compare two hypothesis. You can have an odds ratio of 1.00001 which is very significant (eg. female/male birth ratio)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> By the way (and not flamebaiting here) this is one of the reasons why "this is natural selection" is the phrase that makes me the most angry in all of this. Death by flu is selection for random shit that cause you to be better off _against only one thing and that is: that exact desease causing strain_.

The worst thing about Covid 19 to me is how it selects against old people, and even worse: Friendly, sociable old people.

<comment><USER22> Natural selection predominantly works before you breed.

There are some kin effects if elderly are killed, but natural selection otherwise doesn't apply much for the elderly.

<comment><USER23> True! If it would, then male baldness would have been "natural de-selected" a long time ago. But since men are getting bald mostly after they had their offspring, partners (nature) cannot select on this...

<comment><USER24> women don't mind bald men, it's just different women. which can be hard to accept.

bald _ing_ men on the other hand, not confidence inspiring.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This has been circulating for a few days now. It's bogus.

There is absolutely 0 peer reviewed papers or double blind controlled studies that prove this.

<comment><USER26> There are no double blind studies for anything covid just yet.

<comment><USER27> There might be some slight ethical issues in performing double-blind studies on covid infection susceptibility.

<comment><USER26> Right. But there are double blind studies now in progress on the effectiveness of various treatments.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


CACR: MacDefender shows Apple users no longer immune from cyberattacks - <AUTHOR> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-cacr-macdefender-apple-users-longer.html

<comment><USER2> They say MacDefender is scareware, aka phishing, aka relying on user stupidity to enter the admin password when it asks for it. That's not vunerable, that's doing what the user told it to do.

</comment><comment><USER3> Immune ... Ha! Apple computers where never immune. The attacks were just not as common, and still aren't, compared to Windows computers.</comment>


Free Advanced JavaScript Courses - <AUTHOR> https://www.rithmschool.com/courses#advanced-javascript <comment><USER2> Loved the intermediate ones, excited for these. Are you guys planning on releasing more python ones soon?

<comment><USER3> We are thinking about it. Nothing immediately planned though. What do you want to see?</comment></comment>


Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees - <AUTHOR> https://www.courdecassation.fr/IMG/20200304_arret_uber_communique_eng.pdf? <comment><USER2> > The criteria for self-employment include the possibility of building up > one's own clientele, the freedom to set one's own rates, and the freedom to > set the terms and conditions for providing one's services.

Immediately I'd seem to agree with this statement. I think of typical self- employment businesses; hairdressers, freelance developers, etc and this seems to apply. You can set your own rate and your own terms, even if those may kill your chance at being competitive.

But if you think deeper into this, then this criteria isn't always true.

Here's a scenario: I publish an ad on a handyman site asking for a new shed built for £100. People can place their interest and their proposal. The price is fixed at £100, and I may set other terms and criteria. Nobody is going to argue that the builders are employees of the exchange site. Uber isn't entirely different (it just simplifies the process). Its drivers are allowed to deny a ride, and can see the cost upfront.

Really the difference in these types of self-employment seems to be that the customer approached a set of potential suppliers, rather than vice versa, and the customer set the terms and the self-employed get to accept/deny. In the typical scenario (hairdressers, etc) they set the terms to potential customers who get to accept/deny.

I don't agree or disagree with the classification of Uber drivers as employees, I just don't agree with the criteria of the court in this case.

<comment><USER3> The classification of uber drivers as employees mostly means they have to pay more tax and less money goes to drivers and uber. People will argue employees have more rights and this is good for them, but the primary benefit of someone being an employee is to the state and the benefit is financial. If too many people become self-employed, the state can't finance itself anymore. The line between 'employee' and 'self-employed' is vague and this kind of reclassification is not limited to Uber. If you try contracting as a coder for example, you are likely to get reclassified as an employee. And then you have to prove you are not. Which you aren't going to be able to, because a self- employed working through a brokerage isn't radically different from a consultant working through a consultancy. So in that case you are going to have to pay a lot of back taxes. The point is: if too many people start working for exchange sites, they will also get sued and be classified as employees, just so the state can get its dues.

<comment><USER4> > The classification of uber drivers as employees mostly means they have to > pay more tax and less money goes to drivers and uber.

You forgot to disclose the fact that they are getting many perks like properly funding their public pensions while working for Uber AND getting access to regular unemployment funds. The advantages absolutely out-weight the drawbacks in France. And they are guaranteed a minimum wage, legal contract framework which means that Uber cannot fire them on the spot and so on and so forth. The only loser here is Uber, not the driver, if Uber were to chose to continue doing business in France.

<comment><USER3> We shall see how French uber drivers will fare in future but I don't share your optimism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Seems a fair judgement since all the restriction make the drivers effectively work as employees:

> Drivers who use the Uber application do not build up their own clientele, do > not freely set their rates, and do not determine the terms and conditions of > providing their transportation service. The company imposes the itinerary > and the driver's fare is adjusted if this itinerary is not followed. The > destination is unknown to the driver, thereby revealing that the driver > cannot freely choose the route that suits him/her...

<comment><USER6> Doesn't all of this also apply to taxis? Taxis pick up at taxi ranks or off the street. Taxis have regulations set by an organisation. Taxis (in most places) have rules that say they must take the most efficient route. In most places, taxis aren't allowed to refuse a customer based on destination.

Does that mean that a taxi driver is an employee? Of course not.

<comment><USER7> >Taxis pick up at taxi ranks or off the street.

'Radio' calls and calls they've privately arranged with customers as well.

>Taxis have regulations set by an organisation.

That would be local by-law in most cases.

>Taxis (in most places) have rules that say they must take the most efficient route.

You can't intentionally ripoff customers but the fastest route and the cheapest are often different. You can take whatever route you want as long as the customer is cool with it.

>In most places, taxis aren't allowed to refuse a customer based on destination.

You absolutely can refuse a customer as long as it's not descriminatory, like most other businesses.

>Does that mean that a taxi driver is an employee?

Some drivers are employees, some are best compared to franchisees and others are totally independent.

<comment><USER8> _You absolutely can refuse a customer as long as it 's not descriminatory, like most other businesses._

Depends on your jurisdiction.

For example, taxi drivers in Chicago were notorious for refusing to take people on trips that were too short, or too far out of the CBD. Sometimes they'd even refuse to take people from downtown to the airport because if traffic is bad, or there was a long wait in the staging area at the airport, it would cut into their profits.

Chicago made that behavior illegal. It still happens occasionally. But if you know the law, you can do what I do and sit in the cab and refuse to get out while offering to call the police to have an officer explain the rules to the driver.

<comment><USER7> That's a fair point, they forbid you refusing short trips most places I'm familiar with. I wasn't really thinking about that in this case, mostly people asking you to take them sketchy places or belligerent customers which are the only reasons I consider it. An important distinction is it's local law that forbids that, not a company policy like with Uber.

Just a few days ago I had some drunk customers screaming at me in my cab and shaking my seat under the impression I was legally required to drive them. They earned a very long walk home to think about it.

<comment><USER8> _Just a few days ago I had some drunk customers screaming at me in my cab and shaking my seat under the impression I was legally required to drive them. They earned a very long walk home to think about it._

I had a nearly identical situation when I Ubered. In spite of multiple warnings, their behavior didn't improve. When I dropped them off in the middle of nowhere they insisted that I was required by law to carry them. Nope. I'm not a public bus.

<comment><USER7> Did you have any trouble with Uber over that or were you simply able to cancel with no drama?

<comment><USER8> The pax make a lot of threats about reporting me to Uber and the police and whatnot, but as far as I know, nothing became of it. I never heard anything, and I never got anything deducted from my earnings, as far as I noticed.

In my experience, the first thing that happens when anyone calls Uber with a complaint is they get their fare refunded. That's usually enough to cool most people off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Now it would be interesting to see the opinion of the court on fake IT contractors (SSII), where as a developer you are a full-time employee of company X, rented _for years_ as full-time "consultant" to company Y, on premises of company Y, just with lower salary and no profit sharing & no bonuses that staff of company Y enjoys.

(This has been a common practice of Microsoft in US in 1990s and they lost a lawsuit on that. In France, this is still an open secret and a way to milk junior developers. The markup those contractor companies make is crazy.)

<comment><USER10> The UK HMRC has just absolutely devastated the London contracting market due to a rule shakeup like this. Speaking as an ex-contractor and current hiring manager, the result has been disastrous.

<comment><USER11> What were the changes and it's negative results you observed?

<comment><USER10> They moved responsibility for determining whether a person is acting as an employee or a vendor in the vast majority of cases to the client, who must demonstrate a bunch of factors (I'm not a tax guy), not least

\- the "vendor's" right to substitute himself for a replacement they subcontract (via employment or otherwise) to, irrespective of the client's deemed suitability of the chosen replacement

\- the "vendor's" right to a significant level of autonomy, such as the ability to choose their working hours and lunches, and have high level control over their workflow

\- the process of determination 'employee' vs 'vendor' must be significantly documented and can be challenged in retrospect for years after completion of the contract

Falling on the wrong side of a determination could leave the client liable for mandatory national insurance and pay-as-you-earn tax deductions. Now HMRC need not prosecute individual contractors, but instead clients (who may hire hundreds of contractors), making the enforcement process much more efficient for them, and much higher risk for the clients.

Net result for companies: building big overnight temporary teams out of contractors e.g. for 6-12 month projects are vastly less likely to do so, for fear that at some future date, the tax man could claw back a year's worth of tax for e.g. 20 contractors on the same project, with non-compliance and late payment penalties lumped on top (which themselves increase with respect to how long it took HMRC to get around to investigating you). It could be the case (hypothetically) that it would only require one member of a team to report the inability to substitute, or the presence of a line manager, for an entire project team's worth of tax to get a question mark placed next to it.

Net result for contractors: anyone who understands what's going on has either pivoted into becoming a permanent employee, avoiding the whole mess, since contracting is an expensive activity to begin with, and the premium has now been removed, or has banded with a few friends and attempted to set up "micro agencies". I've already encountered these, where substitution was advertised very early in conversation.

Net result for the market: it will be all but gone by April 2020.

<comment><USER12> > Net result for companies: building big overnight temporary teams out of > contractors e.g. for 6-12 month projects are vastly less likely to do so, > for fear that at some future date, the tax man could claw back a year's > worth of tax for e.g. 20 contractors on the same project

Why shouldn't the companies be paying the required taxes for the 6-12 months exactly? It sounds like they are doing temporary employment. In other words, this finding sounds exactly correct.

Are there no fixed-length employment contracts in the UK? For these projects, wouldn't the correct thing to do be having these people employed on a limited term contract as full employees, and have to pay all the correct employment taxes and such? This seems like a logical thing for the government to want, and I don't blame them for enforcing it.

And wouldn't the person who's doing this work benefit from it as well? They get benefits this way, and it's not like being fully employed by different companies for 6-12 month stretches is that different from not technically being employed by those employees but working exclusively for them nonetheless over 6-12 month periods.

<comment><USER10> It eliminates the sizeable premium that previously attracted skilled labour to the instability of contracting. Without premium, why bother with the risk?

FWIW, prior to the recent change, I believe the situation had been the status quo since well into the 90s. I only started contracting circa 2007

<comment><USER12> Why would it eliminate the premium? Companies would still be willing to pay extra for shorter term highly skilled workers that produce results.

And if that premium only existed because the company wasn't having to pay the employment taxes and benefits that they should, then it deserves to go away. It was tax avoidance, not an actual premium.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Counterpoint (from the basis of what I know from how the US, not France, classifies independent contractors):

1\. Uber drivers also drive for Lyft and other services

2\. They can reject a passenger when the call comes in

3\. They bring their own tools to the job (their car)

4\. They provide their own training and technical qualifications (they're responsible for getting a drivers license, license plate, etc.)

5\. They set their own hours

6\. The choose where they work

7\. They're paid by the job and the price is based on the job, not necessarily just hourly wages (like paying for a deck, or a custom paint job)

8\. They work with limited supervision

This sounds an awful lot to me like an independent contractor working for a small number of driving services. I do think that the fact that drivers have limited ability in a given app to set their own rates indicates employment, but very rarely does an independent contractor actually meet every single one of the criteria I listed. A house cleaner, for instance, brings their own tools, etc., but they're not paid by the job and they don't work with limited supervision. Meanwhile some construction work might mean that work can only be done during specific hours of the day using specialized equipment provided by the nuclear plant / factory / whatever.

This is as opposed to someone like Microsoft or Intel that hires employees, but gives them a different badge and excludes them from certain meetings and then goes and pretends they're contractors when they're actually just poorly paid interns.

<comment><USER14> French law only requires a "relationship of subordination" to qualify someone as an employee. The press release is very short and explains why the French court considers that an Uber's driver is in a relationship of subordinate.

> Drivers who use the Uber application do not build up their own clientele, do > not freely set their rates, and do not determine the terms and conditions of > providing their transportation service. The company imposes the itinerary > and the driver's fare is adjusted if this itinerary is not followed. The > destination is unknown to the driver, thereby revealing that the driver > cannot freely choose the route that suits him/her.

<comment><USER13> Sure. I did try to qualify my statement saying I was basing my argument on US law. French law is whatever a French court decides it is. But I do think that riding-app drivers are, as a matter of opinion, much more like hiring someone to paint your house than a regular employee relationship.

<comment><USER12> Your analogy is off here. The person whose house is being painted is like the passenger in an Uber; this finding does not establish an employee relationship here.

Rather, the employee relationship is between that of the painters and the painting company that is paying them out to do numerous painting jobs. That is the closest analog in the Uber situation. And yes, these painters would be classified as employees under French law too, as they should be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The deteriorating relationship between what people widely consider 'employer' and 'employee' has put a lot of societal structures (businesses, democratic governments, etc.) at risk since income provides the abstraction most use (money) to provide necessities and wants.

Most all of these institutions are able to continue to exist because people accept their artificial constructs and play the roles due to wide belief that it provides a better life. In many places, quality of life or at least perception of quality of life is deteriorating for large segments of the population. This is, IMO, causing wide rejection of modern institutional roles laborers are dealing with. Many employers are breaking the social contract and people aren't happy--this is a risky game to play.

I propose much of the political unrest we're seeing in US politics is symptomatic of the population's general unrest and rejection of continued shifts against your typical laborer.

We can play legal/semantic games about how we define 'employee,' 'employer,' and 'contractor' but ultimately, if the general population disagrees, no matter how well we construct our rules and arguments, the institutions will fail if people widely perceive they're being cheated/deceived.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm self employed. I really strongly prefer it. I don't want to be an employee thanks. Yet my government (UK) are also trying to ban it (IR35). Why is it so hard for people to understand: I prefer cash to "secure employment", I'm old and mature enough to make that decision?

I didn't even know I was this right wing...

<comment><USER17> As always the govt wants to protect you from corporations by forcing you to be dependent on them for your livelihood.

A bit different situation, but relevant to the group here. In the US, software contracting started to become very big during an earlier tech bubble. This was crushed in the mid 80s by a new tax law that made a long list of requirements (12 or something) that must be satisfied to work as a contractor in tech. You practically had to operate as an independent company selling them a finished product. Otherwise they would fine both sides and make the company you contracted with pay back taxes. The law was so overreaching it had to exempt other professions like housekeeping and legal services which were "traditionally" operating via hourly billing or whatever, or those forms of operating would be completely eliminated too. The govt figured they would get more tax money with people paying through paycheck deductions, while businesses such as IBM were pushing for the law to turn the competition into employees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> So can Uber force French drivers to work certain hours?

As an American, I have poor understanding of what employment entails in the EU. If the Uber drivers are just hourly employees, what changes for them?

In the USA, you only see real employment benefits if you are a salaried employee. An hourly worker gets paid their wage and that's it (no sick days, retirement, etc).

<comment><USER19> I don't know if that's true. Our hourlies get benefits like health insurance, vacation, etc. Maybe not as good as salaried but it's not as clear cut as "hourly pay only."

<comment><USER18> What does paid time off even look like if you don't have a set schedule, though? Will Uber drivers just get n hours of wage added to their paycheck every month?

<comment><USER20> Where I live the company has to set aside 12.5% of the salary paid for next years "vacation money". You can chose yourself when to withdraw this money in the following year.

For a full time job you are required to take 25 days (or 5 weeks) off work outside of public holidays which is about 10% of the total working time so you usually have a bit more to spend in this period even if the vacation itself is unpaid :)

<comment><USER21> Why not just pay them more? Seems like a convoluted way to structure a pay increase.

<comment><USER20> Because then you would have a bunch of people without money in the vacation month ;)

I'd be able to manage it personally but you will find that a lot of people wouldn't..

<comment><USER21> I find the idea of legislating how businesses operate based on the idea that people aren't expected to have personal responsibility highly distasteful.

<comment><USER20> I think the only country in the world where the general citizen have enough self control to manage this sort of stuff is Switzerland.

It might be distasteful to you but it is how people operate in real life and it would be sad if legislators ignored the real world in favour of how they wished the world to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I am not sure I understand why this is a win for Uber drivers(genuine question). Is it considered a win because now they are treated as employees, so they will have benefits like sick pay, vacation days etc? What was the policy when they were not employees? Would they be penalized(financially) if they took a sick day? France already mandates some of these for contractors, so not a huge benefit, I think.

I doubt it'll mean more earnings, since employees are generally paid lower than contractors. This being in France, universal health care already covers everyone, so don't think that drivers are going to get a better healthcare coverage.

Maybe now the drivers will have to be compensated for wear and tear of their vehicle, which I can see is a win.

<comment><USER23> I have a hunch this is actually being done to hurt Uber drivers and save the already well-regulated Cab industry in France.

<comment><USER24> Probably also an act of protectionism / hurting foreign companies

<comment><USER25> Are you implying that French courts change their rulings to benefit the government policies (hurting foreign companies in this case) rather than simply basing them on the law?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> To appreciate the context one must consider the much higher standards for employment.

[https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/employment- law/co...](https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/employment- law/comparison-between-usa-and-france-employment-employment-law-essay.php)

> "...the French law regulates much more heavily all the aspects of employment > conditions than the United States: Only a few forms of employment contracts > exist in the French legal system, whereas the American law allows the two > parties – the employer and the employee- to agree on almost every aspect of > the contract freely, as soon as the contract is respecting the same > principles and regulations set by the American law for contracts.

> The French legal system also regulates more strictly the aspects related to > the execution of an employment contract, the work duration, the remuneration > and the contract termination.

> The social tendency of the French legal system to protect the employees is > in clear contrast here with the American employment, contracting and > competing freedom principles."

Uber is seen as an attempt to escape the relatively fixed labor agreement.

</comment><comment><USER27> I used to work at a gig economy startup (uber for dog walking...) and we spent considerable resources lobbying local and national governments to expand the kinds of restrictions we put onto our independent contractors while still not labeling them as employees.

We also had an entire team dedicated to preventing our contractors from going "off platform".

Probably one of the more exploitative jobs I've had.

</comment><comment><USER28> Kudos for the French. If a driver works full time driving for Uber she should be compensated as a full time worker.

<comment><USER29> In all likelihood, moving drivers from contractor to employee status will result in lower pay for drivers. Uber won't foot the larger employment tax bill. They'll just lower driver wages and increase customer prices.

<comment><USER30> More likely they will enforce the hours that the employee can work. If you are idling around at 4 AM in the burbs, they aren't going to pay you full rate, they will just kick you out and set working hours. If you don't like the hours, you get fired.

Less flexibility for drivers is probably a guaranteed outcome

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Excellent judgement, not only because I happen to agree with it but also because of how it was explained that they arrived at this conclusion. Uber drivers ended up with all of the downsides of being an employee but none of the upsides.

</comment><comment><USER32> Couldn't Uber solve the problem if the drivers could accept / deny / bid up / bid down?

<comment><USER33> Currently Lyft (haven't used uber in ages but I assume they do the same) gives an exact price as you're selecting a destination before you're assigned a driver, to allow driver price negotiation you can't give an accurate price before a driver accepts. At best you could give the driver more of the company cut but Uber is already lighting mountains of cash on fire as it is to increase driver income.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Can anyone explain why we need separate laws for self employed people and employees? To me it seems like they should have the same criteria. So for example, if a self employed person don't bring in enough money to pay minimum wage and all benefits then he is no longer allowed to work and must file for unemployment and look for another job immediately so that he can get a better paying job. Then Uber would no longer be able to get any riders unless they paid better which would fix the problem. What is the problem with this model?

<comment><USER35> It seems to me like contractor rules were invented for a very different kind of person, i.e. a professional who voluntarily gives up certain protections in exchange for higher pay. As an engineer I can choose whether I want to enter an employeer-employee relationship or a business-to-business relationship. In the second, I take on a greater share of the risk and I am accordingly paid more. The freedom to choose either option is valuable to me.

The rule was not intended as a way for large corporations to hire workers for less than minimum wage, although so far we've had a hard time making laws that cleanly differentiate the two cases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> The ruling makes sense to me, but the criteria do not. At least in this case. It almost seems like there needs to be a new category for the gig economy employees. They are somewhere in-between.

<comment><USER37> French courts can't write labour laws, just interpretations of them. It's the legislative branch's job to create a gig economy framework.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Really silly. There are loads of people who don't want to work as permanent employees. In Europe people often travel to work seasonally in different countries as suits them.

</comment><comment><USER39> It classified that Uber driver as an employee. This does not change anything for others who still need to go to court in order to have their status changed (or not, they may loose. We do not have a legal system where precedents can be used in other cases)

</comment><comment><USER40> I don't understand why this is so complicated. If someone works for you, they are an employee. If someone works with you, they are a contractor. I think the French definition of subordination is a great defining characteristic. However, my understanding is that US law doesn't make this distinction thus introducing a gray area.

<comment><USER41> >I don't understand why this is so complicated. If someone works for you, they are an employee. If someone works with you, they are a contractor.

Well, no, it's not that simple.

For one, how many employees at your company could stop coming in tomorrow, and then six months from now go back to work like nothing happened?

Being able to work whenever you want seems like a clear differentiator from real employees. There's no requirement from Uber for you to actually work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I'm not sure I follow.

Uber drivers can also drive for Lyft, and independently, thereby building up their own clientele. Uber connects drivers to clients and takes a cut off the top. Drivers can (and have) passed out their cards to me with direct lines. They can also get dispatches from Lyft.. WHILE entertaining offers from Uber and direct calls.

Uber drivers set their own rate by taking the job or not. The best analogy is a contractor and a GC. The GC needs work done at a certain rate, the contractor takes it or leaves it.

Drivers avail themselves to take rides or not on their own schedule, which is them setting the terms and conditions for providing their services. They aren't obligated to offer rides on the Uber platform, and can concurrently entertain offers from other platforms (Lyft, independent, etc).

We all know the intent of Uber was/is to connect people who want to ride-share in their spare time to people who need rides. It makes it easy for both parties and it's an improvement over taxis for all involved except taxi license holders. We shouldn't penalize progress because some Neanderthals want to make it their sole source of income (or eradicate ride sharing).

This is people peeing in the Napster pool all over again.

</comment><comment><USER43> The real question is should Uber drivers get the same rights and protection as employees, and the company contracting them be held to the same responsabilities. My answer to that is yes, of course.

Wether they are or are not 'employee' according to some last century definition is an uninteresting question.

</comment><comment><USER44> A solution to uber exploiting those with little other choice, might actually be to have more platforms like uber, that'd force them to compete, not only for customers, but for workers.

I like the french version better though. If uber wants to be a taxi company, then do it on fair terms.

</comment><comment><USER45> Wasn't it so that in France Ryanair pilots are not allowed to be self-employed subcontractors either? (A model that Ryanair prefers.) Both makes sense to me, neighter of them can really set their own prices, schedules or work- conditions.

</comment><comment><USER46> More money goes to government.

Less (or in the best case the same amount of) money will stay in Uber driver pockets because of the taxes

Less money in people's wallets because of the higher transportation costs.

Who have more money have more power :/ This is how we loose freedom

</comment><comment><USER47> This ruling should apply only to a company that has a revenue over say 10 million. That way it will provide competition to the market at the same time taking care of drivers not being exploited. win win scenario.

</comment><comment><USER48> The platform-provider relationship is a new thing. A new kind of regulation is needed.

Trying to define drivers as employees or contractors is futile.

</comment><comment><USER49> I wonder if an Uber could exist that posed itself as a _service to drivers not passengers_.

</comment><comment><USER50> Labor market regulation is tricky. All of Uber's drivers join as contractors _under their own free will_. No one is legally obligated to work for Uber. No one is threatening to do harm to anyone if they don't drive for Uber. If they don't like the terms of their employment, they can just stop driving for Uber.

Now of course, that libertarian approach has some practical consequences. Humans are a little bit mushier than the "economic man". We get sick, and old, come of age under different environmental conditions, have certain family obligations, happen upon unexpected circumstances, etc.

We can all appreciate that some people don't really have the option to just quit the job that's just barely keeping them afloat. But if a society decides that it values things like economic and human rights, then the burden of guaranteeing those rights for everyone should be spread across society as a whole, not just on the few whose business model depends on employing those at the bottom.

<comment><USER44> "No one is legally obligated to work for Uber. No one is threatening to do harm to anyone if they don't drive for Uber. If they don't like the terms of their employment, they can just stop driving for Uber."

This is an interesting position. On the surface it even seems reasonable. Just like "no one is FORCING you to eat that particular food, if you don't like it, just don't eat it".

Well, hunger might force one to eat a particular food, even if one does not like it, even if one does not tolerate it well. It might well be, that that particular food is that one available to you, and you might not be in a position to select another food. Can you opt not to eat it, it it's what seems available to you?

I think we tend to forget that not everyone has the kind of choice we have.

<comment><USER51> People who disagree with having the fruits of their labor stolen and given to others (welfare), or prevented from laboring (employment restrictions like the ones for Uber), are well aware that people have different possessions, capabilities, and opportunities. They just don't think two wrongs make a right or that the ends justify the means. They think the purpose of government should be to secure rights instead of violating them to benefit someone else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Does anyone know if this is already the case Kapten, which seemed to be the main ride hailing service in Paris when we just went.

</comment><comment><USER53> "You're all fired."

</comment><comment><USER54> Good!

</comment><comment><USER55> With Uber want to work? Press a button. Want to take a break? Press a button. Want to work again? Press a button. Take as long a break as you want. Work as long as you want. No timecards. No obnoxious coworkers. No intrusive questions. No douchebag bosses making your life a living hell. In what other job do you have this sort of freedom without the instability of traditional selfemployment? What more could you ask for? Now it'll all be ruined for everybody because of the greed and entitlement of a few.

Its side hustle money for bored college kids with some free time. They NEVER promised anything more. They're not forcing you to work for them. If you're a a single mother raising 5 kids on Uber alone you're doing it wrong.

<comment><USER56> > Its side hustle money for bored college kids with some free time.

Except it isn't. If it was then Uber wouldn't be trying to setup vehicle leasing schemes for their drivers.

If it was true then I would actually meet some college kid drivers, rather that 30 year old migrants.

If you're a single mother raising 5 kids on Uber, then you probably have no choice. Telling them they're "doing it wrong" won't feed their kids. It's just a callus relegation of someone you find undesirable and have no wish to help.

<comment><USER55> If people want to work for Uber so badly then whats Uber's place not to accommodate them? If single mothers need help so badly then thats not Uber's problem, they're out to run a business not save the world. The government should do something useful for them instead of effectively putting them out of work.

Yes the main effect of this is the company will have to restrict its standards and probably less of these people we're supposedly so concerned about will be able to work anymore due to qualifications or being able to cope. And those left now get to enjoy more regulations, supervisors, time cards, and workplace surveillance and the daily grind just like the rest of us drones. Heck Uber is barely scraping by as is. This might be the killing blow and now everybody is out of work. Good job.

<comment><USER57> > _the main effect of this is the company will have to restrict its standards > and probably less of these people we 're supposedly so concerned about will > be able to work anymore due to qualifications or being able to cope._

This kind of whining and fear mongering is done in response to absolutely every kind of employment regulation or workers rights improvement. Somehow it never seems to come true.

<comment><USER58> It's come true many times and is already happening in California because of AB5.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> So if a driver works on both Uber and Lyft or whatever, the driver is an employee of all those companies?

<comment><USER60> Yes, many people work more than one job.

<comment><USER59> Not at the same time.

<comment><USER56> You can't do jobs for two ride sharing companies at the same time.

You just can't take two different people to two different destinations in one car.

<comment><USER61> > You just can't take two different people to two different destinations in > one car.

Yes you can - that's literally how carpooling (or UberPool, Lyft-line etc) work.

<comment><USER62> I think he means you can't (or it's not feasible) to do both an Uber ride AND a Lyft ride at the same time. Unless they magically align, you will be punished for going off itinerary for both.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> How many people cheering this are still paying the plumber that fixed their toilet a year ago a salary?

<comment><USER25> My plumber is an actual independent worker, setting his own rates, having his own clientele and free to organize his work as he sees fit.

<comment><USER16> Uber doesn't stop people having their own clients. Quite the opposite, it's a great place to swap numbers with a driver you like. Uber even has a favourites button so you have a higher chance of getting the same driver/passenger.

Also, your plumber doesn't set his rates, you do. He quotes and you accept (or not). That's exactly the same as the Uber driver.

It seems pretty obvious to me that Uber drivers organise their own work. They start and stop when they want, pick the journeys they want, set their own hours etc. But maybe I've misunderstood you?

<comment><USER25> You are conflating Uber and the Uber driver.

The driver does not quote anything, Uber does and both the driver and the customer accept or not.

They have a very limited way to choose the ride they take: they have to make the decision in a couple of seconds, they may not know the destination and they are punished for declining too many rides by Uber. Does not scream free choice of what ride to take.

It is possible to bypass Uber and exchange numbers, yes. But the Uber platform itself does not let you build your own clientele, such as letting you look for the clients you want or the other way around. The question is not whether drivers can build their clientele outside of Uber but inside of Uber.

They do indeed have flexible hours, something that is apparently - reading the comments of this thread - impossible as an employee in the US and thus a feature of being an independent worker, but in France you can be an employee and have flexible hours, so that does not make Uber drivers independent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> I beleive France is a very socialist country. There was a story when France Telecom got private as Orange and new bosses put enormous pressure on employees to get them quit and not lay them off, because laying-off people is very expensive in France. It caused 35 (!!) suicides, and three bosses was jailed for that last December [1]

I wonder, will Uber escape signing backdated contracts with all their drivers in France (and what if some of them are illegal migrants?) or will it have to properly lay them all off, with compensations etc?

I also wonder what would be an economy of Uber in France with all their drivers being employees. Will it be 2x or 3x price? Even then it is somehow better than shameless official Paris taxi drivers.

[1] [https://www.bbc.com/news/world- europe-50865211](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50865211)

</comment><comment><USER52> Just in time for Corona Virus sick pay?

<comment><USER52> Lots of downvotes. This was not meant to be a joke. I'm actually wondering if they will get sick pay now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> What now? Does this mean Uber can't afford to operate in France anymore?

<comment><USER65> How did you jump to this conclusion?

<comment><USER66> Is there such a thing as an employee with random hours?

Isn't the whole _point_ of an employee that there is an expectation of regular work?

<comment><USER67> I think a certain regularity of work is not a necessity for an employer-worker relationship to be exactly that.

And at a second thought, AFAIK Uber does even expect drivers to perform "regular" work - not "regular" as in "we write 9-to-5 every day into the contract", but "regular" as in "of course you can work as much as you like, BUT if we see you driving too little time for Uber, below a certain threshold that we set at our discretion, don't tell anyone and change as often as we want, our magic algorithm will start disadvantaging you when it comes to handing out rides, oh and actually we aren't acknowledging that this mechanism exists at all, so let's just say this sentence really ended at 'as much as you like'".

<comment><USER68> That seems like it is fair. They are preferring to handout rides to drivers using Uber as their primary income.

<comment><USER67> I'd only call that "fair" if they assume the position of an actual employer at the same time, offering all the usual benefits of an employment to their employee drivers, especially including a minimum income. If they did, they were free to distribute work as they like, by any crude criteria imaginable, because it's not at all illegal to fully pay an employee for essentially doing nothing. But that's exactly what they don't want to do.

They want to have their cake and eat it, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> All of this is a legal system that has a square hole and a circular hole not knowing what to do with a triangular peg. Governments job is to realize that this is a new category of work and create laws specifically to address it.

<comment><USER70> why does the government need to bend backwards to allow underpaid jobs ?

<comment><USER71> If people voluntarily choose those jobs then doesn't that mean those jobs are better than the alternatives they have? It also provides a pretty nice service.

<comment><USER72> That people are able to do what's best for them is a faulty assumption and the key argument for regulation.

<comment><USER58> This attitude that people need to be saved from themselves usually leads to worse conditions for everyone.

<comment><USER72> I reckon you are happy that you didn't work in the mines when you were 9 years of age? Or am I completely wrong? Oh wait, naturally you would have been able to decide for your own best.

<comment><USER58> What a strange example. Nobody forced kids to work in mines.

Full-time driving jobs already exist. Anyone who wants one can already get one. Why take away their freedom to choose flexibility if they want it?

<comment><USER72> This was about regulations. I never commented on the uber drivers. Tbh, I have not enough insight to know if they should be protected.

I am merely pointing out, that is is easy to forget what regulations do for you. And yes, 9 year old have worked in mines before working age was regulated.

<comment><USER58> This regulation is specifically about Uber, and it's also easy to forget what regulations can harm and the unintended consequences they create. Balance is key, and that seems to be have been entirely missed here.

> _9 year old have worked in mines before working age was regulated._

I know. They weren't forced to work, they were hired because it was legal and families back then depended on their income. Children still work often in agriculture and it remains the families choice to do so.

Regardless, there's a big difference between child labor and adults choosing how they want to drive for work.

<comment><USER12> Oh come on, of course those kids were forced to work in those mines. They weren't allowed to refuse. They had to do whatever their parents told them to. The alternative was being a homeless street urchin.

<comment><USER73> I believe the alternative to driving Uber is serving at McDonald's, not becoming a homeless street urchin, so vivid imagery of this strawman notwithstanding, the argument for regulation isn't nearly as convincing.

<comment><USER72> Whether people work at McDonald's or Uber, or are homeless, everybody should be able to lead lives with dignity.

<comment><USER58> Sure, nobody said anything against that. How is that relevant to this discussion?

<comment><USER72> Regulations are needed to lead lives with dignity. That was basically what the whole discussion was about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> How unfortunate. The vast majority of drivers don't want this. If they wanted full-time driving jobs, they would get one, yet they choose Uber for the flexibility.

This is going to hurt most drivers than help. We can already see the results of this here in California because of AB5 and I doubt most proponents of this law have ever driven for Uber in the first place.

<comment><USER74> Wouldn't flexibility be:

3) the freedom to set the terms and conditions for providing one's services.

<comment><USER58> Nobody is stopping them from being independent drivers with their own customers. For example, I do this for with regular drivers for airport rides that I originally met on the app.

Uber is a matchmaking service that comes with certain rules and objectives so the marketplace works better for everyone, and flexibility to work _when and where_ you want is usually most important.

Perhaps we need a 3rd category to account for this kind of work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Examining this case from a "similarity to employee" perspective neglects a crucial factor: the expectations between the parties at the time of contract.

It's patently obvious no Uber driver expected to be treated as an employee, as no employment contract was signed, and the Uber model is known and clear.

The court merely implements "social justice", which is nor social nither justice, destroying basic trust in society. Progressivism is cancer.

<comment><USER76> A contract isn't law. I can write a piece of paper saying that you agree to work for me for $1 per hour and even if you sign it, you are still able to take legal action against me because this contract is illegal. Preventing megacorps from exploiting those with few options is obviously a net benefit.

<comment><USER75> This has nothing to do with my point. Law exists to establish peace and consensus.

Contacts are the most basic construct enabling modern life in a crowded society. Reinterpreting contracts in a liberal, unreasonable manner destroys peace and introduces chaos.

It prevents members of society from ever trusting one another, and makes all agreements tentative, subjective to the retroactive whims of politicians and court.

It serves the court, positioning it as an ultimate dictator, not the society.

<comment><USER76> Law exists to ensure the best possibly outcome for society. Companies finding creative ways to redefine work so they get all the benefit while offloading any of the costs is not helpful for society.

I might be inclined to agree with you on contracts if it wasn't for the huge imbalance of power here. An individual who works for these taxi companies has basically no negotiating power against uber so they will never be able to come to a fair contract. Employment protections exist to solve this and they have been rightfully applied to uber like they are to every other company. Laws should adapt to changing reality rather than let companies work around them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> Some of my favorite themes here.

1) People asserting that the court was right or wrong followed by some "argument". The court simply ruled. Anything beyond that is the same as people who use statistics to provide "evidence" about their preconceived notions.

2) Examples that mean one thing to someone and something else to another but both sides claim right or wrong. See 1. For fun, I'll do an example but not claim it proves something. Most well known professional wrestlers work for a tyrant. Until very recently when another billionare entered the game they didn't have a lot of choices. Just like uber drivers they are mostly told what to do and even have sold their real names. They can also be seriously injured and die just like uber drivers. They also are "independent" contractors. Despite those odds, some did leave and became well known outside of that tyrant's world and are now getting richer than ever before...Would any of the events above including the new billionare deciding they could compete by picking up those independent minded wrestlers ever have happened if they were employees all along?

3)Portrayal of evil corps and the downtrodden who are forced to serve them as stereotypical "underclass" victims. If you are in Redmond soon and you take an Uber don't be surprised if you are being driven around by a PM who is getting out of the house or trying to get an extra edge against the high cost of living there.

My personal feeling here is I do not care either way. What I care about is from the consumer standpoint that Uber is accountable. My primary dislike of Uber, Airbnb, Vroom or similar enterprises is that they all claim to be of one stripe when things are going well but when things go wrong the company claims "Oh that's not us it is this entity we represented as part of the process but who we disclaim any responsibility for". As others have pointed out all the major tech companies use contractors. I don't know of any that would get away with the "oh that's not really us" defense.</comment>