@pmarca doesn't mean you shouldn't argue for stronger workers protections!
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @pmarca
there are consequences to "worker protection" that may (or may not) reflect what most drivers want. tread careful.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ferenstein @pmarca
of course but it is a worthy issue that should be debated and held accountable publicly. https://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/internal-uber-driver-pay-numbers?utm_term=.km0AeGdNma#.lyPBVK2Dqa …
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
the real minimum wage is 0.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
you ok with people working full-time and still needing to get food benefits?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I think you missed my point. If you raise the cost floor of employment enough, the jobs will just go away.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
yr assumption is ok for companies to take profits at wages where employees can't eat & taxpayers pay
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
that’s not point I was making but I do believe that people should be free to negotiate their own contracts
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
so if full-time job doesn't pay enough to eat (see Walmart) should taxpayers pay for food benefits?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
yes, but in a more systemic way than with food stamps, something more like basic income
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
expand the EITC http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/reducing-poverty-via-minimum-wages-tax-credit/ …
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.