944 replies to this topic

[Victoria Watcher]

go to an ethnic family run business. I’ll suggest that most of the family is on no formal payroll with deductions.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 12 September 2019 - 06:50 AM.

[Mike K.]

With no overtime pay, and 10-15 hour work days. That’s just how it goes.

[spanky123]

With no overtime pay, and 10-15 hour work days. That’s just how it goes.

 

I would hope that most ethnic and family run businesses still make their required contributions. Besides, I don't know of any family run businesses that employ a million contractors!

[Victoria Watcher]

I can assure you that when a family run business family member puts in a 15 hour shift they do not pay themselves minimum wage plus overtime plus make payroll contributions for all that. zero do. now multiply that by 10 million family businesses in North America. in Canada alone nearly 1 million service workers don’t pay proper taxes on their tips. including lyft and uber drivers that take cash tips.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 12 September 2019 - 08:02 AM.

[Mike K.]

I would hope that most ethnic and family run businesses still make their required contributions. Besides, I don't know of any family run businesses that employ a million contractors!

 

Of course they would, but they're not being paid overtime for pulling an 18 hour shift because two employees failed to show up and the repair guy pushed his arrival to 7PM. Stuff like that is a normal part of running a business.

[spanky123]

Overtime and long hours are the least of the progressive's worries. The plan is to expand social programs and that is impossible if 10% of your workforce are casual labour who don't pay into them. This doesn't really have anything to do with family run businesses that pay their Government contributions.

[DustMagnet]

It’s the same story with fishing licenses. Guys were buying them up in the 80’s and 90’s for pennies on the dollar, then suddenly government intervention clamped supply and the value of licenses exploded. I know guys who’ve sold millions in licenses to large fisheries contractors.

When the government licenses something and controls supply, the price for a license on the open market (once a license is obtained from the government) can be magnitudes higher.

 

Isn't that called scalping?  You can kill that by disallowing the open market - if you want to get rid of your license you sell it back to the government and they can reissue it to someone else.  The purpose of the license is to manage conservation of a resource isn't it?  It needn't and shouldn't be a profit play (other than directly for the government of course...).

[Mike K.]

No, that's not how it works. The open-market licensing costs reflect the earnings potential of that license and induce the transfer of licences.

 

If that license earns a fisherman $300,000 per year, but it has a value of $500, that fisherman will never sell it. The license has to reflect the earnings potential in order for it to function as a commodity that can be fairly traded and in possession of an efficient licensee.

 

Otherwise you would have a conundrum where the government has issued a maximum of 500 licenses for a specific kind of seafood but only 100 licenses are meeting the government's per-license quota because 400 of the licenses are sitting unused waiting for who knows what (like junior finishing school and taking over dad's boat, perhaps).

 

So you need tangible value associated with those licenses otherwise the system collapses.

[DustMagnet]

No, that's not how it works. The open-market licensing costs reflect the earnings potential of that license and induce the transfer of licences.

 

If that license earns a fisherman $300,000 per year, but it has a value of $500, that fisherman will never sell it. The license has to reflect the earnings potential in order for it to function as a commodity that can be fairly traded and in possession of an efficient licensee.

 

Otherwise you would have a conundrum where the government has issued a maximum of 500 licenses for a specific kind of seafood but only 100 licenses are meeting the government's per-license quota because 400 of the licenses are sitting unused waiting for who knows what (like junior finishing school and taking over dad's boat, perhaps).

 

So you need tangible value associated with those licenses otherwise the system collapses.

 

Use-it-or-lose-it-clause, no sitting on licenses or they revert to government.  If that $300,000/yr fisherman paid a one-time $500 why should he give it up?  Is there some other fisherman more deserving?  He's contributing to the economy and participating in the resource management.  If he sells the license to someone else it makes no benefit to resource management.  If it's more money the government wants, then make the license an annually renewable item indexed to the earnings from it.

I get that you need the licences to be exercised, but letting the open market drive the pricing causes problems - if the value drops (e.g. when the market is disrupted like ride-hailing is doing) you get people losing on their "investment", or you get holders selling resource management for high prices because of artificial scarcity.  Neither of those helps the industry or resource sector associated.  

[Mike K.]

That also doesn’t work.

The license holder will just lease it to someone who will use it for a fee, but the ownership remains in someone else’s hands.

The system works the way it does because the alternatives are too burdensome to oversee.

In fact, Fisheries likes it the way it is as the industry is slowly migrating from a mom-and-pop fleet of tiny vessels to larger, corporate vessels that carry multiple license quotas and are more efficient, tend to operate higher quality/better maintained vessels and run things by-the-book. Fisheries likes that. Jim Patisson is become quite a player in the fishing industry on our coast for that very reason.

[Victoria Watcher]

my uber driver is also a fisher.

[Mike K.]

I think the biggest threat to those who are concerned about things like the gig economy is small business ownership.

Trudeau went for the small business jugular as soon as he got into power. Why? Self-employed persons don’t unionize and they don’t need to pay into government programs to the same degree employees do. And Trudeau’s pet peeve (I would imagine) is that self-employed people are often the directors of a corporation and control their personal income, i.e. they can pay themselves whatever they wish and retain earnings in the company to be withdrawn (and taxed as personal income) at their discretion.

[DustMagnet]

The system works the way it does because the alternatives are too burdensome to oversee.
 

 

Well that's the crux of it really.  I'm describing conceptually how it could work and you're describing how and why it's currently the way it it.

 

 

I think the biggest threat to those who are concerned about things like the gig economy is small business ownership.

Trudeau went for the small business jugular as soon as he got into power. Why? Self-employed persons don’t unionize and they don’t need to pay into government programs to the same degree employees do. And Trudeau’s pet peeve (I would imagine) is that self-employed people are often the directors of a corporation and control their personal income, i.e. they can pay themselves whatever they wish and retain earnings in the company to be withdrawn (and taxed as personal income) at their discretion.

 

 

^ What if everyone in the gig economy just incorporates?  Isn't that how the O&G sector next door works?

[Victoria Watcher]

the beauty is that everyone in the gig economy is free to do what they wish.  incorporate.  or not.  or open a delivery-only kitchen like we saw in another thread.

 

freedom.  

 

that's awesome.

 

we can't all work for the government or bombardier or snc lavalin or whatever.

[Mike K.]

They absolutely could incorporate, sure. But with that comes a second layer of tax, accounting costs, and other fees you wouldn’t necessarily encounter as a sole proprietor.

[spanky123]

 

^ What if everyone in the gig economy just incorporates?  Isn't that how the O&G sector next door works?

 

The economics of the gig economy don't work without the availability of casual labour. If Uber was more expensive then a local cab would you still use it? I am sure that many people would for the convenience of the app, but on popular runs like from the airport or a hotel I am sure that most people would just take the cab out in front and not have to worrying about calling an Uber or Lyft.

 

It took a while for the progressives to come around on this issue. It always amazed me that they could lobby business to pay a "living wage" of $20+ an hour yet were quite happy to work as a gig economy worker and get paid $10 an hour and have zero benefits. Taxi drivers complain that "head office" rents them a car and takes 10% of the receipts yet have no issue with Uber making them use their own car and give up to 43% of the receipts!

Edited by spanky123, 14 September 2019 - 07:17 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

The economics of the gig economy don't work without the availability of casual labour. If Uber was more expensive then a local cab would you still use it? I am sure that many people would for the convenience of the app, but on popular runs like from the airport or a hotel I am sure that most people would just take the cab out in front and not have to worrying about calling an Uber or Lyft.

 

we are about to find out because in bc the law says uber/lyft can't be any cheaper than the current taxi rates.

 

 

The new rules state that ride hailing companies must adhere to the minimum “flag rate” charged by taxi companies, meaning customers can forget about getting any discounts when they’re trying to get home from a night at the bar. In fact, companies will be allowed to charge “surge pricing” to increase rates during peak times.

 

 

https://www.vancouve...r-ride-sharing/

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 14 September 2019 - 08:49 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

His situation underscores what critics call ride-hailing’s poverty wages and precarious nature. Although he earns about $1,200 a week (averaging $20 an hour) after Uber’s cut, work expenses such as gas, oil changes, new tires and other maintenance, traffic tickets, car payments, car insurance, cell phone bill and self-employment taxes eat a big chunk of his income.

 

 

https://www.sfchroni...ll-14457115.php

[Greg]

https://www.sfchroni...ll-14457115.php

 

It's really hard for me to think of an employment situation that is more voluntary and free will than being an Uber driver. Don't do it if you think you aren't being paid well enough. I empathize with his situation, San Francisco is an incredibly expensive city.  But if he wasn't driving for Uber, he wouldn't be an Uber driver living in his car, he'd just be living in his car. 

 

--This all happened before he drove an Uber:

 

"He went through a rough patch after a divorce, wrecked his credit, ran up IRS bills and burned through a lot of money helping an ill friend — whom he still partially supports."

 

He moved to San Francisco after he started driving for Uber, because there were more fares available.  In other words, this is an article about a guy who has fallen on hard times, who just happens to drive for Uber.

[Victoria Watcher]

A patchwork system of business licences and fees for ride-hailing across the Metro Vancouver region would likely lead to increased congestion, wasted trips and ride refusals by drivers, critics say.

The City of Vancouver has proposed to implement a suite of licences, fees and charges on ride-hailing companies, including a $155 business licence, a $100 fee per vehicle and a 30-cent fee for every pickup and drop-off in the core of the city during peak hours.

 

 

https://www.timescol...tics-1.23966618