If the state wants to provide a social safety net, it should provide one.

It shouldn’t pass a law that fucks Lyft’s business model into unviability, say “if you don’t want to comply with California’s laws you can stop operating in California” and then go surprised pikachu face when Lyft stops operating in California, as almost happened a few months ago.

I will never drive in a taxi again, given that I have been deliberately screwed or defrauded every single time. I think you might be forgetting just how bad life was before Lyft. Lyft has saved me from the atrocious business model of taxis, which is based on screwing customers who have few or no choices.

Again, we should just have a social safety net, like every other first world country. Don’t pretend rejecting stupid band aid fixes that the supposed beneficiaries don’t want is an attack on drivers.

Do a poll of Drivers and ask if they would rather "set their own hours and be their own boss" or have the standard benefits of a FTE.

>Lyft has saved me from the atrocious business model of taxis, which is based on screwing customers who have few or no choices.

This says something about the Taxi industry not the goodness of Uber and Lyft.

>Again, we should just have a social safety net, like every other first world country. Don’t pretend rejecting stupid band aid fixes that the supposed beneficiaries don’t want is an attack on drivers.

I don't think you understand your own argument. This is nothing but a slap in the face for drivers, a giveaway to Uber and Lyft Stockholders and a burden for Taxpayers.