> Rideshare drivers, food deliverers, Airbnb hosts, and any other types of freelance workers left out of work will be compensated thanks to the bill, with the precise amount to be determined in accordance with state unemployment laws.

I'm really curious how this will work. What qualifies you for this? Not receiving any income? Or only partial income? And how long must you go without income? Or is there some other way to qualify?

Does this extend to all freelancers? What about pass through companies?

I sure hope to qualify you need to have reported W2 income or this sets up a really dangerous precedence.

Do we really need to be helping out Airbnb hosts? maybe im just being short-sighted

That was made up by the author, who was grasping for examples. An Airbnb owner is a landlord, not a worker.

"Washington has answered the increasingly desperate pleas of gig-economy executives by agreeing to include hard-up workers among the beneficiaries of the $2 trillion stimulus bill"

Are they employees or not? Does the gig-economy companies pay into the unemployment tax?

These people are hurting but I believe this sets a really bad precedent

oh no! who will think of the precedent!!!

I mean these gig-economy execs strive really hard to not pay contractors benefits or pay unemployment tax, etc... The employees are working a gig job, they get paid strictly off supply and demand, demand goes up they make more money, demand goes down or supply goes up and they make less (or no money). With the bailout were basically saying its OK to not pay taxes but expect a bailout, people that rent out their houses on airbnb as a job, etc....

Everyone needs help during the pandemic, but the execs from these companies should get zero say because these are not their employees. They are not laid off, not furloughed. There just isnt demand in their 'gig'.

>With the bailout were basically saying its OK to not pay taxes but expect a bailout

suppose this were true and this legislation set that precedent? let me ask you: how often do we have a need for a "bailout"? do a really quick cost/benefit analysis and you'll see that you're implying we should let these people struggle today to save some money in ~10 years. does that make sense to you?

Thats absolutely not what Im saying, Im saying that these company execs that want the government to help their contractors are being so selfishly hypocritical. If they want to help their contractors, these billion dollar companies can offer things like health insurance, PTO/sick leave, etc... It's insane they are asking the government to help these contractors so they can continue to make money as a business as cheap as possible when things are back in order.

Of course we should help these people. Everyone should help and paying taxes and providing benefits is the social agreement we've made in this country so we can help when issues like this arise.

It’s a terrible precedent but it has a strong human element to it that it’ll swallow a lot easier on Main Street.