If they’re only profitable because they are exploiting their workforce essentially evading labour laws, then good, they should be upended.
>>It's the best option available to them because Uber's driven out the competition. Like, people choose to work at Walmart because it's the only employer in a fifty mile radius - for example. They can't work for a local store or start their own anymore because everyone's going to Walmart.
We're not talking about a small town here. These are large cities with diverse economies that contain thousands of employers. Uber drivers can do other jobs besides driving.
There is absolutely no evidence at all that Uber has a employer monopoly in the areas it operates, and that this is why people choose to drive for it.
Anecdotally I've heard that a lot of Uber drivers are very happy about being able to drive for Uber. And by anecdotally I don't mean a survey funded by Uber. I mean from internet comments where somebody claims to know someone who drives for Uber and really likes it. Take that for what it's worth.
>>Yes, in fact, we do. A whole lot of practices have ended predominantly due to legal changes
The vast majority of practices ended because the market value of labour increased as a result of growth in per capita productivity.
Any mandatory standard that gets ahead of the prevailing market value of low-skilled labour just creates unemployment, meaning it doesn't raise the standard of employment for the less skilled.
There's no free lunch in economics.
>>Allowing these jobs to undercut competitors that pay properly propagates low paid situations where society end up having to subsidize the behavior of the companies in question because they don't pay livable wages.
It's exactly the opposite. A mandatory minimum wage, like any price floor, leads to unutilized supply, which in the case of labour means greater unemployment. So you're increasing welfare costs by instituting a minimum wage.
The market value of labour doesn't increase because low-paying jobs were made illegal. That's not how supply and demand work.
Actually you do, in almost every case from the length of the working week to health and safety to the right to paid time off.
Yes, in fact, we do. A whole lot of practices have ended predominantly due to legal changes.
A major historical example from the US being the infamous Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire [1] where 146 workers died in part because the owners locked the factory doors to prevent unauthorized breaks.
The outcome was both an increase in unionization and legal changes.
Employment standards are the way they are today not in general because companies have decided to act nice, but because they've been forced, through law and union action, over a very long time, to adhere to minimum levels.
> Low paying jobs work for some people because their circumstances don't give them the opportunity to get anything better.
Allowing these jobs to undercut competitors that pay properly propagates low paid situations where society end up having to subsidize the behavior of the companies in question because they don't pay livable wages. I for one would much rather have a proper welfare system than a system that rewards companies like that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi...