Hacker News Reader

Comment by ksec | Hacker News Reader

Incoming Unpopular opinion.

I had a somewhat similar discussion, and it turns out many people from different origins and Culture think differently. And hence why politics are complicated. In America that would be considered as hard working American. Some are proud ( until the hard cold market reality got in to their end I suppose ) and they don't even think there is anything wrong with it. In Europe, that would be considered as Market and Companies taking unfair advantage over its citizen on labours. And should be condemned as evil and greed. Then this often leads to discussion of US with little regulation, and comparatively EU with many regulations.

The hardest problem to solve are problem that many don't seen it as a problem. In the case most Uber drivers in US don't seems to be having an issues with Uber.

View on HN

I agree. If Uber drivers view themselves as individuals acting rationally to maximize their material conditions in an environment they can't alter, then why would they have issues with Uber? If driving for Uber wasn't a net positive over not driving for Uber, they wouldn't be Uber drivers. But they can and should alter the economic environment they exist in, through politics and labor organizing. The median cut Uber takes from drivers is 40%. This is before accounting for vehicle fuel, insurance, and maintenance. Presumably some percentage of the cut is necessary to develop and maintain the application infrastructure, but clearly not that much. I imagine most Americans would be furious if the government instituted a 40% flat tax on their income, but within the individualist mindset it is seen as inevitable and they accept it.

You can choose to not participate in Uber's system.

You can not choose to not pay tax. Well, you can choose that but you will go to jail and be potentially sodomised.

I think the metaphor about taxes was more distracting than illuminating of my point.

The main point was that we shouldn't be celebrating that a mother of 3, going to school, and working multiple part time jobs is able to supplement their income by driving for Uber but instead be asking why is their income so low in the first place that they have to spend their nights and weekends driving in order to afford groceries. This was all in that original linked tweet. I'm sure they would rather be resting, interacting with their children, or studying for school. We can take a step back and recognize that this is a globally suboptimal outcome. At some point the "freedom to earn supplemental income" promised by the gig economy becomes "an obligation to overwork oneself in order to afford groceries." How can this person "choose to not participate in Uber's system", when they've calculated that being an Uber driver is the only way for them to afford groceries for their family?

It is not a globally suboptimal outcome. She chose to have 3 children without a strong financial foundation. This is why she has no money.

Groceries don't fall from the sky. Somebody has to make them. So the option here is to either take from people to give to people who choose to irresponsibly have children, or don't.

If you chose the latter, then the optimal reproductive strategy would be to breed as much as possible and have other people take care of your children. That is not a 'globally optimal outcome'

Reply on news.ycombinator.com