1. Uber loses billions a year already, and they should lose more?
3. Health care? You kidding me? That's $300+ a month in the US, which would be a $15 billion/year expense for Uber.
Demands need to be structured in reality.
Uber is the symptom of a broken system, pumping seemingly unlimited investors money based on false promises. The only winners in this game already left the boat (Kalanick for example).
This type of slave like jobs were predicted in the 60s already:
> If the social labor (time) engaged by the society is not to diminish because of automation (or any other less extreme form of increasing the productivity of labor), then new jobs have to be created. Services, the tertiary sector, swell the ranks of the army of distribution and are a eulogy to the current commodities; the additional forces which are mobilized just happen to be suitable for the organization of redundant labor required by the artificial needs for such commodities. - Guy Debord
[0] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2945817/uber-will-buy-...
It's as if they're an unsustainable business being propped up by VC money that would implode on itself in an instant if that were to go away or something.
> 3. Health care? You kidding me? That's $300+ a month in the US, which would be a $15 billion/year expense for Uber.
oh no the horror won't somebody think of the unicorns
Spoken like someone unaware of how employment works for people that make less than 40k a year.
This is not about making the math work for Uber, it's about treating humans with the slightest bit of humanity.
If the math doesn't work, they shouldn't be in business.
Making it cost significantly more for Uber to get drivers will just make the price of an Uber go up, the demand go down, and people losing their job as an Uber driver.
My refusal of your $1/day offer may also disqualify me from welfare or other benefits. So just by making the offer you may put somebody into a lose-lose situation.
- Some software person that likely works in a job with great health benefits and thinks they're somehow more entitled to them.
I'm not saying I'm convinced by the argument, and I'm not saying any of the above is correct. But it is the point being made, and low-effort snarky garbage like your comment just generates more heat than light and doesn't move anyone closer to understanding the situation.
It might be worth considering that an opening bid that's too high in a negotiation sometimes just convinces the counterparty to walk away. If you ask for 150k and want 100k, there's a good chance the company might just say "Sorry, we can't afford that" - and then you have nothing.
Again, you're completely right. This is unquestionably a negotiation. At the same time, it would be foolish to assume that all opening bids are equally likely to be treated as reasonable.
I agree with you that the only pragmatic solution is to follow the rest of the industrialized world and move to a single payer system, then we just stop having this debate and even talking about who is more deserving of worry-free healthcare. (Not talking about you, just the parent post).