Hacker News Reader

Comment by erdos4d | Hacker News Reader

I'm sorry, you sound extremely delusional. We don't live in a world where most people have the resources to "vote with their wallet" on these matters. You drive for Uber or shop at Walmart because it's the work you can get or the store you can afford. People do these things because they don't really have a choice and the raw realities of our society and its economic structure dictate the decision most people make. Maybe you are rich enough to not understand this, in which case I encourage you to go ask an Uber driver why they are out there driving around when they have so many other well-paying options and I bet they give you some education.

View on HN

> why they are out there driving around when they have so many other well-paying options

Actually, if you read my other replies in the thread I make the opposite argument. People not having other options is an argument for ride-sharing companies, not against them. If they can't find work elsewhere, how are these jobs not good enough?

So you're argument is that they should be grateful that they could be wage slaves on the most precarious edge of society because they weren't lucky enough to be a software engineer/VC? Don't you see why this comes off as problematic?

What does “problematic” even mean? Either they have other options, in which case driving is entirely voluntary, or don’t, in which case prohibiting them from it is outrageously evil. I would also like everyone to live life of leisure and free of worries, but you cannot legislate this into existence just like that. Banning driving for hire won’t make better options appear.

When the alternative to being a "wage slave" is being unemployed, then no this doesn't come off as problematic at all. Lyft and Uber drivers aren't slaves. They chose this line of work on their own volition. You might think that those jobs aren't good - and for someone with your skillset that's probably true. But what makes you think you're more qualified to make life decisions for people you don't know?

As the above poster wrote: ride share drivers that can get better jobs quit and take their jobs. It turns out, though, that there are a lot of people for which driving for a ride share company is their best opportunity for their skills and schedules.

No, the alternative to being a wage slave isn’t to be unemployed. The idea that all gig economy jobs will go away if labor costs rise and they pay more humanely ignores basic economics.

> The idea that all gig economy jobs will go away if labor costs rise and they pay more humanely ignores basic economics.

What? I really had to do a double take.

If the net cost of employing a driver rises while the revenue per employee stays the same, then the business could easily become non-profitable. If each driver is netting the company an average of $200 in profit per month, and the insurance they now have to buy costs $300 per employee then now the company is losing $100 per employee. And that's a conservative figure for healthcare, the average plan in California costs over $400 per employee [1].

I'd have to say the same thing back to you: claiming that jobs are secure even if authorities mandate a substantial per-employee expense ignores basic economics.

1. https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/single-coverage/?c... And my choice of source was conservative, too. Other sources claim more than twice that: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/09/employers-to-spend-about-100...

Really? Because if Uber and Lyft get more expensive, as a consumer I will go back to renting a car when I travel. There are a lot of supply options.

Just to add to this and spell out the obvious: if they have no better alternatives to being an Uber driver, then how does removing the option to be an Uber driver help them? The list of jobs they could do as an alternative is either the same or even smaller now. The conditions at alternative jobs are going to be worse than at Uber. If the conditions were better then people would already be working there instead of being an Uber driver.

Just to spell out the obvious rejoinder: removing the option for Uber to exploit them forces Uber to pay fairly for the labor that it needs, which helps them by creating much better jobs in a line of work they are qualified for. Rinse and repeat for gig economy companies of various sorts.

They are already paying them fairly. People willingly choose to drive for Uber over other things they could do.

If you force Uber to party significantly more then they simply stop doing business. You can have your corrupt taxis back.

It really grinds my gears when people use the terms "pay someone fairly", "stop exploiting them", and "pay them a living wage". These are all terms that on face value seem reasonable - pay someone enough that they can live off of it, but for some reason it's never enough. $34,000 a year puts you in the global top 1% by income. Apparently that's still not enough for many people in the US.

> If they can't find work elsewhere, how are these jobs not good enough?

Jesus man, did you just write that? Seriously? WTF? The fact that our society's economic structures do not allow these people meaningful employment is NOT justification for some capitalist to come along and exploit them as modern-day coolies. Rather, it is justification for reforming those structures so these people can obtain meaningful employment. Get your head on straight man, you are off-base.

What "economic structure" do you propose that we reform to that wouldn't "dictate the decision most people make"?

> If they can't find work elsewhere, how are these jobs not good enough?

That same argument also argues that a job for $1 per hour is reasonable, or that a dangerous job is OK. Do you believe that jobs need minimum standards to protect the most powerless in our societies? Most first world countries accept that restrictions are necessary, and many restrictions have come about to avoid the gross abuses that occurred without restrictions.

All minimum standards hurt some proportion of potential employees, and any one average individual may have a significant marginal gain by ignoring the standard.

The judgement to be made is about whether the potential for benefits is realised, and how much the harms are restricted, and how much the harms are not concentrated on particular subgroups.

I believe the fix is to give people a minimum safety net, like UBI and single-payer healthcare, instead of banning jobs that don't meet certain financial requirements.

The issue is that some people are desperate so that's what should be addressed, not that Uber only pays $x/h to a college kid that wants to make some money on the side to go out with friends.

If they have so few options, why do you think it's a good idea to make it un-economical for them to work as taxi drivers?

Uber and Lyft are already massively unprofitable. If you require them to give drivers expensive benefits, they are either going to raise their rates or cut driver pay (probably a little of both). If they raise rates, fewer people are going to use their services, and they are going to have to cut drivers.

You're basically advocating for a fraction of their drivers to be put out of work so that Uber can give the remainder better benefits but a reduced income.

The best way to give drivers better treatment is to make sure a competitor like Lyft is around. A driver to them is worth more than a single customer.

I've also never encountered a driver that actually complained about Uber/Lyft. As far as I know the conditions with Uber/Lyft are still much better than with cab companies of days past.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com