So your two examples of this supposed bad thing are two completely unambiguous goods for the world?
You might want to look up Barcelona and the issues airbnb causes there. Basically it follows out the cities as you can make way more money doing Airbnb than renting to people living/working there.
As to Uber, I'm not sure if the driver experience is unambiguous good. For some, sure. For the ones that depend on it, I'm sure they'll disagree
Uber drivers are welcome to no longer drive for uber if they don’t enjoy the experience.
Are they?
The drivers have a certain set of capital and skills, and Uber (and to a lesser extent, Lyft) have created a near-monopoly on the market to buy services produced using that capital and skills. Since the ability to execute a transaction in that market is severely compromised if you don't work by Uber's rules, you are effectively outside of the marketplace if you no longer drive for Uber. You make no money. You go broke. You don't have the capital necessary to effectively compete in the market for giving rides in exchange for money. They own your skills and capital in all but the legal sense.
If there were either real, multi-company competition for Uber's market share, or a larger amount of regulation upon their monopoly, it'd be a different story.
Of course, there are people who think that monopolies are good, but that seems to be counterintuitive to anyone with a basic grasp of human nature and history.
This isn't a rhetorical question. As far as I know there are only two globally - Uber and Lyft. If most of what you need is a web server and a lawyer, shouldn't there be ten of these in every city?
The skill of knowing all the roads stopped being important a decade or two before Uber even started.
This is obviously a fallacy under our current economic system; workers are not "free to choose whatever job/occupation" they'd like. Their circumstances (material conditions) dictate what they can and cannot do for work, and in some places, driving for Uber is about it, at least for a part time gig that can fit around a primary job (since many Americans at least must work in excess of 50 hours a week to afford food and rent).
So, instead of punching down and saying "man, just get a better job" we could recognize the realities of the world and hope we can make the conditions of drivers better. Uber, or a system like it, at least if we are forced to have car-centric infrastructure, should be a net good. At the moment it is not.
It should have more protections too, I'm not arguing against those. I just think "it's the only job some people can get" is often a bad argument. And it's often used to perpetuate bad systems.
(Competitive doesn't mean the same price per night - there's also factors of cleaning and occupancy rate)
Uber is a major driver of the gig economy and all the lack of worker protections that that includes.
They’re also arguably a major driver/originator of DoorDash and Uber Eats, a company that famously takes an enormous percentage of every restaurant’s order fee, compounding either the increase in costs of restaurant food, or causing restaurants to struggle further or both.
They’ve done good - they’ve made it easier to get a job when you otherwise can’t, and they’ve reduced car reliance for some people; but “unambiguous good” is too far a bridge.
If a restaurant doesn’t like the cut taken by DoorDash they’re welcome to not participate in DoorDash. As far as I know, neither company has ever forced a restaurant into participation.
DoorDash got sued by In-N-Out for doing this. https://www.eater.com/2015/11/11/9714840/in-n-out-doordash-d...
The parent comment was complaining about the fee that DoorDash charges the restaurant.
Is that link going tell me that DoorDash was charging restaurants non consensually? That would be very tough for me to believe