6 ms·

If it was transferring wealth from drivers to shareholders, they wouldn't do the job. They chose to do the job, so it is at least better than the alternative o

by UK-AL 11y ago

If it was transferring wealth from drivers to shareholders, they wouldn't do the job. They chose to do the job, so it is at least better than the alternative options they could do.

cryoshon 11y ago
The "wealth" that is getting transferred is a bit more abstract than money going directly from the worker's pocket into the shareholder's. Instead, it looks more like the worker's personal vehicle being worn down over time by work done for the purposes of the company rather than personal purposes. The worker's capital is depreciating more rapidly than during personal use, and the profits generated by this erosion of asset are going to the shareholders, not the worker. The worker receives pay for his labor, but receives nothing for the gradual depreciation of his capital that results from the terms of the gig labor.
- UK-AL 11y ago
  I'm fairly sure money received from doing business with uber is meant to account for both depreciation and salary. If you pay money to a company you don't pay separately for labour and deprecation of assets. You pay a single price, it's up the company how to split it. If the company doesn't set aside the money for depreciation and renewal of assets , they will soon realise and stop doing that activity if its unprofitable. Stop treating uber drivers like children.
  - dasil003 11y ago
    Depreciation not deprecation.
- AJ007 11y ago
  As far as we the public know right now, the only wealth transfer Uber has produced is from investors to drivers and other parties.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    From investors to customers, perhaps. Definitely not investors to drivers though. Uber are subsidizing rides in the hopes that they can squeeze out the competition, at which point they will jack up prices and milk their monopoly as hard as they can. Whether there is an actual wealth transfer going on depends on whether Uber's bet will be successful. That in turn depends upon whether they can keep classifying drivers as contractors.
    - leereeves 11y ago
      For this reason, as consumers, it's in our long-term interest to use Uber competitors instead of Uber.
- AJ007 11y ago
  As far as we the public know right now, the only wealth transfer Uber has produced is from investors to drivers and other parties.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
crdoconnor 11y ago
>If it was transferring wealth from drivers to shareholders, they wouldn't do the job. > >They chose to do the job, so it is at least better than the alternative options they could do. You've hit upon the reason why austerity is so 'popular': it artificially constrains aggregate demand for labor, reducing available options, which allows businesses to suppress wages for workers, despite them creating the same amount of wealth they were before. There simply don't exist jobs in which workers get to keep the vast majority of the wealth they create. You can't choose to do them. They aren't an option. There just exist jobs where you get to keep relatively more or less. Uber is in the latter category, and people take it because they have fewer options.
- ethbro 11y ago
  Cooperatives / employee-owned collectives? Say what you want about efficiencies, but there are absolutely alternatives, especially in non-capital intensive industries.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    Cooperatives still need to pay rent, purchase raw materials and have access to the capital. All of those factors are ways in which the wealth created by the cooperative's labor can be diverted to the 1%. That said, ride sharing cooperatives would be vastly superior alternative to Uber. If cities mandated that ride sharing organizations had to be cooperatives, that would be one way in which they could stem the outflow of wealth and provide a decent middle class job to their citizens.
    - ethbro 11y ago
      Granted. But just because we can't realize the final solution to the capitalist bourgeoise swine isn't a reason against an ownership structure that promotes more employee equity. ;) The honest argument is probably access to capital. When you boil it down, why would a capital owner trust a structure that was fairly antithetical to him or her and their pals? It's starting off with a fairly big black mark. And then of course there's the "too many leaders, not enough followers" issue. I'd love any links that pointed to whether anyone has come up with a good solution to the tension between the efficiencies of centralized control and the equality of diffuse control in a general manner. I thought Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars idea of a truly randomly elected legislative body was interesting. Jury duty for legislature, in essence. Albeit you'd probably need a separate body to develop professionalism.
kevinskii 11y ago
Indeed. A couple of my distant in-laws are now full-time Uber drivers in a medium sized city. They're making comfortable middle clas incomes--far more than they've been able to earn to date anywhere else.

by UK-AL 11y ago

If it was transferring wealth from drivers to shareholders, they wouldn't do the job. They chose to do the job, so it is at least better than the alternative options they could do.

cryoshon 11y ago

The "wealth" that is getting transferred is a bit more abstract than money going directly from the worker's pocket into the shareholder's. Instead, it looks more like the worker's personal vehicle being worn down over time by work done for the purposes of the company rather than personal purposes. The worker's capital is depreciating more rapidly than during personal use, and the profits generated by this erosion of asset are going to the shareholders, not the worker. The worker receives pay for his labor, but receives nothing for the gradual depreciation of his capital that results from the terms of the gig labor.

UK-AL 11y ago
I'm fairly sure money received from doing business with uber is meant to account for both depreciation and salary. If you pay money to a company you don't pay separately for labour and deprecation of assets. You pay a single price, it's up the company how to split it. If the company doesn't set aside the money for depreciation and renewal of assets , they will soon realise and stop doing that activity if its unprofitable. Stop treating uber drivers like children.
- dasil003 11y ago
  Depreciation not deprecation.
AJ007 11y ago
As far as we the public know right now, the only wealth transfer Uber has produced is from investors to drivers and other parties.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  From investors to customers, perhaps. Definitely not investors to drivers though. Uber are subsidizing rides in the hopes that they can squeeze out the competition, at which point they will jack up prices and milk their monopoly as hard as they can. Whether there is an actual wealth transfer going on depends on whether Uber's bet will be successful. That in turn depends upon whether they can keep classifying drivers as contractors.
  - leereeves 11y ago
    For this reason, as consumers, it's in our long-term interest to use Uber competitors instead of Uber.
AJ007 11y ago
As far as we the public know right now, the only wealth transfer Uber has produced is from investors to drivers and other parties.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

crdoconnor 11y ago

>If it was transferring wealth from drivers to shareholders, they wouldn't do the job. > >They chose to do the job, so it is at least better than the alternative options they could do. You've hit upon the reason why austerity is so 'popular': it artificially constrains aggregate demand for labor, reducing available options, which allows businesses to suppress wages for workers, despite them creating the same amount of wealth they were before. There simply don't exist jobs in which workers get to keep the vast majority of the wealth they create. You can't choose to do them. They aren't an option. There just exist jobs where you get to keep relatively more or less. Uber is in the latter category, and people take it because they have fewer options.

ethbro 11y ago
Cooperatives / employee-owned collectives? Say what you want about efficiencies, but there are absolutely alternatives, especially in non-capital intensive industries.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  Cooperatives still need to pay rent, purchase raw materials and have access to the capital. All of those factors are ways in which the wealth created by the cooperative's labor can be diverted to the 1%. That said, ride sharing cooperatives would be vastly superior alternative to Uber. If cities mandated that ride sharing organizations had to be cooperatives, that would be one way in which they could stem the outflow of wealth and provide a decent middle class job to their citizens.
  - ethbro 11y ago
    Granted. But just because we can't realize the final solution to the capitalist bourgeoise swine isn't a reason against an ownership structure that promotes more employee equity. ;) The honest argument is probably access to capital. When you boil it down, why would a capital owner trust a structure that was fairly antithetical to him or her and their pals? It's starting off with a fairly big black mark. And then of course there's the "too many leaders, not enough followers" issue. I'd love any links that pointed to whether anyone has come up with a good solution to the tension between the efficiencies of centralized control and the equality of diffuse control in a general manner. I thought Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars idea of a truly randomly elected legislative body was interesting. Jury duty for legislature, in essence. Albeit you'd probably need a separate body to develop professionalism.

kevinskii 11y ago

Indeed. A couple of my distant in-laws are now full-time Uber drivers in a medium sized city. They're making comfortable middle clas incomes--far more than they've been able to earn to date anywhere else.