6 ms·

Uber for Welfare

22 points by yummyfajitas 11y ago

chadwickthebold 11y ago
To be clear, this article is advocating forcing people in poverty into gig economy jobs where there have been issues of low pay, terrible working conditions, and few if any employee protections. As a civilized country we should not demand that people give up their basic rights to earn a living.
- pjc50 11y ago
  Yeah, it's worked out pretty badly in the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workfare_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workfare_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_%28Reilly%29_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Work_and_Pensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_%28Reilly%29_v_Secretary_of_... (the latter is particularly odious; having been told by a court that it owed people £130m in back-dated benefits, the government retroactively changed the law to avoid paying them. This is almost certainly a human rights violation but that litigation has not finished yet).
  - crystalmeph 11y ago
    Yeah, making people work for free at for-profit businesses is not a valid precondition for welfare. I didn't see that in this article though. There has to be a social safety net, but I think it's a valid goal to encourage welfare recipients to work if they are able. One thing we should definitely do is reform the "vertical cliff" of payments, where once you make above a certain threshold, you stop receiving all benefits. That's a definite disincentive to get a better job past a certain point.
    - pjc50 11y ago
      The article talks about work requirements, but does not specify a minimum wage or minimum effective wage. Is someone who is signed up for one of these task apps but only given one hour work a week "working"? Not to mention that the flood of workers forced into this position will necessarily bid down the hourly rates.
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        Of course it will bid down hourly rates. That will increase demand for such services, thereby allowing more people to enter the workforce [1]. Unemployed workers get jobs, consumers get more services - a win for everyone! [1] It's interesting how the gig economy can reduce sticky wages, making inflationary stimulus unnecessary.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  This is an extreme misrepresentation of the article. Anyone who doesn't want to work is free to stop telling the welfare office they want work but can't find it. No one is forced to do anything.
  - astazangasta 11y ago
    I vehemently dislike when people say "no one is forced to do anything" in situations where, say, you will lose your food stamps if you do not do something. That is a force, the force of starvation.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      People who give up food stamps will be prevented from going out and seeking work on their own, and buying food with the proceeds? I totally missed that part of the article.
      - yequalsx 11y ago
        We don't live in a society in which there is enough paying jobs to employ all able bodied people. We also don't live in a society in which every apparently able bodied person has the emotional/intellectual/motivational capacity to work. I'm content to let some tax money pay for food/tv/etc. for those at the margins. I don't want those who don't want to work alongside disgruntled people who are there because they are forced to be there. I think it doesn't make sense in terms of overall societal emotional well being.
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        We don't live in a society in which there is enough paying jobs to employ all able bodied people. If that's true, then these folks will find no work via the gig economy. We also don't live in a society in which every apparently able bodied person has the emotional/intellectual/motivational capacity to work. The article has this to say about that issue: "Work requirements, however, should not unfairly punish people who are physically or mentally unable to complete gig economy jobs. The gig economy can often provide flexible work for those previously considered unable to work, but exemptions would still be available as needed." Did you read it? I don't want those who don't want to work alongside disgruntled people who are there because they are forced to be there. Welfare recipients are disgruntled people who are unpleasant to be around? I thought they were just regular folks who were down on their luck, who wanted to work but are unable to find a job.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  So why not better regulate the gig economy?
imartin2k 11y ago
I wonder what on demand services think about this idea. On the one hand: more supply of gig workers. On the other hand: People who are forced to work in jobs (or gigs) they didn't choose voluntary might not be the best way to ensure good service quality for customers.
fredfoobar42 11y ago
This is ridiculous. The stereotype of welfare recipients as lazy, unemployed people is completely inaccurate. I'm a former Welfare Clerk, and the vast majority of welfare recipients I dealt with---in a district that covered West Philadelphia---were employed. The work varied: childcare, retail, and hair salon work were the most common, but there were also school staff, church secretaries, and construction workers who needed welfare. Some of these jobs were under the table, but most were legitimate, W-2 jobs. If anything, my district had a higher percentage of people not employed, as we covered the University of Pennsylvania and Drexel University campuses---so there were often grad students applying along side single mothers working in hair salons.
- devonkim 11y ago
  This is also consistent with those on food stamps. The last statistics I read that the majority were employed, disabled, or students.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  A quick google search suggests a significant portions of welfare dollars flow to non-workers: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/13/get-a-job-most-welfare-recipients-already-have-one/ http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/13/get-a-job-most-wel... 36% of families receiving TANF (which is what this article discusses) work. Why not spend 30 seconds googling to determine if your anecdotes reflect reality?
  - fredfoobar42 11y ago
    Typically, TANF benefits went to the elderly, disabled, or to new mothers. Do you really want to force them to work the gig economy? Also, don't forget that the "T" in TANF means _temporary_.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      If only the authors of the article thought of that. Then they might have written this: Work requirements, however, should not unfairly punish people who are physically or mentally unable to complete gig economy jobs. The gig economy can often provide flexible work for those previously considered unable to work, but exemptions would still be available as needed. Why not read the article to see what it actually advocates rather than criticizing some unrelated idea no one advocated for?
khirasaki 11y ago
How about hell no? I'm curious who this author is, a lobbyist for Uber? How about a Guaranteed Minimum Income for every American, which will do far more to address poverty as well as raise wages (if you're already receiving money, you'll be able to demand a higher wage for working a job). Screw welfare, and its tenuous political existence. Support everyone and the government doesn't need to invent more regulations and punish poor people.
- rogersmith 11y ago
  "I'm curious who this author is, a lobbyist for Uber?" Actually, yes, pretty much. "Derek Khanna (@DerekKhanna) is a former congressional staffer and IP litigation lawyer in Silicon Valley who spearheaded a campaign that enacted the last technology bill into law (P.L. 113-144), and Cesar Conda (@CesarConda) is a former Senate chief of staff and White House policy adviser, founding principal and policy adviser of Navigators Global."
- AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
  > How about a Guaranteed Minimum Income for every American > Screw welfare, and its tenuous political existence. Support everyone and the government doesn't need to invent more regulations A guaranteed minimum income will without question lead to higher prices on consumer goods, putting us in the same position as before. The regulations will not stop under this model - they will simply change. Where regulation exists now to keep prices artificially high and interest rates artificially low, the regulation policy resulting from a minimum pre-tax income will be that of price controls and the rationing of goods.
  - bryanlarsen 11y ago
    "A guaranteed minimum income will without question lead to higher prices on consumer goods" Why? BI does not increase money supply, it takes from the rich and gives to the poor. An increase in the money supply is the only thing pretty much guaranteed to increase inflation. BI will definitely have localized effects on prices. It may increase money velocity, which could cause inflation. However, that's not "without question", and almost definitely wouldn't "put us in the same position as before"
khirasaki 11y ago
How about hell no? I'm curious who this author is, a lobbyist for Uber? How about a Guaranteed Minimum Income for every American, which will do far more to address poverty as well as raise wages (if you're already receiving money, you'll be able to demand a higher wage for working a job). Screw welfare, and its tenuous political existence. Support everyone and the government doesn't need to invent more regulations and punish poor people.
dccoolgai 11y ago
This is the worst idea not proposed in jest that I have ever read. Uber and the "gig economy" are the death throes of an economy that is suffocating itself with rotten ideas about globalism ("We can all be rich if we stop making things and have other people do it for us!") hatched by corporate economists... Suggesting that we should all do each others' laundry more is just a brutal exacerbation of the underlying problem no one wants to confront. We need farms, factories and things so that the work of everyone can participate in creating actual value and system can create more value for the people working again.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  We never stopped making things. We have farms and factories and they produce more than ever before. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/INDPRO https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/INDPRO https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IPMAN https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IPMAN http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/agriculture/2012/productivity.gif http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/agriculture/2012/productiv... No one is suggesting we all do each other's laundry. Instead, the article is suggesting that people currently producing nothing will do laundry for people who actually are producing things.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    suggesting that people currently producing nothing will do laundry for people who actually are producing things This is called a "job". If we could find a job for everyone, we wouldn't be talking about unemployment. Unemployment is when people are not able to find a job.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      The article is proposing a mechanism that would find a job for more people, reducing unemployment. It also proposes that if a person claims to be unemployed, but actually just refuses to take work, that their welfare payments should be stopped. But surely you aren't discussing those people, right?
clavalle 11y ago
Absolutely horrifying point of view. I get it, we don't like leeches. But forcing people to work or else not get benefits meant for the poorest (i.e. let them starve or go homeless)? Wow. It's work camps without fences. Driving around and/or delivering things to people that are better off then they are? How is that helping people build their own human capital? The only people that helps are the people consuming those services at exploitative wages. Why exploitative? Because if this option wasn't exploitative and it actually helped them beyond making sure they don't die, they'd have chosen it for themselves. Yes. Train bureaucrats that administer this programs and deal with those seeking welfare about these gig economy options. Make sure that those who want to engage know about them and have the ability to engage, but let's not force them 'or else'. Imagine losing your job, having to get on welfare to feed your family, and being told (probably through an impersonal text) "15 min foot massage at 111 Anywhere street. $5. $20 an hour equivalent. Appt. in 45 min. Confirm or lose benefits." We're better than that.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  They build human capital by demonstrating an ability/willingness to create value for other humans. More concretely, working gigs demonstrates the ability to show up reliably for appointments and perform work as directed, thereby making a person less risky to hire. Why exploitative? Because if this option wasn't exploitative and it actually helped them beyond making sure they don't die, they'd have chosen it for themselves. It's true that many people will choose free money + watching TV over doing things beneficial for others. It's kind of funny how expecting welfare recipients to work is "exploitative" but expecting workers to involuntarily support welfare recipients is not. Could you explain that?
  - clavalle 11y ago
    >They build human capital by demonstrating an ability/willingness to create value for other humans. Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their time we wouldn't have to threaten them with pain or death to incentivise them. Value for humans works both ways...people value their own time (your watching TV example) it is true. But if they were sufficiently incentivised with added value, they would create value for others in order to improve the remainder of their own time. That's how it works. Enlightened self-interest, and all that. > I assume that you also believe taking money from others involuntarily and giving it to non-workers is not "exploitative"? Yes, I do because of the marginal utility of money. Taking $1000 from someone who has $10 mil. to feed a family a four for a month is not exploitative. The person with $10 mil. will not die or be in physical pain without that money. That money is worth less to them than it is to the family that very well might die, or at least be in pain, without it. Telling someone on the brink of total poverty, where they very well might starve over the next month, that they must work or die is exploitation. Exploitation is not about taking money it is about extorting someone with the threat of pain or death. It is a sure way to destroy value in a transaction. The alternative is to entice someone to create value for other humans through a value add transaction -- they end up with more value for themselves rather than bargaining to limit their loss through death or pain -- you know, why the rest of us that happen to be more wealthy choose to create value for others. The way to guarantee such a transaction is to make sure the person agreeing to that transaction is not making the decision to engage based on a physical threat. I don't know why this concept is so foreign. It is the same reason protection rackets are illegal.
rogersmith 11y ago
Soon in a neo-liberalist paradise near you: - Uber for law enforcement - Uber for constitutional rights
hapless 11y ago
If you believe you can make $19 an hour as an Uber driver, I have a very fine bridge to sell you.
bluedino 11y ago
This truly does enslave the lower class. I'm far from a bleeding heart liberal but this just trivializes everything they do.
firstworldman 11y ago
Oh cool! Another dystopian policy idea! My first thought was, doesn't the person advocating for this realize they are rooting for the bad guys in the film? Then I realized, in science fiction, the bad guys often don't realize they're the bad guys. They are industrialists, or wayward idealists, or Ayn Randian capitalists. They are made villains by their philosophical tunnel vision and the belief that money is more important than human suffering.
jefe_ 11y ago
At least we've got a killer army.
noam87 11y ago
A bold proposal indeed from Mr. Conda. It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great city, or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and cabin doors, crowded with beggars, all in rags and importuning every passenger for an alms. These beggars, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in strolling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants: who as they grow up also turn thieves for want of work. I think it is agreed by all parties that this is, in the present deplorable state of the country, a very great additional grievance; and, therefore, whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these beggars sound, useful members of society, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.
wollstonecraft 11y ago
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

22 points by yummyfajitas 11y ago

To be clear, this article is advocating forcing people in poverty into gig economy jobs where there have been issues of low pay, terrible working conditions, and few if any employee protections. As a civilized country we should not demand that people give up their basic rights to earn a living.

pjc50 11y ago
Yeah, it's worked out pretty badly in the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workfare_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workfare_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_%28Reilly%29_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Work_and_Pensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_%28Reilly%29_v_Secretary_of_... (the latter is particularly odious; having been told by a court that it owed people £130m in back-dated benefits, the government retroactively changed the law to avoid paying them. This is almost certainly a human rights violation but that litigation has not finished yet).
- crystalmeph 11y ago
  Yeah, making people work for free at for-profit businesses is not a valid precondition for welfare. I didn't see that in this article though. There has to be a social safety net, but I think it's a valid goal to encourage welfare recipients to work if they are able. One thing we should definitely do is reform the "vertical cliff" of payments, where once you make above a certain threshold, you stop receiving all benefits. That's a definite disincentive to get a better job past a certain point.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    The article talks about work requirements, but does not specify a minimum wage or minimum effective wage. Is someone who is signed up for one of these task apps but only given one hour work a week "working"? Not to mention that the flood of workers forced into this position will necessarily bid down the hourly rates.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      Of course it will bid down hourly rates. That will increase demand for such services, thereby allowing more people to enter the workforce [1]. Unemployed workers get jobs, consumers get more services - a win for everyone! [1] It's interesting how the gig economy can reduce sticky wages, making inflationary stimulus unnecessary.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
This is an extreme misrepresentation of the article. Anyone who doesn't want to work is free to stop telling the welfare office they want work but can't find it. No one is forced to do anything.
- astazangasta 11y ago
  I vehemently dislike when people say "no one is forced to do anything" in situations where, say, you will lose your food stamps if you do not do something. That is a force, the force of starvation.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    People who give up food stamps will be prevented from going out and seeking work on their own, and buying food with the proceeds? I totally missed that part of the article.
    - yequalsx 11y ago
      We don't live in a society in which there is enough paying jobs to employ all able bodied people. We also don't live in a society in which every apparently able bodied person has the emotional/intellectual/motivational capacity to work. I'm content to let some tax money pay for food/tv/etc. for those at the margins. I don't want those who don't want to work alongside disgruntled people who are there because they are forced to be there. I think it doesn't make sense in terms of overall societal emotional well being.
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        We don't live in a society in which there is enough paying jobs to employ all able bodied people. If that's true, then these folks will find no work via the gig economy. We also don't live in a society in which every apparently able bodied person has the emotional/intellectual/motivational capacity to work. The article has this to say about that issue: "Work requirements, however, should not unfairly punish people who are physically or mentally unable to complete gig economy jobs. The gig economy can often provide flexible work for those previously considered unable to work, but exemptions would still be available as needed." Did you read it? I don't want those who don't want to work alongside disgruntled people who are there because they are forced to be there. Welfare recipients are disgruntled people who are unpleasant to be around? I thought they were just regular folks who were down on their luck, who wanted to work but are unable to find a job.
maxerickson 11y ago
So why not better regulate the gig economy?

imartin2k 11y ago

I wonder what on demand services think about this idea. On the one hand: more supply of gig workers. On the other hand: People who are forced to work in jobs (or gigs) they didn't choose voluntary might not be the best way to ensure good service quality for customers.

fredfoobar42 11y ago

This is ridiculous. The stereotype of welfare recipients as lazy, unemployed people is completely inaccurate. I'm a former Welfare Clerk, and the vast majority of welfare recipients I dealt with---in a district that covered West Philadelphia---were employed. The work varied: childcare, retail, and hair salon work were the most common, but there were also school staff, church secretaries, and construction workers who needed welfare. Some of these jobs were under the table, but most were legitimate, W-2 jobs. If anything, my district had a higher percentage of people not employed, as we covered the University of Pennsylvania and Drexel University campuses---so there were often grad students applying along side single mothers working in hair salons.

devonkim 11y ago
This is also consistent with those on food stamps. The last statistics I read that the majority were employed, disabled, or students.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
A quick google search suggests a significant portions of welfare dollars flow to non-workers: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/13/get-a-job-most-welfare-recipients-already-have-one/ http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/13/get-a-job-most-wel... 36% of families receiving TANF (which is what this article discusses) work. Why not spend 30 seconds googling to determine if your anecdotes reflect reality?
- fredfoobar42 11y ago
  Typically, TANF benefits went to the elderly, disabled, or to new mothers. Do you really want to force them to work the gig economy? Also, don't forget that the "T" in TANF means _temporary_.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    If only the authors of the article thought of that. Then they might have written this: Work requirements, however, should not unfairly punish people who are physically or mentally unable to complete gig economy jobs. The gig economy can often provide flexible work for those previously considered unable to work, but exemptions would still be available as needed. Why not read the article to see what it actually advocates rather than criticizing some unrelated idea no one advocated for?

khirasaki 11y ago

How about hell no? I'm curious who this author is, a lobbyist for Uber? How about a Guaranteed Minimum Income for every American, which will do far more to address poverty as well as raise wages (if you're already receiving money, you'll be able to demand a higher wage for working a job). Screw welfare, and its tenuous political existence. Support everyone and the government doesn't need to invent more regulations and punish poor people.

rogersmith 11y ago
"I'm curious who this author is, a lobbyist for Uber?" Actually, yes, pretty much. "Derek Khanna (@DerekKhanna) is a former congressional staffer and IP litigation lawyer in Silicon Valley who spearheaded a campaign that enacted the last technology bill into law (P.L. 113-144), and Cesar Conda (@CesarConda) is a former Senate chief of staff and White House policy adviser, founding principal and policy adviser of Navigators Global."
AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
> How about a Guaranteed Minimum Income for every American > Screw welfare, and its tenuous political existence. Support everyone and the government doesn't need to invent more regulations A guaranteed minimum income will without question lead to higher prices on consumer goods, putting us in the same position as before. The regulations will not stop under this model - they will simply change. Where regulation exists now to keep prices artificially high and interest rates artificially low, the regulation policy resulting from a minimum pre-tax income will be that of price controls and the rationing of goods.
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  "A guaranteed minimum income will without question lead to higher prices on consumer goods" Why? BI does not increase money supply, it takes from the rich and gives to the poor. An increase in the money supply is the only thing pretty much guaranteed to increase inflation. BI will definitely have localized effects on prices. It may increase money velocity, which could cause inflation. However, that's not "without question", and almost definitely wouldn't "put us in the same position as before"

khirasaki 11y ago

dccoolgai 11y ago

This is the worst idea not proposed in jest that I have ever read. Uber and the "gig economy" are the death throes of an economy that is suffocating itself with rotten ideas about globalism ("We can all be rich if we stop making things and have other people do it for us!") hatched by corporate economists... Suggesting that we should all do each others' laundry more is just a brutal exacerbation of the underlying problem no one wants to confront. We need farms, factories and things so that the work of everyone can participate in creating actual value and system can create more value for the people working again.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
We never stopped making things. We have farms and factories and they produce more than ever before. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/INDPRO https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/INDPRO https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IPMAN https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IPMAN http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/agriculture/2012/productivity.gif http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/agriculture/2012/productiv... No one is suggesting we all do each other's laundry. Instead, the article is suggesting that people currently producing nothing will do laundry for people who actually are producing things.
- pjc50 11y ago
  suggesting that people currently producing nothing will do laundry for people who actually are producing things This is called a "job". If we could find a job for everyone, we wouldn't be talking about unemployment. Unemployment is when people are not able to find a job.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    The article is proposing a mechanism that would find a job for more people, reducing unemployment. It also proposes that if a person claims to be unemployed, but actually just refuses to take work, that their welfare payments should be stopped. But surely you aren't discussing those people, right?

clavalle 11y ago

Absolutely horrifying point of view. I get it, we don't like leeches. But forcing people to work or else not get benefits meant for the poorest (i.e. let them starve or go homeless)? Wow. It's work camps without fences. Driving around and/or delivering things to people that are better off then they are? How is that helping people build their own human capital? The only people that helps are the people consuming those services at exploitative wages. Why exploitative? Because if this option wasn't exploitative and it actually helped them beyond making sure they don't die, they'd have chosen it for themselves. Yes. Train bureaucrats that administer this programs and deal with those seeking welfare about these gig economy options. Make sure that those who want to engage know about them and have the ability to engage, but let's not force them 'or else'. Imagine losing your job, having to get on welfare to feed your family, and being told (probably through an impersonal text) "15 min foot massage at 111 Anywhere street. $5. $20 an hour equivalent. Appt. in 45 min. Confirm or lose benefits." We're better than that.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
They build human capital by demonstrating an ability/willingness to create value for other humans. More concretely, working gigs demonstrates the ability to show up reliably for appointments and perform work as directed, thereby making a person less risky to hire. Why exploitative? Because if this option wasn't exploitative and it actually helped them beyond making sure they don't die, they'd have chosen it for themselves. It's true that many people will choose free money + watching TV over doing things beneficial for others. It's kind of funny how expecting welfare recipients to work is "exploitative" but expecting workers to involuntarily support welfare recipients is not. Could you explain that?
- clavalle 11y ago
  >They build human capital by demonstrating an ability/willingness to create value for other humans. Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their time we wouldn't have to threaten them with pain or death to incentivise them. Value for humans works both ways...people value their own time (your watching TV example) it is true. But if they were sufficiently incentivised with added value, they would create value for others in order to improve the remainder of their own time. That's how it works. Enlightened self-interest, and all that. > I assume that you also believe taking money from others involuntarily and giving it to non-workers is not "exploitative"? Yes, I do because of the marginal utility of money. Taking $1000 from someone who has $10 mil. to feed a family a four for a month is not exploitative. The person with $10 mil. will not die or be in physical pain without that money. That money is worth less to them than it is to the family that very well might die, or at least be in pain, without it. Telling someone on the brink of total poverty, where they very well might starve over the next month, that they must work or die is exploitation. Exploitation is not about taking money it is about extorting someone with the threat of pain or death. It is a sure way to destroy value in a transaction. The alternative is to entice someone to create value for other humans through a value add transaction -- they end up with more value for themselves rather than bargaining to limit their loss through death or pain -- you know, why the rest of us that happen to be more wealthy choose to create value for others. The way to guarantee such a transaction is to make sure the person agreeing to that transaction is not making the decision to engage based on a physical threat. I don't know why this concept is so foreign. It is the same reason protection rackets are illegal.

rogersmith 11y ago

Soon in a neo-liberalist paradise near you: - Uber for law enforcement - Uber for constitutional rights

hapless 11y ago

If you believe you can make $19 an hour as an Uber driver, I have a very fine bridge to sell you.

bluedino 11y ago

This truly does enslave the lower class. I'm far from a bleeding heart liberal but this just trivializes everything they do.

firstworldman 11y ago

Oh cool! Another dystopian policy idea! My first thought was, doesn't the person advocating for this realize they are rooting for the bad guys in the film? Then I realized, in science fiction, the bad guys often don't realize they're the bad guys. They are industrialists, or wayward idealists, or Ayn Randian capitalists. They are made villains by their philosophical tunnel vision and the belief that money is more important than human suffering.

jefe_ 11y ago

At least we've got a killer army.

noam87 11y ago

A bold proposal indeed from Mr. Conda. It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great city, or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and cabin doors, crowded with beggars, all in rags and importuning every passenger for an alms. These beggars, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in strolling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants: who as they grow up also turn thieves for want of work. I think it is agreed by all parties that this is, in the present deplorable state of the country, a very great additional grievance; and, therefore, whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these beggars sound, useful members of society, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.

wollstonecraft 11y ago

http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm