The most common alternative, and the actual net change, is taxi driver. The only difference being a 50% reduction in wages. It's a giant app-based redistributi

The most common alternative, and the actual net change, is taxi driver. The only difference being a 50% reduction in wages. It's a giant app-based redistribution of wealth from the front seats to the back seats. And even if the alternative were unemployment – how does that mean that there shouldn't be a standard for such kinds of work? If people have to accept any working conditions because otherwise they'd starve to death, is that really an argument for the mighty benevolence of the free market? Considering that it appears as if there's plenty of food to go around, it doesn't strike me as the perfect outcome of 300 years of capitalism that we apparently still need to have 10% of every generation suffer, not because of any real scarcity but as a necessity for the other's motivation.