3 ms·
> The point is that most people as the supplier aren't doing Uber, AirBnB, etc because they like it. They're doing it because they don't have any other good alt
by jlebar 10y ago
> The point is that most people as the supplier aren't doing Uber, AirBnB, etc because they like it. They're doing it because they don't have any other good alternatives.
Well, sure.
Why is it the fault of Uber/AirBnB/Seamless/TaskRabbit/DishDash/Handy/whatever that they don't have better alternatives?
And moreover, how exactly would these people's lives be better if they couldn't work for Uber etc.? Aren't they choosing to work for Uber etc. because it's better than the alternative (namely, not working for Uber etc.)?
There are lots of fucked up things about our economic policy. I won't give my top ten because HN is trying not to be a place for political debates, but I'm sure you can name a few off the top of your head. We just had a long discussion about the importance of the ACA on HN -- taking that away hits the poor the hardest. We can go on.
The governmental policies that perpetuate income inequality should be the target of your ire, not the fact that someone deigned to create yet another company that doesn't pay its employees "enough" money.
Edited for formatting.
- knieveltech 10y agoI think the point that the author was trying to make was SV/startup/tech company bulshytt all touts technology* as equating to progress, and progress equalling some kind of unambiguous improvement to individual quality of life or society as a whole. This claim is open to critique given the exploitative nature of some/most/all sharing economy services, the frequently pointless and often time consuming nature of apps, etc. The idea here is if technology was in fact improving the economy, society, or the world the individuals who are stuck working 2nd and 3rd jobs would have other options available, especially in light of how many jobs/career tracks/industries software has eaten in the last 20 years. * poorly defined term in this context