3 ms·

>Forget that they pay their drivers peanuts, that drivers have to drive up to 30% more now to make the same wages as just a few years ago, and that many are cal

by aminok 10y ago

>Forget that they pay their drivers peanuts, that drivers have to drive up to 30% more now to make the same wages as just a few years ago, and that many are calling Uber to unionise. Uber can't compete if its workers unionize. Please don't promote the failed anti-free-market ideology of labour unionization, which is based on total economic ignorance and shallow class-warfare cliches that don't conform to the complex reality of economic development and wage growth. If you talk to Uber drivers, you'll see the vast majority are happy with the opportunity to do what theyre doing. We don't need more misguided calls for authoritarian regulatory prohibitions that violate the right of consenting adults to engage in voluntary economic interactions with each other. I know it's not fun to see one's wages decline over a span of a few years, but that is what MUST happen if there is a huge influx of Uber drivers that tilts the supply vs demand ratio. Thinking you can legislate the pain away with mandates is failing to grasp that price is an information signal that tells us about supply and demand and allows the economy to adjust accordingly.

paganel 10y ago
It's the right of those "consenting adults" (the drivers) to form an Union if they so desire, who said anything about "authoritarian regulatory prohibitions"? The existence and functioning of a free-market doesn't necessarily mean that no trade unions are allowed. Saying that an employer worth billions of dollars and a potential employee worth many orders of magnitudes less than that have the same negotiating powers is ludicrous.
- aminok 10y ago
  The only way a union can survive economically is through authoritarian prohibitions against firing people for joining unions. This is because unions provide nothing that has market value. Historically they survived and flourished through illegal trespassing (blocking the company from operating), violence (beating up replacement workers), and eventually by getting legislation passed that imposed authoritarian prohibitions against employers exercising their contracting rights and ending employment contracts with unionized workers or negotiating with non-unionized workers individually (instead of through the mandated collective bargaining track). >Saying that an employer worth billions of dollars and a potential employee worth many orders of magnitudes less than that have the same negotiating powers is ludicrous. That's like saying consumers are helpless against Samsung because Samsung is a multibillion dollar company and consumers are individually worth much less. It's one of those thought-terminating clichés that distills the world into a simplistic class-war narrative. In reality a consumer in a free market has the power to walk away, and choose any better offer that is available to them, and that is all the power they need. Similarly, a person will only continue driving for Uber if no better options are available on the market. And if no better options are available, that means they're getting the market price for their labour. Using price controls to give them above-market wages has harmful second and third order consequences that reduce long-term wage growth.
nrjdhsbsid 10y ago
I'm not a huge fan of unions but you're wrong about wage drops. Uber is artificially flooding the service with drivers intentionally to drive down wages and therefore the cost of rides. Haven't you seen the insane amount of advertising and rediculous incentive packages? In markets Uber operates it is largely a monopoly so market mechanisms that would normally cause drivers to go elsewhere don't exist. Take for example Austin Texas which has no Uber or Lyft. There's five or six competing ridesharing services with considerable market share. The drivers get paid more than twice as much as Uber drivers because it's easy for unsatisfied drivers to switch to a competitor. A few of my friends who did uber in Houston now drive 3 hours to Austin to pick up riders since the pay is much better
- aminok 10y ago
  They have a right to do that, and others have a right to advertise how much it pays to drive Uber, and if it's less than what people are willing to accept, make it more difficult for Uber to recruit.

by aminok 10y ago

paganel 10y ago

It's the right of those "consenting adults" (the drivers) to form an Union if they so desire, who said anything about "authoritarian regulatory prohibitions"? The existence and functioning of a free-market doesn't necessarily mean that no trade unions are allowed. Saying that an employer worth billions of dollars and a potential employee worth many orders of magnitudes less than that have the same negotiating powers is ludicrous.

aminok 10y ago
The only way a union can survive economically is through authoritarian prohibitions against firing people for joining unions. This is because unions provide nothing that has market value. Historically they survived and flourished through illegal trespassing (blocking the company from operating), violence (beating up replacement workers), and eventually by getting legislation passed that imposed authoritarian prohibitions against employers exercising their contracting rights and ending employment contracts with unionized workers or negotiating with non-unionized workers individually (instead of through the mandated collective bargaining track). >Saying that an employer worth billions of dollars and a potential employee worth many orders of magnitudes less than that have the same negotiating powers is ludicrous. That's like saying consumers are helpless against Samsung because Samsung is a multibillion dollar company and consumers are individually worth much less. It's one of those thought-terminating clichés that distills the world into a simplistic class-war narrative. In reality a consumer in a free market has the power to walk away, and choose any better offer that is available to them, and that is all the power they need. Similarly, a person will only continue driving for Uber if no better options are available on the market. And if no better options are available, that means they're getting the market price for their labour. Using price controls to give them above-market wages has harmful second and third order consequences that reduce long-term wage growth.

nrjdhsbsid 10y ago

I'm not a huge fan of unions but you're wrong about wage drops. Uber is artificially flooding the service with drivers intentionally to drive down wages and therefore the cost of rides. Haven't you seen the insane amount of advertising and rediculous incentive packages? In markets Uber operates it is largely a monopoly so market mechanisms that would normally cause drivers to go elsewhere don't exist. Take for example Austin Texas which has no Uber or Lyft. There's five or six competing ridesharing services with considerable market share. The drivers get paid more than twice as much as Uber drivers because it's easy for unsatisfied drivers to switch to a competitor. A few of my friends who did uber in Houston now drive 3 hours to Austin to pick up riders since the pay is much better

aminok 10y ago
They have a right to do that, and others have a right to advertise how much it pays to drive Uber, and if it's less than what people are willing to accept, make it more difficult for Uber to recruit.