5 ms·

If only we could somehow prevent Uber from forcing people to drive for them, we could solve this problem once and for all... I really just can't understand the

If only we could somehow prevent Uber from forcing people to drive for them, we could solve this problem once and for all... I really just can't understand the mentality of "These people are too stupid to realize they're being taken advantage of, let's write opinion pieces to enlighten these poor simple minded masses to the errors of their ways." It just feels so condescending and elitist to me to take this viewpoint. If it really is a bum deal, people will figure it out and quit. Uber will either go out of business or work harder to retain drivers. Or if customers get too upset at always having a new driver they'll seek other options.

peacetreefrog 9y ago
Agree, bottom line: if you think gig economy jobs are a rip off, don't get one. It's as simple as that.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  It's not that easy if more and jobs are like that. It's pretty condescending to tell somebody who doesn't have much choice that he should do something else if he doesn't like it.
  - IAmGarrett 9y ago
    Work at McDonald's or drive Uber? Drive Uber because it's cooler than making fries. Make fries because there's a matching 401k program at McD's. These drivers have a choice. If Job 1 pays $100/day and Job 2 pays $110/day, the person should choose Job 2. When other things come into play like fulfillment, entertainment during the day, interest in one's work, etc., the choice becomes less clear, of course. The big thing for me is that these drivers have costs that aren't immediately realized, like the wear and tear on their vehicle or the lost compounding benefit of matching funds in a 401k that they could find at another job. They continue to make an economically poor choice because these costs are easy to forget/ignore/be unaware of.
earthtolazlo 9y ago
Or not, because the economy for the lower and middle classes is garbage and most people doing these jobs are doing them out of necessity.
AJ007 9y ago
It would seem that up until this point, Uber+Lyft has represented the transfer of billions of dollars from very wealthy individuals and organizations, to the lower working class. There is another paradox here, that poor people use Uber+Lyft too. Most municipalities within the US do not have a functional, cheap public transportation systems.
- killjoywashere 9y ago
  > Most municipalities within the US do not have a functional, cheap public transportation systems Partially brought about by the oil companies buying up electric trolley systems and dismantling them. Partially brought on by the subsidized post-war housing boom, which fostered suburban expansion, making the last mile a difficult problem for public transit to conquer. And partially brought on by the rise of the automobile itself. The exuberance of the post-war US allowed a lot of people to be blinded to what was happening.
untog 9y ago
> I really just can't understand the mentality of "These people are too stupid to realize they're being taken advantage of, let's write opinion pieces to enlighten these poor simple minded masses to the errors of their ways." The good news is that you don't have to understand that mentality, because no-one has it. At no point does the article suggest that Uber drivers are stupid. It suggests that they have fewer options than other Americans, and are driven into these jobs by a lack of alternative. The article even mentions an effort by these drivers to unionize - hardly the actions of a bunch of stupid idiots. They know what they are doing, but their unionization effort was blocked by a federal judge. > It just feels so condescending and elitist to me to take this viewpoint. Frankly, to me, the condescending and elitist viewpoint is the one that assumes no-one really needs employee protections (while you enjoy them) and assumes that jobs are so plentiful that anyone doing a job they don't like is surely a fool who can't take control of their own life. Or that "the market" will fix all of this, when we now have decades of evidence showing "the market" failing to do so.
- brettproctor 9y ago
  "Uber losses expected to hit $3 billion in 2016 despite revenue growth" https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/21/uber-losses-expected-to-hit-3-billion-in-2016-despite-revenue-growth/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/21/uber-losses-expected-to-hi... So Uber lost ~$3 billion in 2016, yet in 2017 they're supposed to start paying drivers more or providing more benefits? You know what happens to businesses that are losing money when they're required to start spending more money? They lose even more money. And the rate of loss has only been increasing for them, not decreasing. If you want to impose more cost on them, it might help some drivers in the short run but in the long run it will kill jobs and likely kill the company, assuming the company doesn't already implode on its own. We all need to remember no one is forcing anyone to be an uber driver. If we impose restrictions on a company that is already hemorrhaging money, it is absolutely going to kill jobs. If these people had a better alternative to uber they'd be doing it already, so when the uber jobs are gone they'll be forced to take even worse jobs. If these folks really are being underpaid, another company can come in, pay them better, have better drive retention and satisfaction, and beat uber at their own game. Assuming that isn't happening, then drivers are in fact being paid the correct price, and any action to alter that price will lead to job options being reduced. I think that is the ultimate elitist mindset, that these jobs are simply too wretched for anyone to do voluntarily. And for those poor souls that are being "forced" to do them, we should protect them from their terrible decisions by imposing extra costs. This makes people feel good by claiming to look out for those less fortunate, while ignoring the economic reality that it will reduce options and opportunities.
surfaceTensi0n 9y ago
Sometimes you have to take a bum deal, even if you know you're being exploited. This article isn't about telling Uber drivers that they're being exploited (the article references a number of cases where the drivers have sued Uber over it).
Paul-ish 9y ago
To establish a reference point, would you say this about labor laws in general? ie get rid of any labor laws and let the market sort itself out.
- brettproctor 9y ago
  Yes. Labor laws in general reduce options for those who need them most. It prevents people from making decisions for themselves and is condescending in assuming individuals are incapable of deciding what is best for themselves. I acknowledge most people will say this is callous and uncaring, and these people need our protections, but I think that argument ignores the economic reality that by imposing these laws they remove options for people. It mostly boils down to the idea that we shouldn't ban voluntary actions in general. And doing so violates individuals basic rights to make decisions for themselves. To be clear we should still have liability laws where an employer should be liable if their negligence causes injury etc.
  - Paul-ish 9y ago
    What about child labor laws?

peacetreefrog 9y ago

Agree, bottom line: if you think gig economy jobs are a rip off, don't get one. It's as simple as that.

maxxxxx 9y ago
It's not that easy if more and jobs are like that. It's pretty condescending to tell somebody who doesn't have much choice that he should do something else if he doesn't like it.
- IAmGarrett 9y ago
  Work at McDonald's or drive Uber? Drive Uber because it's cooler than making fries. Make fries because there's a matching 401k program at McD's. These drivers have a choice. If Job 1 pays $100/day and Job 2 pays $110/day, the person should choose Job 2. When other things come into play like fulfillment, entertainment during the day, interest in one's work, etc., the choice becomes less clear, of course. The big thing for me is that these drivers have costs that aren't immediately realized, like the wear and tear on their vehicle or the lost compounding benefit of matching funds in a 401k that they could find at another job. They continue to make an economically poor choice because these costs are easy to forget/ignore/be unaware of.

earthtolazlo 9y ago

Or not, because the economy for the lower and middle classes is garbage and most people doing these jobs are doing them out of necessity.

AJ007 9y ago

It would seem that up until this point, Uber+Lyft has represented the transfer of billions of dollars from very wealthy individuals and organizations, to the lower working class. There is another paradox here, that poor people use Uber+Lyft too. Most municipalities within the US do not have a functional, cheap public transportation systems.

killjoywashere 9y ago
> Most municipalities within the US do not have a functional, cheap public transportation systems Partially brought about by the oil companies buying up electric trolley systems and dismantling them. Partially brought on by the subsidized post-war housing boom, which fostered suburban expansion, making the last mile a difficult problem for public transit to conquer. And partially brought on by the rise of the automobile itself. The exuberance of the post-war US allowed a lot of people to be blinded to what was happening.

untog 9y ago

> I really just can't understand the mentality of "These people are too stupid to realize they're being taken advantage of, let's write opinion pieces to enlighten these poor simple minded masses to the errors of their ways." The good news is that you don't have to understand that mentality, because no-one has it. At no point does the article suggest that Uber drivers are stupid. It suggests that they have fewer options than other Americans, and are driven into these jobs by a lack of alternative. The article even mentions an effort by these drivers to unionize - hardly the actions of a bunch of stupid idiots. They know what they are doing, but their unionization effort was blocked by a federal judge. > It just feels so condescending and elitist to me to take this viewpoint. Frankly, to me, the condescending and elitist viewpoint is the one that assumes no-one really needs employee protections (while you enjoy them) and assumes that jobs are so plentiful that anyone doing a job they don't like is surely a fool who can't take control of their own life. Or that "the market" will fix all of this, when we now have decades of evidence showing "the market" failing to do so.

brettproctor 9y ago
"Uber losses expected to hit $3 billion in 2016 despite revenue growth" https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/21/uber-losses-expected-to-hit-3-billion-in-2016-despite-revenue-growth/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/21/uber-losses-expected-to-hi... So Uber lost ~$3 billion in 2016, yet in 2017 they're supposed to start paying drivers more or providing more benefits? You know what happens to businesses that are losing money when they're required to start spending more money? They lose even more money. And the rate of loss has only been increasing for them, not decreasing. If you want to impose more cost on them, it might help some drivers in the short run but in the long run it will kill jobs and likely kill the company, assuming the company doesn't already implode on its own. We all need to remember no one is forcing anyone to be an uber driver. If we impose restrictions on a company that is already hemorrhaging money, it is absolutely going to kill jobs. If these people had a better alternative to uber they'd be doing it already, so when the uber jobs are gone they'll be forced to take even worse jobs. If these folks really are being underpaid, another company can come in, pay them better, have better drive retention and satisfaction, and beat uber at their own game. Assuming that isn't happening, then drivers are in fact being paid the correct price, and any action to alter that price will lead to job options being reduced. I think that is the ultimate elitist mindset, that these jobs are simply too wretched for anyone to do voluntarily. And for those poor souls that are being "forced" to do them, we should protect them from their terrible decisions by imposing extra costs. This makes people feel good by claiming to look out for those less fortunate, while ignoring the economic reality that it will reduce options and opportunities.

surfaceTensi0n 9y ago

Sometimes you have to take a bum deal, even if you know you're being exploited. This article isn't about telling Uber drivers that they're being exploited (the article references a number of cases where the drivers have sued Uber over it).

Paul-ish 9y ago

To establish a reference point, would you say this about labor laws in general? ie get rid of any labor laws and let the market sort itself out.

brettproctor 9y ago
Yes. Labor laws in general reduce options for those who need them most. It prevents people from making decisions for themselves and is condescending in assuming individuals are incapable of deciding what is best for themselves. I acknowledge most people will say this is callous and uncaring, and these people need our protections, but I think that argument ignores the economic reality that by imposing these laws they remove options for people. It mostly boils down to the idea that we shouldn't ban voluntary actions in general. And doing so violates individuals basic rights to make decisions for themselves. To be clear we should still have liability laws where an employer should be liable if their negligence causes injury etc.
- Paul-ish 9y ago
  What about child labor laws?