6 ms·

That's some solid advice, but for some people, that's simply not an option. If you can't find work elsewhere, you'd rather work for pennies than for nothing.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Murkin 9y ago
So its better that Uber didn't offer this job at all?
- libeclipse 9y ago
  I don't see which part of my comment implied any solution, never mind the specific solution you've inferred.
- jacobr 9y ago
  It would be better if they offered the job with reasonable wages and conditions. If consumers are not willing to pay enough for Uber to be able to offer this, they have a poor business model or are in the wrong market. You could say the same about any regulation, if you cannot manufacture something at a reasonable price without polluting more than allowed, you need to change your prices or adjust your business model.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    > It would be better if they offered the job with reasonable wages and condition Out would be better if kfc rained from the sky, but that's not an option. Why is their business model "poor"? If prices go up, so will what is considered a "reasonable" wage. What's a "reasonable" skillset that an employee must offer to get such a wage. Difference with pollution, is that its fine to just not pollute. Just not employing makes the situation worse.
    - rocqua 9y ago
      A business model that requires paying wages that you can't live on, it seems reasonable to call that business model a net loss for society.
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        So basically, its better that these workers be unemployed? Or you assume there will be an unlimited supply of alternate jobs available?
        TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
        Wrong premise. It's better to design your economy in a way that doesn't privilege shareholder and investor "risk" over employee and citizen risk. Why should be corporations be given a free hand to act in ways that increase costs, increase personal risk, and lower opportunity for all but a tiny subset of the population?
        Chris2048 9y ago
        What do you mean "wrong premise"? It might be better to design your mathematics so that 1 + 1 = 3, but the argument here is if that is possible. At the level of an economy, the burden is on you to show that minimum wage results in lower risk/higher opportunity for employees.
        Chris2048 9y ago
        I got a bunch of down-votes for questioning unworkable economics? Just "imagining" there is a better way isn't a plan. Whatever. If ppl in this thread wants to argue magical economics and down-vote anyone that disagrees, go ahead.
        eveningcoffee 9y ago
        Yes, it is better these people are unemployed and receive unemployment benefits until they manage to find a real job. Because they are making the situation worse for everyone.
  - dominotw 9y ago
    > you need to change your prices or adjust your business model. so its better for a job to not exist rather than exist without reasonable wage?
    - jacobr 9y ago
      The alternative is for Uber to invest in increased productivity, just like other industries. Making each worked hour give more return. They could supply better bikes, as another poster suggested less downtime for drivers, better algorithms to cut the length of the routes, higher fees for customers... I'm sure there are clever people that can figure it out.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - vertex-four 9y ago
      Back in the real world, the job exists without Uber - delivery drivers have existed for a long, long time. Deliveroo, Uber Eats, etc have primarily just shifted work away from individual restaurants employing drivers to the Uber model.
    - Fnoord 9y ago
      > so its better for a job to not exist rather than exist without reasonable wage? This is quite obviously a false dichotomy. Its not necessary bad when a job doesn't exist (e.g. the job 'head of slave labour team' doesn't exist anymore), and the obvious best outcome appears to be a fair wage for a (therefore existing) job. Uber doesn't seem to follow local laws. For example [and this is really one of the many examples], in The Netherlands you need a license to drive a taxi which made UberPop illegal. Uber didn't care, they launched it anyway. This appears to be the modus operandus of Uber: shoot first, ask questions later. The way they try to get drivers for Uber as documented here (again, in The Netherlands, article in Dutch use Google Translate) [1], underpaying them after they're in, is also disheartening and only benefits Uber; neither the customers nor the drivers. So what Uber did there was invest in driving their competition away. Of course, people don't wanna pay for pennies, but that's why they have the Uber brand. They use this branding together with state of the art technology to get customers (workers and clients). The more this information gets out, the less victims Uber is able to make. [1] http://www.taxibelangen.nl/ervaringen-ex-uber-chauffeur/ http://www.taxibelangen.nl/ervaringen-ex-uber-chauffeur/
  - prostoalex 9y ago
    > If consumers are not willing to pay enough for Uber to be able to offer this, they have a poor business model or are in the wrong market. This is a very elitist view, as it benefits only high-margin businesses, usually catering to the richest parts of the society. It just so happens that margins generated by Neiman Marcus, Whole Foods Market, or a white-cloth Michelin-starred restaurant will allow it to survive. Margins generated by a clothing thrift shop, corner bodega or a taco stand - not so much. Scores of businesses in the latter group are shut down, some are exempted (US conveniently does not enforce minimum wage laws on self-employed or family operations), some rely on undocumented labor and cash economy. Economists who advocate this, meanwhile, find the nest hot topic for conferences and panel discussions: "Food deserts in poor neighborhoods - root causes and possible solutions".
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  That's quite likely correct. Maybe they'd be forced to fix the downtime issues, allowing people to make the same amount of deliveries/wages in fewer hours.
- Fnoord 9y ago
  > So its better that Uber didn't offer this job at all? Are you happy MLM jobs exist, or would you rather see them non-existent?
- rawicki 9y ago
  The salary model of Uber doesn't give its contractors enough information to estimate how much they will earn. If they had offered flat 4.40$ rate probably noone would take the job. Would people take the job if they were presented with a distribution of hourly rates among already employed workers?
SilasX 9y ago
Who is it that can only find work with UberEats?
- paulddraper 9y ago
  Given that they apparently pay so terribly, I guess the answer is "anyone working for UberEats"?
- Noos 9y ago
  I'm guessing a lot of it is homeless people. Even in retail, you'd be surprised at how many people go from their job to the shelter afterwards.
troupe 9y ago
> but for some people, that's simply not an option. In the article the author tries two options: Uber Eats and Foodora. So, yes, in theory there are probably some people who would rather have the Uber Eats "work when you want" schedule rather than Foodora's but that very much falls within the realm of what fastball was suggesting with "if someone pays you bad wages, don't work for them." Just because you don't value that type of flexibility doesn't mean someone else won't value it. It seems like the more options there are for people looking for jobs the better.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Murkin 9y ago

So its better that Uber didn't offer this job at all?

libeclipse 9y ago
I don't see which part of my comment implied any solution, never mind the specific solution you've inferred.
jacobr 9y ago
It would be better if they offered the job with reasonable wages and conditions. If consumers are not willing to pay enough for Uber to be able to offer this, they have a poor business model or are in the wrong market. You could say the same about any regulation, if you cannot manufacture something at a reasonable price without polluting more than allowed, you need to change your prices or adjust your business model.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  > It would be better if they offered the job with reasonable wages and condition Out would be better if kfc rained from the sky, but that's not an option. Why is their business model "poor"? If prices go up, so will what is considered a "reasonable" wage. What's a "reasonable" skillset that an employee must offer to get such a wage. Difference with pollution, is that its fine to just not pollute. Just not employing makes the situation worse.
  - rocqua 9y ago
    A business model that requires paying wages that you can't live on, it seems reasonable to call that business model a net loss for society.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      So basically, its better that these workers be unemployed? Or you assume there will be an unlimited supply of alternate jobs available?
      - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
        Wrong premise. It's better to design your economy in a way that doesn't privilege shareholder and investor "risk" over employee and citizen risk. Why should be corporations be given a free hand to act in ways that increase costs, increase personal risk, and lower opportunity for all but a tiny subset of the population?
        Chris2048 9y ago
        What do you mean "wrong premise"? It might be better to design your mathematics so that 1 + 1 = 3, but the argument here is if that is possible. At the level of an economy, the burden is on you to show that minimum wage results in lower risk/higher opportunity for employees.
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        I got a bunch of down-votes for questioning unworkable economics? Just "imagining" there is a better way isn't a plan. Whatever. If ppl in this thread wants to argue magical economics and down-vote anyone that disagrees, go ahead.
      - eveningcoffee 9y ago
        Yes, it is better these people are unemployed and receive unemployment benefits until they manage to find a real job. Because they are making the situation worse for everyone.
- dominotw 9y ago
  > you need to change your prices or adjust your business model. so its better for a job to not exist rather than exist without reasonable wage?
  - jacobr 9y ago
    The alternative is for Uber to invest in increased productivity, just like other industries. Making each worked hour give more return. They could supply better bikes, as another poster suggested less downtime for drivers, better algorithms to cut the length of the routes, higher fees for customers... I'm sure there are clever people that can figure it out.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    Back in the real world, the job exists without Uber - delivery drivers have existed for a long, long time. Deliveroo, Uber Eats, etc have primarily just shifted work away from individual restaurants employing drivers to the Uber model.
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    > so its better for a job to not exist rather than exist without reasonable wage? This is quite obviously a false dichotomy. Its not necessary bad when a job doesn't exist (e.g. the job 'head of slave labour team' doesn't exist anymore), and the obvious best outcome appears to be a fair wage for a (therefore existing) job. Uber doesn't seem to follow local laws. For example [and this is really one of the many examples], in The Netherlands you need a license to drive a taxi which made UberPop illegal. Uber didn't care, they launched it anyway. This appears to be the modus operandus of Uber: shoot first, ask questions later. The way they try to get drivers for Uber as documented here (again, in The Netherlands, article in Dutch use Google Translate) [1], underpaying them after they're in, is also disheartening and only benefits Uber; neither the customers nor the drivers. So what Uber did there was invest in driving their competition away. Of course, people don't wanna pay for pennies, but that's why they have the Uber brand. They use this branding together with state of the art technology to get customers (workers and clients). The more this information gets out, the less victims Uber is able to make. [1] http://www.taxibelangen.nl/ervaringen-ex-uber-chauffeur/ http://www.taxibelangen.nl/ervaringen-ex-uber-chauffeur/
- prostoalex 9y ago
  > If consumers are not willing to pay enough for Uber to be able to offer this, they have a poor business model or are in the wrong market. This is a very elitist view, as it benefits only high-margin businesses, usually catering to the richest parts of the society. It just so happens that margins generated by Neiman Marcus, Whole Foods Market, or a white-cloth Michelin-starred restaurant will allow it to survive. Margins generated by a clothing thrift shop, corner bodega or a taco stand - not so much. Scores of businesses in the latter group are shut down, some are exempted (US conveniently does not enforce minimum wage laws on self-employed or family operations), some rely on undocumented labor and cash economy. Economists who advocate this, meanwhile, find the nest hot topic for conferences and panel discussions: "Food deserts in poor neighborhoods - root causes and possible solutions".
Dylan16807 9y ago
That's quite likely correct. Maybe they'd be forced to fix the downtime issues, allowing people to make the same amount of deliveries/wages in fewer hours.
Fnoord 9y ago
> So its better that Uber didn't offer this job at all? Are you happy MLM jobs exist, or would you rather see them non-existent?
rawicki 9y ago
The salary model of Uber doesn't give its contractors enough information to estimate how much they will earn. If they had offered flat 4.40$ rate probably noone would take the job. Would people take the job if they were presented with a distribution of hourly rates among already employed workers?

SilasX 9y ago

Who is it that can only find work with UberEats?

paulddraper 9y ago
Given that they apparently pay so terribly, I guess the answer is "anyone working for UberEats"?
Noos 9y ago
I'm guessing a lot of it is homeless people. Even in retail, you'd be surprised at how many people go from their job to the shelter afterwards.

troupe 9y ago

> but for some people, that's simply not an option. In the article the author tries two options: Uber Eats and Foodora. So, yes, in theory there are probably some people who would rather have the Uber Eats "work when you want" schedule rather than Foodora's but that very much falls within the realm of what fastball was suggesting with "if someone pays you bad wages, don't work for them." Just because you don't value that type of flexibility doesn't mean someone else won't value it. It seems like the more options there are for people looking for jobs the better.