4 ms·

If they’re only profitable because they are exploiting their workforce essentially evading labour laws, then good, they should be upended.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
paul7986 9y ago
Indeed! A workforce they are straight up using & will be kicked to the curb once they get their fleets of self driving cars on the road.
CryptoPunk 9y ago
No one is being exploited. People choose to work through these platforms because it's the best option available to them. You don't raise employment standards by making low standards illegal. Low paying jobs work for some people because their circumstances don't give them the opportunity to get anything better. >>It's the best option available to them because Uber's driven out the competition. Like, people choose to work at Walmart because it's the only employer in a fifty mile radius - for example. They can't work for a local store or start their own anymore because everyone's going to Walmart. We're not talking about a small town here. These are large cities with diverse economies that contain thousands of employers. Uber drivers can do other jobs besides driving. There is absolutely no evidence at all that Uber has a employer monopoly in the areas it operates, and that this is why people choose to drive for it. Anecdotally I've heard that a lot of Uber drivers are very happy about being able to drive for Uber. And by anecdotally I don't mean a survey funded by Uber. I mean from internet comments where somebody claims to know someone who drives for Uber and really likes it. Take that for what it's worth. >>Yes, in fact, we do. A whole lot of practices have ended predominantly due to legal changes The vast majority of practices ended because the market value of labour increased as a result of growth in per capita productivity. Any mandatory standard that gets ahead of the prevailing market value of low-skilled labour just creates unemployment, meaning it doesn't raise the standard of employment for the less skilled. There's no free lunch in economics. >>Allowing these jobs to undercut competitors that pay properly propagates low paid situations where society end up having to subsidize the behavior of the companies in question because they don't pay livable wages. It's exactly the opposite. A mandatory minimum wage, like any price floor, leads to unutilized supply, which in the case of labour means greater unemployment. So you're increasing welfare costs by instituting a minimum wage. The market value of labour doesn't increase because low-paying jobs were made illegal. That's not how supply and demand work.
- porfirium 9y ago
  Who let the libertarians out?
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    This is too important a topic to treat with such glibness. If I'm wrong please prove me wrong, with some economic theory or data.
    - louhike 9y ago
      You make assessments with no basis and you want others to answer to you with economic theory and data? EDIT: Parent comments have been heavily edited.
      - CryptoPunk 9y ago
        I at least provide reasoning for my position. It's basic economic theory that wages are set by supply and demand. Demand only increases in the aggregate from increase in productivity. Creating a mandatory price floor simply leads to less than all of the supply being consumed (which means higher unemployment). That's what price floors do. What they don't do is raise aggregate demand (meaning they don't increase total wages paid out). >>This has nothing to do with price floors. The quintessential labour standard is a minimum wage, which is a price floor. This has everything to do with price floors. In fact all labour standards can be assigned a monetary value and the combined value can be considered a price-including-benefits floor. >>you're assuming that workers have a choice regarding where to work. That is simply wrong. I don't understand. Why do you believe they don't have a choice? >>So wrong that I understood your comment was a joke. I'm certain you were trying to mock me.
        porfirium 9y ago
        This has nothing to do with price floors. In your first message, you're assuming that workers have a choice regarding where to work. That is simply wrong. So wrong that I understood your comment was a joke.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

paul7986 9y ago

Indeed! A workforce they are straight up using & will be kicked to the curb once they get their fleets of self driving cars on the road.

CryptoPunk 9y ago

No one is being exploited. People choose to work through these platforms because it's the best option available to them. You don't raise employment standards by making low standards illegal. Low paying jobs work for some people because their circumstances don't give them the opportunity to get anything better. >>It's the best option available to them because Uber's driven out the competition. Like, people choose to work at Walmart because it's the only employer in a fifty mile radius - for example. They can't work for a local store or start their own anymore because everyone's going to Walmart. We're not talking about a small town here. These are large cities with diverse economies that contain thousands of employers. Uber drivers can do other jobs besides driving. There is absolutely no evidence at all that Uber has a employer monopoly in the areas it operates, and that this is why people choose to drive for it. Anecdotally I've heard that a lot of Uber drivers are very happy about being able to drive for Uber. And by anecdotally I don't mean a survey funded by Uber. I mean from internet comments where somebody claims to know someone who drives for Uber and really likes it. Take that for what it's worth. >>Yes, in fact, we do. A whole lot of practices have ended predominantly due to legal changes The vast majority of practices ended because the market value of labour increased as a result of growth in per capita productivity. Any mandatory standard that gets ahead of the prevailing market value of low-skilled labour just creates unemployment, meaning it doesn't raise the standard of employment for the less skilled. There's no free lunch in economics. >>Allowing these jobs to undercut competitors that pay properly propagates low paid situations where society end up having to subsidize the behavior of the companies in question because they don't pay livable wages. It's exactly the opposite. A mandatory minimum wage, like any price floor, leads to unutilized supply, which in the case of labour means greater unemployment. So you're increasing welfare costs by instituting a minimum wage. The market value of labour doesn't increase because low-paying jobs were made illegal. That's not how supply and demand work.

porfirium 9y ago
Who let the libertarians out?
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  This is too important a topic to treat with such glibness. If I'm wrong please prove me wrong, with some economic theory or data.
  - louhike 9y ago
    You make assessments with no basis and you want others to answer to you with economic theory and data? EDIT: Parent comments have been heavily edited.
    - CryptoPunk 9y ago
      I at least provide reasoning for my position. It's basic economic theory that wages are set by supply and demand. Demand only increases in the aggregate from increase in productivity. Creating a mandatory price floor simply leads to less than all of the supply being consumed (which means higher unemployment). That's what price floors do. What they don't do is raise aggregate demand (meaning they don't increase total wages paid out). >>This has nothing to do with price floors. The quintessential labour standard is a minimum wage, which is a price floor. This has everything to do with price floors. In fact all labour standards can be assigned a monetary value and the combined value can be considered a price-including-benefits floor. >>you're assuming that workers have a choice regarding where to work. That is simply wrong. I don't understand. Why do you believe they don't have a choice? >>So wrong that I understood your comment was a joke. I'm certain you were trying to mock me.
      - porfirium 9y ago
        This has nothing to do with price floors. In your first message, you're assuming that workers have a choice regarding where to work. That is simply wrong. So wrong that I understood your comment was a joke.