3 ms·
By this logic, all stock traders should be considered employees of the stock exchange they use. Uber is just like a stock exchange - a match making service. *
by dronemallone 9y ago
By this logic, all stock traders should be considered employees of the stock exchange they use. Uber is just like a stock exchange - a match making service.
* Traders/riders on a transaction/ride pay the exchange/Uber for this service.
* Traders/riders are free to trade/ride as much they want to, at any hour of the day, provided there's enough liquidity in the market (surge pricing etc.)
* If a trader doesn't cut a profit on a trade, it's the trader's problem not the exchange's
* If an Uber driver doesn't drive enough to earn a living wage, it's the driver's problem not Uber's.
- simion314 9y agoThe problem in your logic is that different industries have different regulation, like food industry has different rules then electronics, this regulation were created probably after bad things happen. As a user of Uber or classic taxi you should have same protections. Try imagine Uber for food, you put in an app what food you want to eat and some random person will bring you the food he cocked, the person is not qualified, the startup did not made enough background checks, maybe he cokes in a place with rats, if you get sick you can 1 star the person. My point is that analogies do not work that well when you change industry, P.S. I did not downvoted you
- saint_fiasco 9y agoI would totally buy the food from the random person if it was cheap, convenient and had good user ratings. People who can afford to only buy things with background checks and quality control and insurance should be free to buy those things, but it's a little mean to decide for everyone else. Some people can only afford the shitty version.
- user5994461 9y agoA random person cannot sell food to random person. uber eats and deliveroo are only working with restaurants, they couldn't do otherwise.
- saint_fiasco 9y agoYes they can. It happens all the time, just not through a company. Probably not in Europe, though. I am making a normative argument. I am aware that regulations prevent that sort of thing for good reasons. I say that there are also good reasons for not regulating. In everything there is a tradeoff.
- simion314 9y agoYeah, but the society calculated and decided that it is worth some extra cost to have clean food places and personnel then have to pay with lives or medical care. As a society we decided that this rules are better globally, even if some individuals would risk eating expired food because is cheaper.
- saint_fiasco 9y agoIf the society provides free medical care then I guess that is fair.
- simion314 9y agoYes, I am not from US so yes for US in Europe is fair to have this kind of rules and taxes on things that are bad for health like cigarettes and alcohol
- saint_fiasco 9y agoI'm from the third world, where these sort of rules would just remove poor people's access to cheap stuff for no benefit. I think even in US and Europe there is a significant minority of poor people for whom these sorts of rules are a net negative.
- simion314 9y agoYou think that allowing poor people to buy and eat expired and spoiled food is a good idea? You would get an epidemic and pay at least 10 times more and one person eating bad stuff could infect an entire village, so I disagree we should allow selling bad food, the companies would find ways to sell rotten flesh if it was legal and they would make some cool commercials and packaging for it.
- simion314 9y agoSure, until you get sick.