4 ms·

> But I'm not so sure it's that simple. At this point I was expecting an explanation of how an similar number of low-skilled people would have jobs if these se

> But I'm not so sure it's that simple. At this point I was expecting an explanation of how an similar number of low-skilled people would have jobs if these services didn't exist. Instead you give the unexplained assertion > You have this zero sum game ... Which game is it? Who are the players? What is zero-sum about it?

aphextron 8y ago
>Which game is it? Who are the players? What is zero-sum about it? It's the same game they're playing with AirBnB, Uber, etc. Just openly break the law and subvert centuries of built up labor laws and protections we've created to make America into a livable society, just to profit a small minority of shareholders. The players are the American people, with no choice left but live with this system because more equitable uses of this capital aren't perceived to give investors "10x returns". There used to be an agreement in the US between Capital and Labor that struck a fair deal, and this agreement has fundamentally eroded. What benefits and rights that did still exist in jobs up to this point are gone for most people. The result is a zero sum game, where human suffering is converted to shareholder profits.
- briandear 8y ago
  Tell me about taxi drivers and labor law. I used to drive a taxi and I paid $110 per day to rent the taxi, paid the gas, if I damaged the car, I paid for that out of my pocket and then I get to try and hustle rides from the airport where I had to pay for ticket for the right to pick up a passenger — then, due to airport fixed rates, I might drive that person to the other side of town and make $65. Driving a taxi was horrible. Anyone that laments Uber has never driven a taxi.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  Look at my last post (-4). Youre not allowed to criticize the almighty dollar, vulture...err venture capitalists, employment arbitrage firms, quasi-legal companies, or other horrendously unethical behavior. Why? Because there's a company doing it, and others making money on humans' suffering. But hey, I got that hamburger faster and $1 off the delivery.
- Sacho 8y ago
  You seem to be arguing that, in balance, there are more low-paying jobs where the government can convince employers to increase wages, rather than the employers closing down and looking for another enterprise to pursue. Otherwise, even on aggregate, you are actively harming low-skilled or desperate workers who are looking for a job. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that this is true - labor laws and protections increase wages in aggregate enough to account for all the jobs that are abandoned because they are not profitable enough to pay the required wages. There's one more thing to consider in Uber's case - the regional availability for jobs. Can we assume that the low-skilled adequate-income jobs you create through labor laws would be concentrated in richer towns, richer neighbourhoods, where the industry and market can afford the higher wages? What about the poorer neighbourhoods/towns? Uber(well, taxi service) allows people there to take a job which might not be available to them otherwise, without moving to a different town/neighbourhood.

aphextron 8y ago

>Which game is it? Who are the players? What is zero-sum about it? It's the same game they're playing with AirBnB, Uber, etc. Just openly break the law and subvert centuries of built up labor laws and protections we've created to make America into a livable society, just to profit a small minority of shareholders. The players are the American people, with no choice left but live with this system because more equitable uses of this capital aren't perceived to give investors "10x returns". There used to be an agreement in the US between Capital and Labor that struck a fair deal, and this agreement has fundamentally eroded. What benefits and rights that did still exist in jobs up to this point are gone for most people. The result is a zero sum game, where human suffering is converted to shareholder profits.

briandear 8y ago
Tell me about taxi drivers and labor law. I used to drive a taxi and I paid $110 per day to rent the taxi, paid the gas, if I damaged the car, I paid for that out of my pocket and then I get to try and hustle rides from the airport where I had to pay for ticket for the right to pick up a passenger — then, due to airport fixed rates, I might drive that person to the other side of town and make $65. Driving a taxi was horrible. Anyone that laments Uber has never driven a taxi.
crankylinuxuser 8y ago
Look at my last post (-4). Youre not allowed to criticize the almighty dollar, vulture...err venture capitalists, employment arbitrage firms, quasi-legal companies, or other horrendously unethical behavior. Why? Because there's a company doing it, and others making money on humans' suffering. But hey, I got that hamburger faster and $1 off the delivery.
Sacho 8y ago
You seem to be arguing that, in balance, there are more low-paying jobs where the government can convince employers to increase wages, rather than the employers closing down and looking for another enterprise to pursue. Otherwise, even on aggregate, you are actively harming low-skilled or desperate workers who are looking for a job. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that this is true - labor laws and protections increase wages in aggregate enough to account for all the jobs that are abandoned because they are not profitable enough to pay the required wages. There's one more thing to consider in Uber's case - the regional availability for jobs. Can we assume that the low-skilled adequate-income jobs you create through labor laws would be concentrated in richer towns, richer neighbourhoods, where the industry and market can afford the higher wages? What about the poorer neighbourhoods/towns? Uber(well, taxi service) allows people there to take a job which might not be available to them otherwise, without moving to a different town/neighbourhood.