6 ms·

Deciding to drive for Uber is a mutually beneficial transaction between consenting adults (or an adult and a company). If the driver wasn't benefiting, they'd d

Deciding to drive for Uber is a mutually beneficial transaction between consenting adults (or an adult and a company). If the driver wasn't benefiting, they'd do something else. Well-intentioned (by some people, prob most people on HN) and not so well-intentioned (anti-competitive lobbying by taxis) efforts to make the relationship less "exploitative" are likely doing more harm than good. What happens when the gov mandates all these extra benefits? "Drivers WILL earn more money!" The answer is some combination of: Uber becomes costlier, people take fewer rides (or growth is slower than it should be), and some people who are perfectly willing and able to drive right now are unable to do so. Or (if demand is more inelastic) a bunch of new drivers decide the new benefits make it worth entering the market, and not everyone who wants to drive can/people sit around idle, etc. Either way, you're hurting consumers and many existing drivers.

LarryDarrell 8y ago
Every gig-based employer needs to be lobbying hard for universal health care. It's not the only benefit of being a employee, but it's a big one. If we keep insisting that only employees get health care then people are going to want to be considered employees.
- peacetreefrog 8y ago
  "Regular" employees don't have universal health care. It's just that employers get a tax deduction for employer provided group insurance. Most economists believe this is hugely inefficient and a big policy mistake. If we're lobbying hard for pie in the sky goals, it'd be better to get rid of that (or let employers deduct contributions to individual plans instead) instead of applying the same crappy policy to gig economy jobs too.
peacetreefrog 8y ago
I really think one of the biggest blindspots of the (generally well-intentioned, smart) crowd at HN is lack of appreciation of economics and markets, and the belief that tinkering with these markets for the better is as simple as turning a dial on a knob (or passing a law, or getting a good ruling in a court case). Good article with related thoughts on this: http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2005/Robertsmarkets.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2005/Robertsmarkets....
britch 8y ago
Edit: Yeah I'm off the mark, median pay is more like 10-8. I gotta read more closely I think the "mutually beneficial" is somewhat debatable. If you take in to account the cost of upkeep on the vehicle from increased driving some drivers barely break even or even lose money driving for uber. On median a driver makes something like 3 dollars an hour https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/01/uber-lyft-driver-wages-median-report https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/01/uber-lyft...
- peacetreefrog 8y ago
  It has to be mutually beneficial, otherwise drivers would be doing something else. We don't have slavery in this country anymore. One of the biggest benefits is working whenever you want. A paper by the NBER found drivers get twice the consumer (or producer in this case I guess) surplus they would from less flexible arraignments: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23296 http://www.nber.org/papers/w23296
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > We don't have slavery in this country anymore. The US, post-13th Amendment, still has both de jure (specifically, penal) slavery and de facto slavery, though there are laws designed to combat the latter (including, inter alia, the ones Uber tries to hack around.)
    - peacetreefrog 8y ago
      And is your argument that driving for Uber is de facto slavery?
  - britch 8y ago
    >It has to be mutually beneficial, otherwise drivers would be doing something else. We don't have slavery in this country anymore. I want to be clear here, and I'd appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth. I never claimed rideshare drivers were slaves. I was questioning the degree to which the arrangement was beneficial to both parties. If everyone was perfectly rational, I would agree with you. But many of these additional costs are hidden. Uber advertises ~$8 an hour, which sounds pretty good. But they don't mention the wear and tear on the car, the increased cost of mechanics, etc. I'm not convinced most drivers are aware of that or look into it. Clearly it is somewhat beneficial for the drivers. $4 an hour is better than $0 an hour, but I still think it's worth pointing out it's not even minimum wage in the US.

LarryDarrell 8y ago

Every gig-based employer needs to be lobbying hard for universal health care. It's not the only benefit of being a employee, but it's a big one. If we keep insisting that only employees get health care then people are going to want to be considered employees.

peacetreefrog 8y ago
"Regular" employees don't have universal health care. It's just that employers get a tax deduction for employer provided group insurance. Most economists believe this is hugely inefficient and a big policy mistake. If we're lobbying hard for pie in the sky goals, it'd be better to get rid of that (or let employers deduct contributions to individual plans instead) instead of applying the same crappy policy to gig economy jobs too.

peacetreefrog 8y ago

I really think one of the biggest blindspots of the (generally well-intentioned, smart) crowd at HN is lack of appreciation of economics and markets, and the belief that tinkering with these markets for the better is as simple as turning a dial on a knob (or passing a law, or getting a good ruling in a court case). Good article with related thoughts on this: http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2005/Robertsmarkets.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2005/Robertsmarkets....

britch 8y ago

Edit: Yeah I'm off the mark, median pay is more like 10-8. I gotta read more closely I think the "mutually beneficial" is somewhat debatable. If you take in to account the cost of upkeep on the vehicle from increased driving some drivers barely break even or even lose money driving for uber. On median a driver makes something like 3 dollars an hour https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/01/uber-lyft-driver-wages-median-report https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/01/uber-lyft...

peacetreefrog 8y ago
It has to be mutually beneficial, otherwise drivers would be doing something else. We don't have slavery in this country anymore. One of the biggest benefits is working whenever you want. A paper by the NBER found drivers get twice the consumer (or producer in this case I guess) surplus they would from less flexible arraignments: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23296 http://www.nber.org/papers/w23296
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > We don't have slavery in this country anymore. The US, post-13th Amendment, still has both de jure (specifically, penal) slavery and de facto slavery, though there are laws designed to combat the latter (including, inter alia, the ones Uber tries to hack around.)
  - peacetreefrog 8y ago
    And is your argument that driving for Uber is de facto slavery?
- britch 8y ago
  >It has to be mutually beneficial, otherwise drivers would be doing something else. We don't have slavery in this country anymore. I want to be clear here, and I'd appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth. I never claimed rideshare drivers were slaves. I was questioning the degree to which the arrangement was beneficial to both parties. If everyone was perfectly rational, I would agree with you. But many of these additional costs are hidden. Uber advertises ~$8 an hour, which sounds pretty good. But they don't mention the wear and tear on the car, the increased cost of mechanics, etc. I'm not convinced most drivers are aware of that or look into it. Clearly it is somewhat beneficial for the drivers. $4 an hour is better than $0 an hour, but I still think it's worth pointing out it's not even minimum wage in the US.