4 ms·

I agree. If Uber drivers view themselves as individuals acting rationally to maximize their material conditions in an environment they can't alter, then why wou

by smadge 8y ago

I agree. If Uber drivers view themselves as individuals acting rationally to maximize their material conditions in an environment they can't alter, then why would they have issues with Uber? If driving for Uber wasn't a net positive over not driving for Uber, they wouldn't be Uber drivers. But they can and should alter the economic environment they exist in, through politics and labor organizing. The median cut Uber takes from drivers is 40%. This is before accounting for vehicle fuel, insurance, and maintenance. Presumably some percentage of the cut is necessary to develop and maintain the application infrastructure, but clearly not that much. I imagine most Americans would be furious if the government instituted a 40% flat tax on their income, but within the individualist mindset it is seen as inevitable and they accept it.

Pristina 8y ago
You can choose to not participate in Uber's system. You can not choose to not pay tax. Well, you can choose that but you will go to jail and be potentially sodomised.
- smadge 8y ago
  I think the metaphor about taxes was more distracting than illuminating of my point. The main point was that we shouldn't be celebrating that a mother of 3, going to school, and working multiple part time jobs is able to supplement their income by driving for Uber but instead be asking why is their income so low in the first place that they have to spend their nights and weekends driving in order to afford groceries. This was all in that original linked tweet. I'm sure they would rather be resting, interacting with their children, or studying for school. We can take a step back and recognize that this is a globally suboptimal outcome. At some point the "freedom to earn supplemental income" promised by the gig economy becomes "an obligation to overwork oneself in order to afford groceries." How can this person "choose to not participate in Uber's system", when they've calculated that being an Uber driver is the only way for them to afford groceries for their family?
  - Pristina 8y ago
    It is not a globally suboptimal outcome. She chose to have 3 children without a strong financial foundation. This is why she has no money. Groceries don't fall from the sky. Somebody has to make them. So the option here is to either take from people to give to people who choose to irresponsibly have children, or don't. If you chose the latter, then the optimal reproductive strategy would be to breed as much as possible and have other people take care of your children. That is not a 'globally optimal outcome'

by smadge 8y ago

Pristina 8y ago

You can choose to not participate in Uber's system. You can not choose to not pay tax. Well, you can choose that but you will go to jail and be potentially sodomised.

smadge 8y ago
I think the metaphor about taxes was more distracting than illuminating of my point. The main point was that we shouldn't be celebrating that a mother of 3, going to school, and working multiple part time jobs is able to supplement their income by driving for Uber but instead be asking why is their income so low in the first place that they have to spend their nights and weekends driving in order to afford groceries. This was all in that original linked tweet. I'm sure they would rather be resting, interacting with their children, or studying for school. We can take a step back and recognize that this is a globally suboptimal outcome. At some point the "freedom to earn supplemental income" promised by the gig economy becomes "an obligation to overwork oneself in order to afford groceries." How can this person "choose to not participate in Uber's system", when they've calculated that being an Uber driver is the only way for them to afford groceries for their family?
- Pristina 8y ago
  It is not a globally suboptimal outcome. She chose to have 3 children without a strong financial foundation. This is why she has no money. Groceries don't fall from the sky. Somebody has to make them. So the option here is to either take from people to give to people who choose to irresponsibly have children, or don't. If you chose the latter, then the optimal reproductive strategy would be to breed as much as possible and have other people take care of your children. That is not a 'globally optimal outcome'