10 ms·

A lot of people turn to jobs like Uber because they can't easily find a job. There are many people who desperately try for weeks or months to find employment. C

by fiblye 8y ago

A lot of people turn to jobs like Uber because they can't easily find a job. There are many people who desperately try for weeks or months to find employment. Companies like Uber love to prey on such people.

umanwizard 8y ago
I don't really understand this argument. Uber didn't create the conditions causing these people not to be able to find better jobs. If Uber stopped "preying on" these people, would they be better off? It seems like they'd just be unemployed.
- fiblye 8y ago
  A slave owner gives an otherwise hungry man food and housing. That doesn't mean slavery is at all justifiable. Uber pays people who otherwise might not have a job at all. That doesn't mean paying them incredibly low wages is something that should be free of criticism.
  - umanwizard 8y ago
    Completely different situation. Slaves were not better off under slavery than they were at home in West Africa, nor were they free to go back if they didn't like the deal. If Uber were kidnapping people and forcing them to become drivers at gunpoint, you might have a point.
  - ars 8y ago
    > A slave owner gives an otherwise hungry man food and housing. That doesn't mean slavery is at all justifiable. Slave by its very definition implies lack of choice by the other person. > Uber pays people who otherwise might not have a job at all. That doesn't mean paying them incredibly low wages is something that should be free of criticism. Yes, actually, it does mean that. That's the nature of choice. If someone is offering you something you otherwise would not have, you don't get the right to complain that they are not giving you more.
    - Forge36 8y ago
      I'm not following your logic, are you suggesting you wouldn't ask for a raise? There are a lot of moving pieces. The abolishment of slavery didn't end slavery and it's conditions. It changed the name and the rules. Many slaves became trapped in indentured servitude without enough pay to cover the cost of housing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude Eventually this became illegal as well, another tactic was paying employees through company credits to buy goods at the company store. Eventually this too became illegal. During all of this Jim Crow laws were made to prevent further integration, schooling, and the advancement to higher paying jobs. The origin of the phrase grandfather clause came about as a way to prevent voting for representatives who could represent them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause This hasn't ended either, we now deal with gerrymandering. I don't believe the ability choose a log of last resort means that job can be free of criticism. Yes it provides a vital service: given that service is insufficient to meet basic needs, improvements are needed. That may mean better services to provide jobs or providing a minimum pay with which basic needs can be guaranteed.
      - umanwizard 8y ago
        > given that service is insufficient to meet basic needs, improvements are needed Sure, and why is it Uber's responsibility to make those improvements?
        fiblye 8y ago
        Is your argument that companies have zero responsibility to pay their employees reasonably? What is even the purpose of a company? Make unicorn valuation through low wages, write a couple blog posts, then dip?
        umanwizard 8y ago
        > Is your argument that companies have zero responsibility to pay their employees reasonably? Yeah, that sums it up. Companies have a responsibility to keep the agreements they make, and to not harm anyone. They don't have a positive responsibility to improve people's lives -- they're not charities. > What is even the purpose of a company? To make some people better off than they were before, by way of voluntary exchange, without hurting anyone. If they're not doing that, if they're actually making people worse off than they would be otherwise, then that should of course be stopped.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - remote_phone 8y ago
    Incredibly low wages? This is only a handful of people you’re hearing from. Every uber driver I talk to is happy driving. You’re hearing from Some drivers that think they deserve to be paid 6 figures because they drive people around. It’s by definition a low-skill job. If they want more money they need to make themselves more valuable and find better jobs. I use the jobspotter app to make extra money on the side so I know first hand how many “hiring” signs are shown in various areas in the Bay Area. You can find a job if you want. Almost every place is hiring. To say that Uber is your only choice is bullshit. If you can’t find a better job in this economy and market then it’s you, not the market. And if you don’t like what you’re being paid then find a new job. It’s really as simple as that.
- xiphias2 8y ago
  The main problem is that when the drivers accept work from Uber, they plan ahead to have the same pay years later, often buying car from mortgage. At that point the drivers have no choice but to work their ass off to be able to pay back the mortgage for lower and lower hourly net rates.
  - umanwizard 8y ago
    Okay, that is a fair point and perhaps there should be regulations to require Uber to disclose prominently to prospective drivers that their rate is not guaranteed. (Certainly it's already in fine print somewhere, but I'm not sure how clearly it's made to people). However, that is not the point being made by the people quoted in this article, who are instead framing it in much more general terms that I might sum up as "any company not paying their employees a 'living wage' is unethical".
    - xiphias2 8y ago
      My personal belief is that the most unethical thing is the banks driving up asset prices with freely printed money. With sound money workers wouldn't have to work so much to be able to afford rent.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        Huh? For most people the delay from paycheck to rent payment is weeks to months, and the inflation suffered on that money is less than one percent. How would locking the amount of money affect that in any notable way? And a housing bubble can still happen in a deflationary economy. Money can still move from the workers to the rich. The effective price goes up even if the dollar amount doesn't.
        wonnage 8y ago
        Inflation was not the point, cheap loans = cheap mortgages = expensive houses.
- intopieces 8y ago
  >would they be better off? This is impossible to say, since we cannot run a simulation in which Uber/Lyft never existed, just like we can't measure the crimes that weren't committed because of laws. We can only examine the world as it is, including the economic conditions that precipitate a person taking a ride share job, the long-term financial implications of slowing selling time and vehicle condition, combined with the diminishing returns offered by the company to make some inferences about whether this whole thing is 'good for people' or 'not.' And, I gotta say, the situation is looking more like the latter than the former.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > I don't really understand this argument. Uber didn't create the conditions causing these people not to be able to find better jobs. If Uber stopped "preying on" these people, would they be better off? It seems like they'd just be unemployed. Uber didn't necessarily create the conditions, but it does knowingly exploit them. That kind exploitation is not value neutral and can be wrong.
matz1 8y ago
It's not prey, for a company, employee are cost. In extreme case, If it possible for a company to make money without employee, they should do it. It's more of a government responsibility to take care its citizen well being.
- malandrew 8y ago
  Since when do we completely absolve individuals of being responsible for their well being? The state should be support of last resort.
  - matz1 8y ago
    Yes, but I'm taking company vs state.
ars 8y ago
> Companies like Uber love to prey on such people. Offering someone a job is preying? Either they want it or they don't. Either it makes them money or they don't. You're talking like they are better off if Uber didn't offer them the job.
- intopieces 8y ago
  You're assuming that the people taking the job are fully informed, rational actors, not acting under financial duress. This is not a reasonable assumption for a near-permanent economic underclass. Your rationale could be extended outward to every adverse outcome for poor: "Well, poor people have higher rates of obesity and cancer because of their poor life choices in eating fast food and smoking." It's a convenient out for the exploiters to blame their victims.
  - ars 8y ago
    > You're assuming that the people taking the job are fully informed, rational actors, not acting under financial duress. This is not a reasonable assumption for a near-permanent economic underclass. Sorry-not-sorry, for assuming people are not idiots. Either they have money to pay bills or they don't. It's not that complicated, and people are not idiots. > "Well, poor people have higher rates of obesity and cancer because of their poor life choices in eating fast food and smoking." And your plan is to what? Micro-manage people's life and tell them what they can, and can't do? > It's a convenient out for the exploiters to blame their victims. It's only exploiting if you trick them, mislead them, lie to them, or force them. Fine print no one reads? Sure, complain about it. Hidden fees and the like? Outlaw those. But a straightforward transaction? What are you complaining for?
    - remote_phone 8y ago
      Exactly. They can turn on and off the app whenever they want. There’s no contract. If they want to stop driving they can. If they want to drive for Lyft and Uber at the same time, they can. If they don’t want to drive for 6 months, they can. They can drive one trip a day and turn it off, and they can. There is complete freedom. The only thing these people are complaining about is that they want the freedom to drive for Lyft but they want to get paid more. That’s all it is. There’s no exploitation. But if the wages are too low, find a better job. It’s really that simple.
remote_phone 8y ago
The idea that Lyft and Uber prey on these “people who can’t find jobs” in record low employment is laughable. There are hundreds of thousands of drivers for Lyft and Uber in California alone. If these were only those poor victims that were preyed upon by Lyft then that would be a huge number. The fact is they aren’t victims or preyed upon. They know how much they get paid and if they want to take the job, they can. If they don’t want, there are plenty of other jobs out there. I know for a fact because I use the jobspotter app and I see hiring signs everywhere.
- akudha 8y ago
  If they don’t want, there are plenty of other jobs out there Maybe there are lots of jobs there, but do these jobs give the flexibility of working whenever one wants, like Uber does? In life, nothing is as simple as that. Applying the same logic, we can say if a woman is mistreated by her husband/bf, she can simply leave him. If a manager is bad, find another job. If a country is hostile to immigrants, leave and move back home or to another country. And so on. The reality is somewhere in between "just pack up and go" and "stuck indefinitely". Uber/Lyft/Instacart etc are in fact exploiting their drivers simply because they can. The drivers aren't unionized, they aren't getting much help from government regulations (it isn't illegal yet, just immoral and unethical), so they are at the mercy of these gig economy companies. Here is an exercise. Can you name one gig economy company that is treating its workforce well? I am trying, and failing.
  - remote_phone 8y ago
    So now Lyft is forced to not only give 100% flexibility to its drivers but also pay above market rates as well? Why? The point is the job is flexible but it pays lower than other jobs. If you are okay with that then take it. If not, leave it. Why does Lyft have to pay more than what the drivers are worth to them as well as provide 100% flexibility? If lyft/Uber/instacart are forced to make them employees instead of contractors then the first thing they will lose is the flexibility. They will likely not be allowed to work for other companies and have to drive X number of hours, etc. The drivers can’t have their cake and eat it too.

by fiblye 8y ago

umanwizard 8y ago

I don't really understand this argument. Uber didn't create the conditions causing these people not to be able to find better jobs. If Uber stopped "preying on" these people, would they be better off? It seems like they'd just be unemployed.

fiblye 8y ago
A slave owner gives an otherwise hungry man food and housing. That doesn't mean slavery is at all justifiable. Uber pays people who otherwise might not have a job at all. That doesn't mean paying them incredibly low wages is something that should be free of criticism.
- umanwizard 8y ago
  Completely different situation. Slaves were not better off under slavery than they were at home in West Africa, nor were they free to go back if they didn't like the deal. If Uber were kidnapping people and forcing them to become drivers at gunpoint, you might have a point.
- ars 8y ago
  > A slave owner gives an otherwise hungry man food and housing. That doesn't mean slavery is at all justifiable. Slave by its very definition implies lack of choice by the other person. > Uber pays people who otherwise might not have a job at all. That doesn't mean paying them incredibly low wages is something that should be free of criticism. Yes, actually, it does mean that. That's the nature of choice. If someone is offering you something you otherwise would not have, you don't get the right to complain that they are not giving you more.
  - Forge36 8y ago
    I'm not following your logic, are you suggesting you wouldn't ask for a raise? There are a lot of moving pieces. The abolishment of slavery didn't end slavery and it's conditions. It changed the name and the rules. Many slaves became trapped in indentured servitude without enough pay to cover the cost of housing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude Eventually this became illegal as well, another tactic was paying employees through company credits to buy goods at the company store. Eventually this too became illegal. During all of this Jim Crow laws were made to prevent further integration, schooling, and the advancement to higher paying jobs. The origin of the phrase grandfather clause came about as a way to prevent voting for representatives who could represent them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause This hasn't ended either, we now deal with gerrymandering. I don't believe the ability choose a log of last resort means that job can be free of criticism. Yes it provides a vital service: given that service is insufficient to meet basic needs, improvements are needed. That may mean better services to provide jobs or providing a minimum pay with which basic needs can be guaranteed.
    - umanwizard 8y ago
      > given that service is insufficient to meet basic needs, improvements are needed Sure, and why is it Uber's responsibility to make those improvements?
      - fiblye 8y ago
        Is your argument that companies have zero responsibility to pay their employees reasonably? What is even the purpose of a company? Make unicorn valuation through low wages, write a couple blog posts, then dip?
        umanwizard 8y ago
        > Is your argument that companies have zero responsibility to pay their employees reasonably? Yeah, that sums it up. Companies have a responsibility to keep the agreements they make, and to not harm anyone. They don't have a positive responsibility to improve people's lives -- they're not charities. > What is even the purpose of a company? To make some people better off than they were before, by way of voluntary exchange, without hurting anyone. If they're not doing that, if they're actually making people worse off than they would be otherwise, then that should of course be stopped.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- remote_phone 8y ago
  Incredibly low wages? This is only a handful of people you’re hearing from. Every uber driver I talk to is happy driving. You’re hearing from Some drivers that think they deserve to be paid 6 figures because they drive people around. It’s by definition a low-skill job. If they want more money they need to make themselves more valuable and find better jobs. I use the jobspotter app to make extra money on the side so I know first hand how many “hiring” signs are shown in various areas in the Bay Area. You can find a job if you want. Almost every place is hiring. To say that Uber is your only choice is bullshit. If you can’t find a better job in this economy and market then it’s you, not the market. And if you don’t like what you’re being paid then find a new job. It’s really as simple as that.
xiphias2 8y ago
The main problem is that when the drivers accept work from Uber, they plan ahead to have the same pay years later, often buying car from mortgage. At that point the drivers have no choice but to work their ass off to be able to pay back the mortgage for lower and lower hourly net rates.
- umanwizard 8y ago
  Okay, that is a fair point and perhaps there should be regulations to require Uber to disclose prominently to prospective drivers that their rate is not guaranteed. (Certainly it's already in fine print somewhere, but I'm not sure how clearly it's made to people). However, that is not the point being made by the people quoted in this article, who are instead framing it in much more general terms that I might sum up as "any company not paying their employees a 'living wage' is unethical".
  - xiphias2 8y ago
    My personal belief is that the most unethical thing is the banks driving up asset prices with freely printed money. With sound money workers wouldn't have to work so much to be able to afford rent.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      Huh? For most people the delay from paycheck to rent payment is weeks to months, and the inflation suffered on that money is less than one percent. How would locking the amount of money affect that in any notable way? And a housing bubble can still happen in a deflationary economy. Money can still move from the workers to the rich. The effective price goes up even if the dollar amount doesn't.
      - wonnage 8y ago
        Inflation was not the point, cheap loans = cheap mortgages = expensive houses.
intopieces 8y ago
>would they be better off? This is impossible to say, since we cannot run a simulation in which Uber/Lyft never existed, just like we can't measure the crimes that weren't committed because of laws. We can only examine the world as it is, including the economic conditions that precipitate a person taking a ride share job, the long-term financial implications of slowing selling time and vehicle condition, combined with the diminishing returns offered by the company to make some inferences about whether this whole thing is 'good for people' or 'not.' And, I gotta say, the situation is looking more like the latter than the former.
ardy42 8y ago
> I don't really understand this argument. Uber didn't create the conditions causing these people not to be able to find better jobs. If Uber stopped "preying on" these people, would they be better off? It seems like they'd just be unemployed. Uber didn't necessarily create the conditions, but it does knowingly exploit them. That kind exploitation is not value neutral and can be wrong.

matz1 8y ago

It's not prey, for a company, employee are cost. In extreme case, If it possible for a company to make money without employee, they should do it. It's more of a government responsibility to take care its citizen well being.

malandrew 8y ago
Since when do we completely absolve individuals of being responsible for their well being? The state should be support of last resort.
- matz1 8y ago
  Yes, but I'm taking company vs state.

ars 8y ago

> Companies like Uber love to prey on such people. Offering someone a job is preying? Either they want it or they don't. Either it makes them money or they don't. You're talking like they are better off if Uber didn't offer them the job.

intopieces 8y ago
You're assuming that the people taking the job are fully informed, rational actors, not acting under financial duress. This is not a reasonable assumption for a near-permanent economic underclass. Your rationale could be extended outward to every adverse outcome for poor: "Well, poor people have higher rates of obesity and cancer because of their poor life choices in eating fast food and smoking." It's a convenient out for the exploiters to blame their victims.
- ars 8y ago
  > You're assuming that the people taking the job are fully informed, rational actors, not acting under financial duress. This is not a reasonable assumption for a near-permanent economic underclass. Sorry-not-sorry, for assuming people are not idiots. Either they have money to pay bills or they don't. It's not that complicated, and people are not idiots. > "Well, poor people have higher rates of obesity and cancer because of their poor life choices in eating fast food and smoking." And your plan is to what? Micro-manage people's life and tell them what they can, and can't do? > It's a convenient out for the exploiters to blame their victims. It's only exploiting if you trick them, mislead them, lie to them, or force them. Fine print no one reads? Sure, complain about it. Hidden fees and the like? Outlaw those. But a straightforward transaction? What are you complaining for?
  - remote_phone 8y ago
    Exactly. They can turn on and off the app whenever they want. There’s no contract. If they want to stop driving they can. If they want to drive for Lyft and Uber at the same time, they can. If they don’t want to drive for 6 months, they can. They can drive one trip a day and turn it off, and they can. There is complete freedom. The only thing these people are complaining about is that they want the freedom to drive for Lyft but they want to get paid more. That’s all it is. There’s no exploitation. But if the wages are too low, find a better job. It’s really that simple.

remote_phone 8y ago

The idea that Lyft and Uber prey on these “people who can’t find jobs” in record low employment is laughable. There are hundreds of thousands of drivers for Lyft and Uber in California alone. If these were only those poor victims that were preyed upon by Lyft then that would be a huge number. The fact is they aren’t victims or preyed upon. They know how much they get paid and if they want to take the job, they can. If they don’t want, there are plenty of other jobs out there. I know for a fact because I use the jobspotter app and I see hiring signs everywhere.

akudha 8y ago
If they don’t want, there are plenty of other jobs out there Maybe there are lots of jobs there, but do these jobs give the flexibility of working whenever one wants, like Uber does? In life, nothing is as simple as that. Applying the same logic, we can say if a woman is mistreated by her husband/bf, she can simply leave him. If a manager is bad, find another job. If a country is hostile to immigrants, leave and move back home or to another country. And so on. The reality is somewhere in between "just pack up and go" and "stuck indefinitely". Uber/Lyft/Instacart etc are in fact exploiting their drivers simply because they can. The drivers aren't unionized, they aren't getting much help from government regulations (it isn't illegal yet, just immoral and unethical), so they are at the mercy of these gig economy companies. Here is an exercise. Can you name one gig economy company that is treating its workforce well? I am trying, and failing.
- remote_phone 8y ago
  So now Lyft is forced to not only give 100% flexibility to its drivers but also pay above market rates as well? Why? The point is the job is flexible but it pays lower than other jobs. If you are okay with that then take it. If not, leave it. Why does Lyft have to pay more than what the drivers are worth to them as well as provide 100% flexibility? If lyft/Uber/instacart are forced to make them employees instead of contractors then the first thing they will lose is the flexibility. They will likely not be allowed to work for other companies and have to drive X number of hours, etc. The drivers can’t have their cake and eat it too.