5 ms·

> Isn’t the proper solution to find another job? If more people stopped driving for ridesharing companies the prices would rise to attract them back. Instead o

> Isn’t the proper solution to find another job? If more people stopped driving for ridesharing companies the prices would rise to attract them back. Instead of assuming stupidity on one party's end, why not consider that there is a rational explanation for people's behavior? A very rational explanation is that for many people, driving for Uber beats not being able to pay bills, going hungry or being homeless.

umanwizard 8y ago
I think that's the point of the argument you're replying to. Assuming Uber drivers are rational, it means they're better off driving with Uber than they would be otherwise. In which case, why does Uber attract so much criticism? I'd understand if you criticized the general economic/social system that causes shitty jobs to be people's best option, but why criticize specific actors within it that (1) didn't create it, and (2) aren't making anyone worse off? People are totally free to live in a world without Uber, by refusing to work for them or use their app. If that would cause them to be homeless or destitute, then what exactly is the issue with Uber -- that it's not bringing as many people as far out of destitution as you might like?
- fucking_tragedy 8y ago
  > why does Uber attract so much criticism? Because you're looking at the benefits in a vacuum. This is a company the skirts the law and intentionally blurs the line between employee and contractor for profit. It is entirely possible that driving for Uber is a rational choice for some people, and at the same time, that Uber is undervaluing their labor and taking advantage of them. Similarly, in the past, people made the rational choice to sell themselves into indentured servitude. People also made the rational choice to sell their children to factory owners or into marriages for dowries. Typically, if people had bargaining power through, say, collective action, there would be a corrective force when a sudden unilateral decision to reduce compensation by 25% is made.
  - ars 8y ago
    > and intentionally blurs the line between employee and contractor for profit. What profit are they making by doing that? > Similarly, in the past, people made the rational choice to sell themselves into indentured servitude. People also made the rational choice to sell their children to factory owners or into marriages for dowries. And are you blaming the person who took them it, or the conditions that led to that? > Typically, if people had bargaining power through, say, collective action, there would be a corrective force when a sudden unilateral decision to reduce compensation by 25% is made. But they do have power. They have the power to not work for Uber. If they did that and there were not enough drivers then Uber would raise rates, either permanently or with Surge pricing. So they actually have MORE power than an employee in the same situation: The employee would lose their job, but Uber drivers can just refuse to work.
    - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
      > What profit are they making by doing that? They're shedding expensive employee entitlements and liabilities. > They have the power to not work for Uber. A person's ability to exercise their power is proportional to the their financial security. A hungry person will have to make decisions in desperation to secure their next meal. A person behind on their rent will take whatever opportunity they can to secure a roof over their head.
      - ars 8y ago
        > They're shedding expensive employee entitlements and liabilities. If they paid those, they would just pay the person less. It doesn't actually change anything financially for the company. >A person's ability to exercise their power is proportional to the their financial security. A hungry person will have to make decisions in desperation to secure their next meal. A person behind on their rent will take whatever opportunity they can to secure a roof over their head. And? What does any of that have to do with Uber? They offered a job, either the person is better off with it, or they aren't. It's not like there is a monopoly here. If Uber raised their rates there would be less trips taken, and less drivers would have jobs. If the drivers feel they aren't making enough money, they would drive less, or not at all. Then rates would go up (if by no other means then by surge pricing). I've talked to Uber drivers - by far, dwarfing all other issues, their #1 issue is there are not enough customers. If they raised rates there would be even fewer customers - how does that help anyone?
- currymj 8y ago
  people who haven't studied economics tend to think in moral terms that employees deserve a fair wage, and that it's wrong to exploit a desperate person. there may be lots of underlying reasons for these moral intuitions.
  - b_tterc_p 8y ago
    People who have studied economics know that insufficient wages lead to violent revolution.
- b_tterc_p 8y ago
  uber tends to imply greater earnings and less work than is actually required, encourages people to accumulate fixed costs in car investments, and then requires heavy hours to get the full benefits of the system. Information is hard to organize. It’s easy to say that everyone has the potential to be economically rational but practically weighing decisions is hard.
- wonnage 8y ago
  People like you miss the point that companies like Uber could pay drivers more at the expense of paying you less, and come up with all sorts of handwavy econ 101 justifications for why that's morally acceptable.
  - umanwizard 8y ago
    I don't work for Uber (or any "gig economy" company). Please engage with my actual arguments, rather than attacking what you (inaccurately) perceive to be my motivation for making them.
grecy 8y ago
> for many people, driving for Uber beats not being able to pay bills, going hungry or being homeless. So then nothing here is Uber's fault, and Uber shouldn't get any blame. The problem is the the country that make people unable to pay bills, get food or housing, right? I wish Americans would lampoon their own government/country as much as they lampoon big businesses.
- fucking_tragedy 8y ago
  > So then nothing here is Uber's fault, and Uber shouldn't get any blame. Interesting that this is the line of thought that you decided to follow and refute, despite the fact that I never claimed that Uber was at fault for those particular problems a person may face. I'm not really a fan of engaging strawmen. It's entirely possible that for some people, driving for Uber is a rational choice. It is also entirely possible that Uber is undervaluing their labor and taking advantage of them. Hope this helps.
  - grecy 8y ago
    > Interesting that this is the line of thought that you decided to follow and refute, despite the fact that I never claimed that Uber was at fault for those particular problems a person may face Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that you did say Uber was at fault... I was just trying to clarify the train of thought and understand the conclusions that we can draw. i.e. corporations are not at fault for people being poor and homeless and unable to get better jobs - that's clearly a government problem. Every minute we spend blaming Uber/WalMart/McDonalds/etc for that is another minute we're distracted from the actual cause of the problem, and identifying a fix.
  - chii 8y ago
    How can choosing uber rationally as a driver, and be taken advantage of by uber both be true at the same time? If a driver chose uber rationally, that means they have considered all their options, and this is their best one. Therefore, uber is not undervaluing their labour, nor is taking advantage (where 'taking advantage' means to trick or coerce through any means to lead to the person to choose uber rather than the proper rational choice).

umanwizard 8y ago

I think that's the point of the argument you're replying to. Assuming Uber drivers are rational, it means they're better off driving with Uber than they would be otherwise. In which case, why does Uber attract so much criticism? I'd understand if you criticized the general economic/social system that causes shitty jobs to be people's best option, but why criticize specific actors within it that (1) didn't create it, and (2) aren't making anyone worse off? People are totally free to live in a world without Uber, by refusing to work for them or use their app. If that would cause them to be homeless or destitute, then what exactly is the issue with Uber -- that it's not bringing as many people as far out of destitution as you might like?

fucking_tragedy 8y ago
> why does Uber attract so much criticism? Because you're looking at the benefits in a vacuum. This is a company the skirts the law and intentionally blurs the line between employee and contractor for profit. It is entirely possible that driving for Uber is a rational choice for some people, and at the same time, that Uber is undervaluing their labor and taking advantage of them. Similarly, in the past, people made the rational choice to sell themselves into indentured servitude. People also made the rational choice to sell their children to factory owners or into marriages for dowries. Typically, if people had bargaining power through, say, collective action, there would be a corrective force when a sudden unilateral decision to reduce compensation by 25% is made.
- ars 8y ago
  > and intentionally blurs the line between employee and contractor for profit. What profit are they making by doing that? > Similarly, in the past, people made the rational choice to sell themselves into indentured servitude. People also made the rational choice to sell their children to factory owners or into marriages for dowries. And are you blaming the person who took them it, or the conditions that led to that? > Typically, if people had bargaining power through, say, collective action, there would be a corrective force when a sudden unilateral decision to reduce compensation by 25% is made. But they do have power. They have the power to not work for Uber. If they did that and there were not enough drivers then Uber would raise rates, either permanently or with Surge pricing. So they actually have MORE power than an employee in the same situation: The employee would lose their job, but Uber drivers can just refuse to work.
  - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
    > What profit are they making by doing that? They're shedding expensive employee entitlements and liabilities. > They have the power to not work for Uber. A person's ability to exercise their power is proportional to the their financial security. A hungry person will have to make decisions in desperation to secure their next meal. A person behind on their rent will take whatever opportunity they can to secure a roof over their head.
    - ars 8y ago
      > They're shedding expensive employee entitlements and liabilities. If they paid those, they would just pay the person less. It doesn't actually change anything financially for the company. >A person's ability to exercise their power is proportional to the their financial security. A hungry person will have to make decisions in desperation to secure their next meal. A person behind on their rent will take whatever opportunity they can to secure a roof over their head. And? What does any of that have to do with Uber? They offered a job, either the person is better off with it, or they aren't. It's not like there is a monopoly here. If Uber raised their rates there would be less trips taken, and less drivers would have jobs. If the drivers feel they aren't making enough money, they would drive less, or not at all. Then rates would go up (if by no other means then by surge pricing). I've talked to Uber drivers - by far, dwarfing all other issues, their #1 issue is there are not enough customers. If they raised rates there would be even fewer customers - how does that help anyone?
currymj 8y ago
people who haven't studied economics tend to think in moral terms that employees deserve a fair wage, and that it's wrong to exploit a desperate person. there may be lots of underlying reasons for these moral intuitions.
- b_tterc_p 8y ago
  People who have studied economics know that insufficient wages lead to violent revolution.
b_tterc_p 8y ago
uber tends to imply greater earnings and less work than is actually required, encourages people to accumulate fixed costs in car investments, and then requires heavy hours to get the full benefits of the system. Information is hard to organize. It’s easy to say that everyone has the potential to be economically rational but practically weighing decisions is hard.
wonnage 8y ago
People like you miss the point that companies like Uber could pay drivers more at the expense of paying you less, and come up with all sorts of handwavy econ 101 justifications for why that's morally acceptable.
- umanwizard 8y ago
  I don't work for Uber (or any "gig economy" company). Please engage with my actual arguments, rather than attacking what you (inaccurately) perceive to be my motivation for making them.

grecy 8y ago

> for many people, driving for Uber beats not being able to pay bills, going hungry or being homeless. So then nothing here is Uber's fault, and Uber shouldn't get any blame. The problem is the the country that make people unable to pay bills, get food or housing, right? I wish Americans would lampoon their own government/country as much as they lampoon big businesses.

fucking_tragedy 8y ago
> So then nothing here is Uber's fault, and Uber shouldn't get any blame. Interesting that this is the line of thought that you decided to follow and refute, despite the fact that I never claimed that Uber was at fault for those particular problems a person may face. I'm not really a fan of engaging strawmen. It's entirely possible that for some people, driving for Uber is a rational choice. It is also entirely possible that Uber is undervaluing their labor and taking advantage of them. Hope this helps.
- grecy 8y ago
  > Interesting that this is the line of thought that you decided to follow and refute, despite the fact that I never claimed that Uber was at fault for those particular problems a person may face Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that you did say Uber was at fault... I was just trying to clarify the train of thought and understand the conclusions that we can draw. i.e. corporations are not at fault for people being poor and homeless and unable to get better jobs - that's clearly a government problem. Every minute we spend blaming Uber/WalMart/McDonalds/etc for that is another minute we're distracted from the actual cause of the problem, and identifying a fix.
- chii 8y ago
  How can choosing uber rationally as a driver, and be taken advantage of by uber both be true at the same time? If a driver chose uber rationally, that means they have considered all their options, and this is their best one. Therefore, uber is not undervaluing their labour, nor is taking advantage (where 'taking advantage' means to trick or coerce through any means to lead to the person to choose uber rather than the proper rational choice).