3 ms·

You're confusing poorly paid contractors with highly paid and sought contractors. The latter can indeed leave at any time and be fine. Perhaps take a sabbatica

by blub 7y ago

You're confusing poorly paid contractors with highly paid and sought contractors. The latter can indeed leave at any time and be fine. Perhaps take a sabbatical at the sea side. The former will have their livelihood threatened if they make use of that flexibility, hence they have in reality no flexibility at all. They dance to the tune of Uber, Amazon and other bullies.

ShrinkingWild 7y ago
Surely they "dance to the tune" because in reality their work just isn't worth enough to allow them that freedom of choice? That's hardly Ubers fault and I don't see why Uber should have to suffer to make up for that.
- blub 7y ago
  The state sets lower limits to what work should be worth, in order to avoid unpleasant social outcomes, such as worker abuse. It also sets a minimum of benefits companies should offer, in order to fulfil their side of the social contract - being allowed to safely do business and have access to capital, workers, etc. If Uber, or any other company invents a type of work which cannot be compensated according to those rules, then they do not have a viable business and will go bankrupt or be fined out of existence. In practice, they've managed to find enough loopholes to survive, while making the lives of many of their employees miserable.
  - ShrinkingWild 7y ago
    Its abhorrent to me that you think the "social good" is a good enough reason to violate the rights of the individual. Access to food is a social good, but we don't say we should have the state provide universal access to food. We don't say that in housing. You could argue that access to technology is a social good, should the state be providing universal technology? Some people believe anyone with a skin colour that isn't white is adding to "unpleasant social outcomes. My point really isn't that these things are or aren't social goods, but that the limits to social good and what it can be used to justify are far too vague and far reaching, ending up with the line being drawn only by the person who happens to be in charge at the time. Social good is the justifying call of tyrants. I advocate for individual rights and property rights for everyone, allowing them to be free from the state using force. That includes the business men making decisions over their companies which is their property and their employees who choose whether or not they want to sell their labour to them.
skookumchuck 7y ago
If they have no choice but be slaves to Uber today, what did they do before Uber? Uber is a very recent development.
- blub 7y ago
  Who knows, maybe they were enjoying one of those formerly secure jobs that was either automated out of existence or ruined by "clever" companies through loopholes like not offering job contracts.
chii 7y ago
> You're confusing poorly paid contractors with highly paid and sought contractors. there's no difference. If your skillset is sought after, you get more money (by exercising your market demand). The fact that there are many poorly paid people is not a problem of the companies paying them poorly, but of society not creating equal opportunities for those people (e.g., for education) to skill up.
- crashbunny 7y ago
  Yes, everyone should have the opportunity for education, but if no one can live on the pay of an uber driver so everyone skills up to get a better paying job, who will drive the ubers? I think everyone working fulltime should have a liveable wage.
  - ShrinkingWild 7y ago
    No one would, uber would be forced to either pay higher or go out of business due to a lack of supply in drivers. As it stands though, supply of drivers way outweighs demand for drivers, so they get paid less. A "liveable wage", whatever that is, isn't a workable solution for a lot of businesses, simply because the actual value of their work may be lower than the liveable wage. Now instead of getting some money for food to eat or a place to stay, they now get nothing because it just isn't viable to pay the liveable wage for the value they supply.
    - lagadu 7y ago
      I argument that if a business can't provide a livable wage to its full time employees, then the business isn't viable.
      - chii 7y ago
        for these sorts of low-value jobs, something has to give - either employees don't get a livable wage and the business survives, or the business doesn't survive due to too high wage cost. The option where the business survives, but also pays a livable wage, can't exist. If it could, then a competitor could also out-compete them by just not paying a livable wage!

by blub 7y ago

ShrinkingWild 7y ago

Surely they "dance to the tune" because in reality their work just isn't worth enough to allow them that freedom of choice? That's hardly Ubers fault and I don't see why Uber should have to suffer to make up for that.

blub 7y ago
The state sets lower limits to what work should be worth, in order to avoid unpleasant social outcomes, such as worker abuse. It also sets a minimum of benefits companies should offer, in order to fulfil their side of the social contract - being allowed to safely do business and have access to capital, workers, etc. If Uber, or any other company invents a type of work which cannot be compensated according to those rules, then they do not have a viable business and will go bankrupt or be fined out of existence. In practice, they've managed to find enough loopholes to survive, while making the lives of many of their employees miserable.
- ShrinkingWild 7y ago
  Its abhorrent to me that you think the "social good" is a good enough reason to violate the rights of the individual. Access to food is a social good, but we don't say we should have the state provide universal access to food. We don't say that in housing. You could argue that access to technology is a social good, should the state be providing universal technology? Some people believe anyone with a skin colour that isn't white is adding to "unpleasant social outcomes. My point really isn't that these things are or aren't social goods, but that the limits to social good and what it can be used to justify are far too vague and far reaching, ending up with the line being drawn only by the person who happens to be in charge at the time. Social good is the justifying call of tyrants. I advocate for individual rights and property rights for everyone, allowing them to be free from the state using force. That includes the business men making decisions over their companies which is their property and their employees who choose whether or not they want to sell their labour to them.

skookumchuck 7y ago

If they have no choice but be slaves to Uber today, what did they do before Uber? Uber is a very recent development.

blub 7y ago
Who knows, maybe they were enjoying one of those formerly secure jobs that was either automated out of existence or ruined by "clever" companies through loopholes like not offering job contracts.

chii 7y ago

> You're confusing poorly paid contractors with highly paid and sought contractors. there's no difference. If your skillset is sought after, you get more money (by exercising your market demand). The fact that there are many poorly paid people is not a problem of the companies paying them poorly, but of society not creating equal opportunities for those people (e.g., for education) to skill up.

crashbunny 7y ago
Yes, everyone should have the opportunity for education, but if no one can live on the pay of an uber driver so everyone skills up to get a better paying job, who will drive the ubers? I think everyone working fulltime should have a liveable wage.
- ShrinkingWild 7y ago
  No one would, uber would be forced to either pay higher or go out of business due to a lack of supply in drivers. As it stands though, supply of drivers way outweighs demand for drivers, so they get paid less. A "liveable wage", whatever that is, isn't a workable solution for a lot of businesses, simply because the actual value of their work may be lower than the liveable wage. Now instead of getting some money for food to eat or a place to stay, they now get nothing because it just isn't viable to pay the liveable wage for the value they supply.
  - lagadu 7y ago
    I argument that if a business can't provide a livable wage to its full time employees, then the business isn't viable.
    - chii 7y ago
      for these sorts of low-value jobs, something has to give - either employees don't get a livable wage and the business survives, or the business doesn't survive due to too high wage cost. The option where the business survives, but also pays a livable wage, can't exist. If it could, then a competitor could also out-compete them by just not paying a livable wage!