4 ms·

I suppose it's nice to hear that Uber is not uniquely exploitive of drivers - or even the worst, if I'm understanding things correctly.

save_ferris 7y ago
It's nice to hear that a company we all thought was brutally exploiting drivers isn't even the worst offender? What exactly is nice about that?
- xmprt 7y ago
  I don't see how Lyft or Uber are brutally exploiting drivers. They could be paying more but there's nothing forcing drivers to drive. The only people I see ride sharing companies harming are the taxi drivers who are stuck with medallions.
  - save_ferris 7y ago
    > They could be paying more but there's nothing forcing drivers to drive Drivers take the low pay largely because they lack better alternatives. As long as that remains true and drivers can't negotiate pay, the drivers are absolutely being exploited. Rideshare companies aren't going to raise rates because there's no labor competition to threaten their workforce and boost wages. On top of that, drivers can't negotiate pay. How many people do you really think take jobs like that with low pay and no negotiating power because they really really want to? Many of the drivers I've ridden with don't have many other options.
    - mactrey 7y ago
      But how are Uber and Lyft specifically exploitative in ways that e.g. WalMart, McDonalds, Starbucks, local landscaping companies, etc. aren't? Those jobs all pay roughly similar wages.
      - icebraining 7y ago
        Or, for that matter, non-profits like Meals-on-Wheels, Home of Guiding Hands or Habitat for Humanity.
      - save_ferris 7y ago
        The fact that Uber and Lyft aren't alone in no way invalidates their behavior. "But everyone is doing it" is not an effective argument here. It's a major, major problem that everyone is doing it. There's an entire political movement eager to campaign on that has been gaining energy the last few years because people are losing faith in the current system.
        mactrey 7y ago
        It doesn't validate their behavior but it points toward the issue being systematic within the U.S. economy rather than due to the corporate governance at Lyft and Uber.
      - rileymat2 7y ago
        None of those businesses expect employees to take capital risk by categorizing them as contractors. They are quite different in that respect.
        gridlockd 7y ago
        I'm quite sure these companies work with plenty of contractors, you just haven't heard of them. I would also wager that the vast majority of ordinary taxi drivers are self-employed and working for some agency, an arrangement not too dissimilar to that of Uber/Lyft.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > They could be paying more... Could they though? Can Uber be expected to lose money at an even faster rate?
gridlockd 7y ago
I always wonder how it is "exploitation" of drivers to bring them customers and pay them at a loss, thanks to venture capital. Can you explain this to me?
- b_tterc_p 7y ago
  Let’s imagine a slave cotton plantation was unprofitable due to poor weather, some burglary, and other external factors. Is the cotton plantation not exploiting the slaves? The final profit margin has nothing to do with the concept of exploitation.
  - el_dev_hell 7y ago
    > Let’s imagine a slave cotton plantation was unprofitable due to poor weather, some burglary, and other external factors. Is the cotton plantation not exploiting the slaves? You don't see the glaring differences between a slave on a cotton plantation and an Uber driver?
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      The original argument has two independent parts: 1. Access to customer base 2. Subsidizing the service provider over market rates You're responding to an argument that is claiming that the second thing is irrelevant to the conclusion. i.e. whether or not you are subsidizing the service provider at a loss is irrelevant for the exploitation value. The exploitation is coming from elsewhere, and the subsidizing doesn't do anything about it. I, personally, don't think they are being exploited but I agree that the subsidy doesn't remove exploitation if it did exist.
      - b_tterc_p 7y ago
        Yes this is what I meant. Slavery is a convenient example where exploitation is obviously occurring but could still encounter the same loss as the parent had claimed was proof of no exploitation.
- 7y ago

save_ferris 7y ago

It's nice to hear that a company we all thought was brutally exploiting drivers isn't even the worst offender? What exactly is nice about that?

xmprt 7y ago
I don't see how Lyft or Uber are brutally exploiting drivers. They could be paying more but there's nothing forcing drivers to drive. The only people I see ride sharing companies harming are the taxi drivers who are stuck with medallions.
- save_ferris 7y ago
  > They could be paying more but there's nothing forcing drivers to drive Drivers take the low pay largely because they lack better alternatives. As long as that remains true and drivers can't negotiate pay, the drivers are absolutely being exploited. Rideshare companies aren't going to raise rates because there's no labor competition to threaten their workforce and boost wages. On top of that, drivers can't negotiate pay. How many people do you really think take jobs like that with low pay and no negotiating power because they really really want to? Many of the drivers I've ridden with don't have many other options.
  - mactrey 7y ago
    But how are Uber and Lyft specifically exploitative in ways that e.g. WalMart, McDonalds, Starbucks, local landscaping companies, etc. aren't? Those jobs all pay roughly similar wages.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      Or, for that matter, non-profits like Meals-on-Wheels, Home of Guiding Hands or Habitat for Humanity.
    - save_ferris 7y ago
      The fact that Uber and Lyft aren't alone in no way invalidates their behavior. "But everyone is doing it" is not an effective argument here. It's a major, major problem that everyone is doing it. There's an entire political movement eager to campaign on that has been gaining energy the last few years because people are losing faith in the current system.
      - mactrey 7y ago
        It doesn't validate their behavior but it points toward the issue being systematic within the U.S. economy rather than due to the corporate governance at Lyft and Uber.
    - rileymat2 7y ago
      None of those businesses expect employees to take capital risk by categorizing them as contractors. They are quite different in that respect.
      - gridlockd 7y ago
        I'm quite sure these companies work with plenty of contractors, you just haven't heard of them. I would also wager that the vast majority of ordinary taxi drivers are self-employed and working for some agency, an arrangement not too dissimilar to that of Uber/Lyft.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > They could be paying more... Could they though? Can Uber be expected to lose money at an even faster rate?

gridlockd 7y ago

I always wonder how it is "exploitation" of drivers to bring them customers and pay them at a loss, thanks to venture capital. Can you explain this to me?

b_tterc_p 7y ago
Let’s imagine a slave cotton plantation was unprofitable due to poor weather, some burglary, and other external factors. Is the cotton plantation not exploiting the slaves? The final profit margin has nothing to do with the concept of exploitation.
- el_dev_hell 7y ago
  > Let’s imagine a slave cotton plantation was unprofitable due to poor weather, some burglary, and other external factors. Is the cotton plantation not exploiting the slaves? You don't see the glaring differences between a slave on a cotton plantation and an Uber driver?
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    The original argument has two independent parts: 1. Access to customer base 2. Subsidizing the service provider over market rates You're responding to an argument that is claiming that the second thing is irrelevant to the conclusion. i.e. whether or not you are subsidizing the service provider at a loss is irrelevant for the exploitation value. The exploitation is coming from elsewhere, and the subsidizing doesn't do anything about it. I, personally, don't think they are being exploited but I agree that the subsidy doesn't remove exploitation if it did exist.
    - b_tterc_p 7y ago
      Yes this is what I meant. Slavery is a convenient example where exploitation is obviously occurring but could still encounter the same loss as the parent had claimed was proof of no exploitation.
7y ago