12 ms·

> I feel bad for the drivers that are being taken advantage of I have no idea why people think this. You know how people stop driving? They just don't do it.

> I feel bad for the drivers that are being taken advantage of I have no idea why people think this. You know how people stop driving? They just don't do it. There's no contract to break, there's no boss to tell. They just stop. In fact, they have to go out of their way to drive! It is entirely volunteer work, every single time. It's the same thing people used to say about Walmart destroying mom-and-pop stores, but Walmart doesn't do anything. If they build a Walmart, nothing happens until people flock to work there, and again nothing happens until people flock to shop there.

reaperducer 6y ago
It is entirely volunteer work, every single time After so many hours of your stomach grumbling, you accept bad work involuntarily.
- kryogen1c 6y ago
  > you accept bad work involuntarily. Someone always says this, but its an emotional, irrational non-argument and hard to respond. Your argument is that someone unemployed and starving found a job where they could feed themselves - but its not a good enough job? What exactly is your argument?
  - jedberg 6y ago
    > Your argument is that someone unemployed and starving found a job where they could feed themselves Ah but that's the rub. They still can't feed themselves, but it's the only job in town, and some money is better than no money. If we don't create a set of rules that prevents the behavior of places like Walmart, it allows them to create a monopoly of available jobs in an area by being the only one who can operate profitably (or can absorb a loss until all other choices are gone). At that point they can create jobs that aren't good enough, but also leave no other choice.
    - kryogen1c 6y ago
      > They still can't feed themselves [...] some money is better than no money. I dont see how the first half changes the argument, as the second half points out. > If we don't create a set of rules that prevents the behavior of places like Walmart We have rules. Monopoly-busting is a fundamental role of the government. Corporations can accrue more power than their surrounding communities, as history has shown. Besides, other corporations oppose the actions of Walmart, keeping them in check - capitalism!
      - jedberg 6y ago
        What you describe is a Libertarian fantasy. I used to believe in that too. But the real world doesn't work that way.
        kryogen1c 6y ago
        > What you describe is a Libertarian fantasy. lol! Guilty as charged, I suppose. > I used to believe in that too. What is the other option? To dive into the deep end: the failure mode of capitalism appears to be the blending together of government and corporations/money to reduce the regulations that prevent strictly free-markets from being inherently self-destructive. However, the other options start from this premise! When the government already owns AND regulates the corporations, the only game in town for monopoly busting is violent revolution. > But the real world doesn't work that way. Previously, American capitalism has driven an increase in the world's standard of living by a staggering amount. Currently, it certainly appears there are some fundamental flaws not being addressed, but I don't know what we should do aside from return to the same capitalist system just without the corruption.
        jedberg 6y ago
        I think libertarian ideals with a basic social safety net is ideal. Make it so that employee protections aren't necessary by giving people the safety to walk away from bad contracts. If we had universal healthcare and UBI and minimum income, you wouldn't need minimum wage laws anymore, because no one would take a job for $1/hr if they could just sit at home, and that's a good thing. Or maybe they would because that extra $8 a day would mean something to them. But at least they would have the freedom to do it. I'm ok with the government being in charge of wealth redistribution, because that is where the pure libertarian system fails. There is no safety for people who can't work, just aren't smart enough to work, or were not born into a situation where they can get the basic education needed to be successful. One of the main problems with libertarianism is that how you fare is highly dependent on what resources you start with (ie what you were born with and what your parents have). If we can even that out a bit, the system would work much better.
  - james-mcelwain 6y ago
    > emotional, irrational non-argument Please avoid calling arguments emotional / irrational just because you disagree. The parent argument is that people are forced into bad situations by contingencies that aren't facts of nature but human policy choices. There's nothing emotional or irrational about that.
    - kryogen1c 6y ago
      > Please avoid calling arguments emotional / irrational just because you disagree. I wasn't. > people are forced into bad situations by contingencies that aren't facts of nature but human policy choices. What human policy choices are forcing ride-sharing companies to provide jobs to people that HN commenters think are substandard but 100% of people do willfully?
      - james-mcelwain 6y ago
        You're going to have to do more work to justify dismissing an argument out of hand than simply calling it emotional. > 100% of people do willfully? You've personally interviewed every gig worker? Do you really think every single one of them would agree that there are no coercive forces at play here?
        xyzzyz 6y ago
        The drivers might feel that they need the job, and they even might feel “coerced” in some abstract sense, but most definitely it’s not Uber or Lyft that’s coercing them to drive, and you’d have a hard time finding drivers who believe they are forced to drive by Uber. They often believe they aren’t being paid enough, but if they feel coerced to work, it’s not by Uber, but rather by hard facts of the social reality they found themselves in.
        james-mcelwain 6y ago
        I never claimed that Uber or Lyft coerced them to work, so I'm not sure where we disagree.
- bdamm 6y ago
  It isn't Uber's responsibility to provide that work, nor is it a person's requirement to drive for Uber.
- whatok 6y ago
  What "bad work" were people doing before Uber and Lyft? Were all of these people previously unemployed before these companies came around? Did any of these drivers quit other employment to be an Uber or Lyft driver?
tyree731 6y ago
In the case of Walmart, the issue is that Walmart operates at such scale, and can afford to take short term losses, allowing them to make the "volunteer" behavior of individuals in the community be that smaller stores go out of business, giving people few other choices as to where to shop and work other than Walmart.
- kryogen1c 6y ago
  > make the "volunteer" behavior of individuals why do you put this in quotes? do you think people are not responsible for their own actions when they choose where to spend their money?
  - strken 6y ago
    Because it's voluntary, not volunteer - the former is unambiguously about free choice while the latter can imply working without pay.
    - kryogen1c 6y ago
      > the latter can imply working without pay. the phrase ""volunteer" behavior" was about people shopping at Walmart, not people working there so I don't understand your point.
  - tyree731 6y ago
    I meant to type "voluntary". To make a tortured analogy to illustrate a point, are the victims in the movie Saw not responsible for their own deaths, as they voluntarily chose the actions which lead to their untimely deaths? Voluntary choices don't imply preferrable or desirable choices. When Walmart arrives and lowers prices to the point of bankrupting small business in the town, residents certainly welcome the provided conveniences and lower prices, but are faced with the choice between paying higher prices, or paying lower prices and destroying small business within their towns. Humans aren't perfect economic machines, so they're likely to pick the lower prices, paying the long-term consequences for those decisions. Hence, people don't want Walmarts moving into their towns, since the outcomes are fairly predictable at that point.
dangus 6y ago
On the contrary, rideshare driving shares many similarities with non-contract work: - There is no salary negotiation for each job. Earnings are unknown until after the job is completed. This is worse than both normal 1099 contract work and hourly wage work - but it more closely resembles hourly work than a freelancing situation. - Drivers do not choose work based on accepting the full parameters of the job (pickup and dropoff location). They have to accept the job without knowing all the conditions like a contractor would. - The company tells the “contractor” what to do in the sense that refusing too many pickups punishes and de-platforms the driver. In other words, once you are “on the clock” you have to perform all tasks assigned to you or face disciplinary action, a subordinate situation similar to an hourly job. The only difference is that you can clock in or out when you want.
- forgotmylogin2 6y ago
  I'm not sure what the Uber/Lyft apps look like from the driver perspective currently, but they could theoretically be made to accept those parameters. For example, the app could show drivers a list of nearby requested rides (pickup and dropoff), have the drivers bid on each ride, and grant the ride to the driver who bids the lowest (or let the rider pick). If ride-sharing apps switched to such a system would it then satisfy you to declare drivers contractors? I'd expect Uber and Lyft could easily implement a system to do just that, but I'm not sure it would make the situation any better for riders or drivers. Riders would now have to wait longer to get a ride and drivers would have to be constantly typing bids into the app to try to win their next trip. It's not obvious to me that this would alter driver compensation in any meaningful way.
  - dangus 6y ago
    In theory Lyft and Uber could also hire drivers as employees and provide healthcare and retirement benefits, too.
aprao 6y ago
By that logic, what's even the point of making laws to protect the rights of employees? As long as working is voluntary, people should be able to walk away from abusive workplaces, correct?
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  A UBI would make things a lot simpler.
  - bdamm 6y ago
    Wouldn't a UBI just raise the floor on the costs of basic things, like rent and rice?
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      Possibly, but only because labor costs would rise. It would be a wealth transfer. Rents might rise, but so would taxes for those collecting rent (presumably they are on the upper end of the income/wealth scale).
thebradbain 6y ago
You argument assumes that everyone doing what is best for themselves _individually_ is best for everyone _collectively_, which is a tragedy of the commons type scenario. It could be argued that the very idea government – which in some way is in charge of prioritizing and allocating resources on a macro scale – is founded on the antithesis of this assumption: that in the long run what's best for everyone isn't always aligned with the short term, and they're tasked with the balancing act. Different governments tend toward different extremes, of course, but every government is on the spectrum. If individuals doing what was best for themselves at the present moment was intrinsically tied to longterm collective stability and wellbeing, then we wouldn't need government at all! This is all an abstract way of saying that: yes, all of those customers and employees at a Walmart in small town may be doing what's best for themselves individually by working and shopping there at the time, but once Walmart puts all those mom-and-pop shops out of business, the only place for people to work now is Walmart, the only place for people to shop now is Walmart, those who set up shops in the town (who are statistically more likely to have kids and homes in the area) now have nothing tying them to the town (and indeed, may be incentivized to move out to somewhere else to set up shop!), home vacancies go up, community events die out, and suddenly your town is a glorified Walmart parking lot off the side of a highway, and not much else. So yes, you yourself may have gotten your eggs for 20% cheaper for a time, but was it worth the longterm detriments to your home? Hyperbolic, yes, but I've personally seen this happen to a small Texas town I drive through year after year (though, as with any rural town, there's a lot of other factors at play): eventually the protests stopped and Walmart set up shop next to the local grocery store. The grocery store went out of business, even though everyone knew the owners. The grocery store lot sat and still sits vacant. Eventually the grocers moved away with their family. The sports team shuttered in the next 3 years. Then the local school merged with the new, consolidated county school. Then the Walmart eventually closed to lack of customers. The "downtown" is a shell of what it once was, with most businesses closed and some historic buildings once worth being proud of just 10 years ago now literally crumbling beyond repair. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/walmart-effect.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/walmart-effect.asp
- thebradbain 6y ago
  As an addendum, it's not like this had to happen, even if Walmart moved in: one possibly politically extreme example is the town government could have mandated Walmart could only sell certain things, or put a price floor on certain items, so as to incentivize people to go to the grocery store for some things and Walmart for others (particularly things the grocery store didn't carry). This could have been a better situation for everybody long term – the grocery store might still be in business, the Walmart could still be there, and the citizens of the town could still be saving money; nobody would be making as much profit or saving as much in purchases as they _could be_, but everyone, not just one entity, still comes out ahead. Of course, in our current winner-take-all society, such an approach would be a nonstarter (and probably even illegal). Prioritize sustainable growth over short term growth.
marshray 6y ago
> I have no idea why people think this. How often has your ride been in a very new car? The middleman companies actively incentivize the drivers to take on significant personal debt. In my view, that's evidence of longer term contracts in play.
- kryogen1c 6y ago
  > evidence of longer term contracts in play. Contracts between whom? Uber/Lyft and auto companies?
  - marshray 6y ago
    The worker and the auto lender.
erdos4d 6y ago
I'm sorry, you sound extremely delusional. We don't live in a world where most people have the resources to "vote with their wallet" on these matters. You drive for Uber or shop at Walmart because it's the work you can get or the store you can afford. People do these things because they don't really have a choice and the raw realities of our society and its economic structure dictate the decision most people make. Maybe you are rich enough to not understand this, in which case I encourage you to go ask an Uber driver why they are out there driving around when they have so many other well-paying options and I bet they give you some education.
- kryogen1c 6y ago
  > why they are out there driving around when they have so many other well-paying options Actually, if you read my other replies in the thread I make the opposite argument. People not having other options is an argument for ride-sharing companies, not against them. If they can't find work elsewhere, how are these jobs not good enough?
  - Avicebron 6y ago
    So you're argument is that they should be grateful that they could be wage slaves on the most precarious edge of society because they weren't lucky enough to be a software engineer/VC? Don't you see why this comes off as problematic?
    - xyzzyz 6y ago
      What does “problematic” even mean? Either they have other options, in which case driving is entirely voluntary, or don’t, in which case prohibiting them from it is outrageously evil. I would also like everyone to live life of leisure and free of worries, but you cannot legislate this into existence just like that. Banning driving for hire won’t make better options appear.
    - manfredo 6y ago
      When the alternative to being a "wage slave" is being unemployed, then no this doesn't come off as problematic at all. Lyft and Uber drivers aren't slaves. They chose this line of work on their own volition. You might think that those jobs aren't good - and for someone with your skillset that's probably true. But what makes you think you're more qualified to make life decisions for people you don't know? As the above poster wrote: ride share drivers that can get better jobs quit and take their jobs. It turns out, though, that there are a lot of people for which driving for a ride share company is their best opportunity for their skills and schedules.

reaperducer 6y ago

It is entirely volunteer work, every single time After so many hours of your stomach grumbling, you accept bad work involuntarily.

kryogen1c 6y ago
> you accept bad work involuntarily. Someone always says this, but its an emotional, irrational non-argument and hard to respond. Your argument is that someone unemployed and starving found a job where they could feed themselves - but its not a good enough job? What exactly is your argument?
- jedberg 6y ago
  > Your argument is that someone unemployed and starving found a job where they could feed themselves Ah but that's the rub. They still can't feed themselves, but it's the only job in town, and some money is better than no money. If we don't create a set of rules that prevents the behavior of places like Walmart, it allows them to create a monopoly of available jobs in an area by being the only one who can operate profitably (or can absorb a loss until all other choices are gone). At that point they can create jobs that aren't good enough, but also leave no other choice.
  - kryogen1c 6y ago
    > They still can't feed themselves [...] some money is better than no money. I dont see how the first half changes the argument, as the second half points out. > If we don't create a set of rules that prevents the behavior of places like Walmart We have rules. Monopoly-busting is a fundamental role of the government. Corporations can accrue more power than their surrounding communities, as history has shown. Besides, other corporations oppose the actions of Walmart, keeping them in check - capitalism!
    - jedberg 6y ago
      What you describe is a Libertarian fantasy. I used to believe in that too. But the real world doesn't work that way.
      - kryogen1c 6y ago
        > What you describe is a Libertarian fantasy. lol! Guilty as charged, I suppose. > I used to believe in that too. What is the other option? To dive into the deep end: the failure mode of capitalism appears to be the blending together of government and corporations/money to reduce the regulations that prevent strictly free-markets from being inherently self-destructive. However, the other options start from this premise! When the government already owns AND regulates the corporations, the only game in town for monopoly busting is violent revolution. > But the real world doesn't work that way. Previously, American capitalism has driven an increase in the world's standard of living by a staggering amount. Currently, it certainly appears there are some fundamental flaws not being addressed, but I don't know what we should do aside from return to the same capitalist system just without the corruption.
        jedberg 6y ago
        I think libertarian ideals with a basic social safety net is ideal. Make it so that employee protections aren't necessary by giving people the safety to walk away from bad contracts. If we had universal healthcare and UBI and minimum income, you wouldn't need minimum wage laws anymore, because no one would take a job for $1/hr if they could just sit at home, and that's a good thing. Or maybe they would because that extra $8 a day would mean something to them. But at least they would have the freedom to do it. I'm ok with the government being in charge of wealth redistribution, because that is where the pure libertarian system fails. There is no safety for people who can't work, just aren't smart enough to work, or were not born into a situation where they can get the basic education needed to be successful. One of the main problems with libertarianism is that how you fare is highly dependent on what resources you start with (ie what you were born with and what your parents have). If we can even that out a bit, the system would work much better.
- james-mcelwain 6y ago
  > emotional, irrational non-argument Please avoid calling arguments emotional / irrational just because you disagree. The parent argument is that people are forced into bad situations by contingencies that aren't facts of nature but human policy choices. There's nothing emotional or irrational about that.
  - kryogen1c 6y ago
    > Please avoid calling arguments emotional / irrational just because you disagree. I wasn't. > people are forced into bad situations by contingencies that aren't facts of nature but human policy choices. What human policy choices are forcing ride-sharing companies to provide jobs to people that HN commenters think are substandard but 100% of people do willfully?
    - james-mcelwain 6y ago
      You're going to have to do more work to justify dismissing an argument out of hand than simply calling it emotional. > 100% of people do willfully? You've personally interviewed every gig worker? Do you really think every single one of them would agree that there are no coercive forces at play here?
      - xyzzyz 6y ago
        The drivers might feel that they need the job, and they even might feel “coerced” in some abstract sense, but most definitely it’s not Uber or Lyft that’s coercing them to drive, and you’d have a hard time finding drivers who believe they are forced to drive by Uber. They often believe they aren’t being paid enough, but if they feel coerced to work, it’s not by Uber, but rather by hard facts of the social reality they found themselves in.
        james-mcelwain 6y ago
        I never claimed that Uber or Lyft coerced them to work, so I'm not sure where we disagree.
bdamm 6y ago
It isn't Uber's responsibility to provide that work, nor is it a person's requirement to drive for Uber.
whatok 6y ago
What "bad work" were people doing before Uber and Lyft? Were all of these people previously unemployed before these companies came around? Did any of these drivers quit other employment to be an Uber or Lyft driver?

tyree731 6y ago

In the case of Walmart, the issue is that Walmart operates at such scale, and can afford to take short term losses, allowing them to make the "volunteer" behavior of individuals in the community be that smaller stores go out of business, giving people few other choices as to where to shop and work other than Walmart.

kryogen1c 6y ago
> make the "volunteer" behavior of individuals why do you put this in quotes? do you think people are not responsible for their own actions when they choose where to spend their money?
- strken 6y ago
  Because it's voluntary, not volunteer - the former is unambiguously about free choice while the latter can imply working without pay.
  - kryogen1c 6y ago
    > the latter can imply working without pay. the phrase ""volunteer" behavior" was about people shopping at Walmart, not people working there so I don't understand your point.
- tyree731 6y ago
  I meant to type "voluntary". To make a tortured analogy to illustrate a point, are the victims in the movie Saw not responsible for their own deaths, as they voluntarily chose the actions which lead to their untimely deaths? Voluntary choices don't imply preferrable or desirable choices. When Walmart arrives and lowers prices to the point of bankrupting small business in the town, residents certainly welcome the provided conveniences and lower prices, but are faced with the choice between paying higher prices, or paying lower prices and destroying small business within their towns. Humans aren't perfect economic machines, so they're likely to pick the lower prices, paying the long-term consequences for those decisions. Hence, people don't want Walmarts moving into their towns, since the outcomes are fairly predictable at that point.

dangus 6y ago

On the contrary, rideshare driving shares many similarities with non-contract work: - There is no salary negotiation for each job. Earnings are unknown until after the job is completed. This is worse than both normal 1099 contract work and hourly wage work - but it more closely resembles hourly work than a freelancing situation. - Drivers do not choose work based on accepting the full parameters of the job (pickup and dropoff location). They have to accept the job without knowing all the conditions like a contractor would. - The company tells the “contractor” what to do in the sense that refusing too many pickups punishes and de-platforms the driver. In other words, once you are “on the clock” you have to perform all tasks assigned to you or face disciplinary action, a subordinate situation similar to an hourly job. The only difference is that you can clock in or out when you want.

forgotmylogin2 6y ago
I'm not sure what the Uber/Lyft apps look like from the driver perspective currently, but they could theoretically be made to accept those parameters. For example, the app could show drivers a list of nearby requested rides (pickup and dropoff), have the drivers bid on each ride, and grant the ride to the driver who bids the lowest (or let the rider pick). If ride-sharing apps switched to such a system would it then satisfy you to declare drivers contractors? I'd expect Uber and Lyft could easily implement a system to do just that, but I'm not sure it would make the situation any better for riders or drivers. Riders would now have to wait longer to get a ride and drivers would have to be constantly typing bids into the app to try to win their next trip. It's not obvious to me that this would alter driver compensation in any meaningful way.
- dangus 6y ago
  In theory Lyft and Uber could also hire drivers as employees and provide healthcare and retirement benefits, too.

aprao 6y ago

By that logic, what's even the point of making laws to protect the rights of employees? As long as working is voluntary, people should be able to walk away from abusive workplaces, correct?

lotsofpulp 6y ago
A UBI would make things a lot simpler.
- bdamm 6y ago
  Wouldn't a UBI just raise the floor on the costs of basic things, like rent and rice?
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Possibly, but only because labor costs would rise. It would be a wealth transfer. Rents might rise, but so would taxes for those collecting rent (presumably they are on the upper end of the income/wealth scale).

thebradbain 6y ago

You argument assumes that everyone doing what is best for themselves _individually_ is best for everyone _collectively_, which is a tragedy of the commons type scenario. It could be argued that the very idea government – which in some way is in charge of prioritizing and allocating resources on a macro scale – is founded on the antithesis of this assumption: that in the long run what's best for everyone isn't always aligned with the short term, and they're tasked with the balancing act. Different governments tend toward different extremes, of course, but every government is on the spectrum. If individuals doing what was best for themselves at the present moment was intrinsically tied to longterm collective stability and wellbeing, then we wouldn't need government at all! This is all an abstract way of saying that: yes, all of those customers and employees at a Walmart in small town may be doing what's best for themselves individually by working and shopping there at the time, but once Walmart puts all those mom-and-pop shops out of business, the only place for people to work now is Walmart, the only place for people to shop now is Walmart, those who set up shops in the town (who are statistically more likely to have kids and homes in the area) now have nothing tying them to the town (and indeed, may be incentivized to move out to somewhere else to set up shop!), home vacancies go up, community events die out, and suddenly your town is a glorified Walmart parking lot off the side of a highway, and not much else. So yes, you yourself may have gotten your eggs for 20% cheaper for a time, but was it worth the longterm detriments to your home? Hyperbolic, yes, but I've personally seen this happen to a small Texas town I drive through year after year (though, as with any rural town, there's a lot of other factors at play): eventually the protests stopped and Walmart set up shop next to the local grocery store. The grocery store went out of business, even though everyone knew the owners. The grocery store lot sat and still sits vacant. Eventually the grocers moved away with their family. The sports team shuttered in the next 3 years. Then the local school merged with the new, consolidated county school. Then the Walmart eventually closed to lack of customers. The "downtown" is a shell of what it once was, with most businesses closed and some historic buildings once worth being proud of just 10 years ago now literally crumbling beyond repair. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/walmart-effect.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/walmart-effect.asp

thebradbain 6y ago
As an addendum, it's not like this had to happen, even if Walmart moved in: one possibly politically extreme example is the town government could have mandated Walmart could only sell certain things, or put a price floor on certain items, so as to incentivize people to go to the grocery store for some things and Walmart for others (particularly things the grocery store didn't carry). This could have been a better situation for everybody long term – the grocery store might still be in business, the Walmart could still be there, and the citizens of the town could still be saving money; nobody would be making as much profit or saving as much in purchases as they _could be_, but everyone, not just one entity, still comes out ahead. Of course, in our current winner-take-all society, such an approach would be a nonstarter (and probably even illegal). Prioritize sustainable growth over short term growth.

marshray 6y ago

> I have no idea why people think this. How often has your ride been in a very new car? The middleman companies actively incentivize the drivers to take on significant personal debt. In my view, that's evidence of longer term contracts in play.

kryogen1c 6y ago
> evidence of longer term contracts in play. Contracts between whom? Uber/Lyft and auto companies?
- marshray 6y ago
  The worker and the auto lender.

erdos4d 6y ago

I'm sorry, you sound extremely delusional. We don't live in a world where most people have the resources to "vote with their wallet" on these matters. You drive for Uber or shop at Walmart because it's the work you can get or the store you can afford. People do these things because they don't really have a choice and the raw realities of our society and its economic structure dictate the decision most people make. Maybe you are rich enough to not understand this, in which case I encourage you to go ask an Uber driver why they are out there driving around when they have so many other well-paying options and I bet they give you some education.

kryogen1c 6y ago
> why they are out there driving around when they have so many other well-paying options Actually, if you read my other replies in the thread I make the opposite argument. People not having other options is an argument for ride-sharing companies, not against them. If they can't find work elsewhere, how are these jobs not good enough?
- Avicebron 6y ago
  So you're argument is that they should be grateful that they could be wage slaves on the most precarious edge of society because they weren't lucky enough to be a software engineer/VC? Don't you see why this comes off as problematic?
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    What does “problematic” even mean? Either they have other options, in which case driving is entirely voluntary, or don’t, in which case prohibiting them from it is outrageously evil. I would also like everyone to live life of leisure and free of worries, but you cannot legislate this into existence just like that. Banning driving for hire won’t make better options appear.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    When the alternative to being a "wage slave" is being unemployed, then no this doesn't come off as problematic at all. Lyft and Uber drivers aren't slaves. They chose this line of work on their own volition. You might think that those jobs aren't good - and for someone with your skillset that's probably true. But what makes you think you're more qualified to make life decisions for people you don't know? As the above poster wrote: ride share drivers that can get better jobs quit and take their jobs. It turns out, though, that there are a lot of people for which driving for a ride share company is their best opportunity for their skills and schedules.