4 ms·

> you accept bad work involuntarily. Someone always says this, but its an emotional, irrational non-argument and hard to respond. Your argument is that someon

> 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.
- Mirioron 6y ago
  Say we ban these kinds of low quality jobs. Where will these new jobs come from? Let's say you have a medium to small sized town/city. Which do you think is more likely the trend: 1. New jobs will spring up in the place of Uber driving that will be better and the level of employment stays the same or increases. 2. New jobs will spring up, but there's fewer of them and the level of employment decreases. I would have to go with #2. Urbanisation has been happening for a long time. People most often move to big cities because of work. I'm from a former Soviet country and most of our small towns and villages are dying because there are so few jobs. If those places set a really high bar for jobs then those areas would die even quicker. The same thing can happen in bigger and richer cities. Detroit is an example of that. I will concede that some people do get stuck in jobs and could do better and some areas get stuck with jobs that can do better. However, this makes it a question of how far should we go rather than if done at all. Even very bad jobs for starving people are likely a net benefit, but few people in the US are actually starving.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    People in the US often confuse being hungry with starving. Being hungry is a product of habitation. Someone who eats a lot will generally feel hungry on a diet that most people would be satisfied with. I'm one of those people. If you fed me a diet many people I know eat, I will feel hunger, but I certainly won't be starving. Over time, my body would acclimate and I wouldn't feel as much hunger. Starvation and malnutrition are problems worth worrying about. Hunger in the absence of starvation or malnourishment is not.
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.

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.
Mirioron 6y ago
Say we ban these kinds of low quality jobs. Where will these new jobs come from? Let's say you have a medium to small sized town/city. Which do you think is more likely the trend: 1. New jobs will spring up in the place of Uber driving that will be better and the level of employment stays the same or increases. 2. New jobs will spring up, but there's fewer of them and the level of employment decreases. I would have to go with #2. Urbanisation has been happening for a long time. People most often move to big cities because of work. I'm from a former Soviet country and most of our small towns and villages are dying because there are so few jobs. If those places set a really high bar for jobs then those areas would die even quicker. The same thing can happen in bigger and richer cities. Detroit is an example of that. I will concede that some people do get stuck in jobs and could do better and some areas get stuck with jobs that can do better. However, this makes it a question of how far should we go rather than if done at all. Even very bad jobs for starving people are likely a net benefit, but few people in the US are actually starving.
- malandrew 6y ago
  People in the US often confuse being hungry with starving. Being hungry is a product of habitation. Someone who eats a lot will generally feel hungry on a diet that most people would be satisfied with. I'm one of those people. If you fed me a diet many people I know eat, I will feel hunger, but I certainly won't be starving. Over time, my body would acclimate and I wouldn't feel as much hunger. Starvation and malnutrition are problems worth worrying about. Hunger in the absence of starvation or malnourishment is not.

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.