4 ms·

The starting assumption is that free and rational adults are choosing to work for the wage and customers are choosing to pay a sufficient price, so it should ex

The starting assumption is that free and rational adults are choosing to work for the wage and customers are choosing to pay a sufficient price, so it should exist. That's not working backward, or dissonance--it's an acknowledgement of reality. It's a different unrelated group claiming that it shouldn't exist if it doesn't provide the pay / benefits they think it should.

La1n 6y ago
>The starting assumption is that free and rational adults are choosing to work for the wage And there are plenty that argue that under capitalism one isn't fully free. There is always the threat of losing the roof over your head.
- moduspol 6y ago
  Of course. It's just not relevant to my or OP's point.
2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
I don't buy that. These rides are only as cheap as they are because of VC money and they aren't profitable. Imagine the cost of rides without VC money and more pro-worker regulations? If they aren't profitable now I don't see this ever being profitable without some radical change to the business model (driverless fleet for example).
- moduspol 6y ago
  There are some rides that are subsidized as loss leaders undoubtedly, but that's not the primary case. The way I see it, it's already proven that riders will accept paying X dollars and drivers will work for X dollars, minus Y% for Uber's cut. Uber's Y% is likely higher than it needs to be, but at the end of the day, it's a SaaS app. Even municipalities have set up local competitors / clones. These companies are certainly pouring a ton of money into expanding into new geographic areas, other business models, and more. But as long as riders will pay an amount even a little higher than what drivers will accept, it can be profitable.
samat 6y ago
Are we willing to allow, even to facilitate that as a society? See heavy drugs, prostitution and violence market as some examples where two consenting adults is not enough to form a legitimate business.
- moduspol 6y ago
  I think if we're to the point that we're comparing Uber to the violence market, we're not having a meaningful discussion any more. True: it is not the case that we should fundamentally allow any association between two consenting adults. No, this does not justify preventing it in other cases.

La1n 6y ago

>The starting assumption is that free and rational adults are choosing to work for the wage And there are plenty that argue that under capitalism one isn't fully free. There is always the threat of losing the roof over your head.

moduspol 6y ago
Of course. It's just not relevant to my or OP's point.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago

I don't buy that. These rides are only as cheap as they are because of VC money and they aren't profitable. Imagine the cost of rides without VC money and more pro-worker regulations? If they aren't profitable now I don't see this ever being profitable without some radical change to the business model (driverless fleet for example).

moduspol 6y ago
There are some rides that are subsidized as loss leaders undoubtedly, but that's not the primary case. The way I see it, it's already proven that riders will accept paying X dollars and drivers will work for X dollars, minus Y% for Uber's cut. Uber's Y% is likely higher than it needs to be, but at the end of the day, it's a SaaS app. Even municipalities have set up local competitors / clones. These companies are certainly pouring a ton of money into expanding into new geographic areas, other business models, and more. But as long as riders will pay an amount even a little higher than what drivers will accept, it can be profitable.

samat 6y ago

Are we willing to allow, even to facilitate that as a society? See heavy drugs, prostitution and violence market as some examples where two consenting adults is not enough to form a legitimate business.

moduspol 6y ago
I think if we're to the point that we're comparing Uber to the violence market, we're not having a meaningful discussion any more. True: it is not the case that we should fundamentally allow any association between two consenting adults. No, this does not justify preventing it in other cases.