9 ms·

'Ridesharing' (Which is a hilarious term for the simple fact that the ride is not being shared, the driver is not intending to go to your favorite bar. ) isn't

'Ridesharing' (Which is a hilarious term for the simple fact that the ride is not being shared, the driver is not intending to go to your favorite bar. ) isn't a 21st century situation or solution. It's not a profitable or a good force in an economy, it does not pay a reasonable wage for anyone to live on, it is not environmentally friendly unless done in large quantities of people,(which is called a bus). Ridesharing exists to profit Uber/Lyft investors and management and is successful due to lower pricing than is sustainable. It is built on the back of loopholes in the law to use and abuse working class people and to lie about the true costs and profits. The bill's exceptions exist to split apart reality from this subsidized artificial market (There are exemptions in most laws, purely due tot he idea that things are complex, by nature) I see this as an attempt to make the Gig Economy pay all workers fairly in addition to healthcare costs and to put the onus on the company rather than their taxes. This would force Uber and Lyft to limit the number of drivers in an area by cost and profits, to deny those they cannot pay fairly. Uber currently may give you 100 rides a day or 1, you don't know which and you cant depend on it nor if you cant drive can get unemployment. The hard problem is contracting work is not a known reality for most, they don't understand the costs. Dressing it up in pretty fonts and Ads makes it much like the alcohol or tobacco industries, you don't know the danger until you are very invested and nobody is there to save you.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bergstromm466 6y ago
> 'Ridesharing' (Which is a hilarious term for the simple fact that the ride is not being shared, the driver is not intending to go to your favorite bar. ) isn't a 21st century situation or solution. Great summary for this scary situation. > I see this as an attempt to make the Gig Economy pay all workers fairly in addition to healthcare costs and to put the onus on the company rather than their taxes. There is a new word for this class of gig workers doing precarious labor that I've started using: the Precariat. "In sociology and economics, the precariat (/prɪˈkɛəriət/) is a neologism for a social class formed by people suffering from precarity, which is a condition of existence without predictability or security, affecting material or psychological welfare. The term is a portmanteau obtained by merging precarious with proletariat.[1] Unlike the proletariat class of industrial workers in the 20th century who lacked their own means of production and hence sold their labour to live, members of the precariat are only partially involved in labour and must undertake extensive "unremunerated activities that are essential if they are to retain access to jobs and to decent earnings". Classic examples of such unpaid activities include continually having to search for work (including preparing for and attending job interviews), as well as being expected to be perpetually responsive to calls for "gig" work (yet without being paid an actual wage for being "on call"). The hallmark of the precariat class is the condition of lack of job security, including intermittent employment or underemployment and the resultant precarious existence.[2] The emergence of this class has been ascribed to the entrenchment of neoliberal capitalism.[3][4]" [..] "The British economist Guy Standing has analysed the precariat as a new emerging social class in work done for the think tank Policy Network and the World Economic Forum.[6] In his 2014 book entitled A Precariat Charter he argued that all citizens have a right to socially inherited wealth.[8][9] The latest in the series is titled The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class[2][10] where he proposed basic income as a solution for addressing the problem. The analysis of the results of the Great British Class Survey of 2013, a collaboration between the BBC and researchers from several UK universities, contended there is a new model of class structure consisting of seven classes, ranging from the Elite at the top to the Precariat at the bottom.[11] The Precariat class was envisaged as "the most deprived British class of all with low levels of economic, cultural and social capital." This was contrasted with "the Technical Middle Class" in Great Britain in that instead of having disposable income but no interests, people of the new Precariat Class have all sorts of potential activities they like to engage in but cannot do any of them because they have no money, insecure lives, and are usually trapped in old industrial parts of the country. The precariat class has been emerging in societies such as Japan, where it includes over 2 million so-called "freeters".[12]" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat
bgorman 6y ago
Why do you get to decide what a fair wage is, or what a positive force in the economy is? Taxis are an obsolete service, Lyft and Uber are overwhelmingly favored by customers and businesses.
- AgloeDreams 6y ago
  Lyft and Uber are favored due to convenience and price. Nothing stops a regulated Uber that pays fair wages from convenience...but the price paid will have to become higher to support people. This is like McDonald's paying workers $3 an hour, charging $2 for a value menu meal, and then people saying 'wow, McDonald's has made Burger King obsolete!'. Of course customers will prefer the cheaper service that screws workers and does not pay fairly, but (some) workers will work it because it's their only choice.
  - umvi 6y ago
    Before Uber/Lyft existed, the taxi experience sucked. Uber/Lyft provided: - A way to pre-pay - A way to communicate current location and destination clearly to driver - All from an intuitive app on your phone I'm guessing you never went to NYC, tried in vain to find a taxi when you needed one, then got a taxi driver who barely spoke English, tried to communicate where to go, ended up paying way more than you intended?
    - aabhay 6y ago
      I agree, but imagine that this Uber/Lyft experience was not subsidized by VC money. Would you be willing to pay 2x of a typical taxi to get this enhanced experience? Probably most people would stick with the street taxi in that case...
      - smsm42 6y ago
        > subsidized by VC money Wait, so I get a comfortable ride, I get it fast, I get it cheap, somebody else pays for the majority of it, that somebody else has tons of their own money, not coming from my taxes, which they spend willingly on giving me a good cheap ride - and somehow this is a bad thing?
boreas 6y ago
Ridesharing created a more or less competitive market for this slice of the transportation sector. Competitive markets are the best way to allocate resources. If you don't agree with that, it will be hard to have a productive discussion. But if you do agree with that, shouldn't we resolve inequalities by directly supporting the least fortunate (with cash) rather than force parties into arbitrary economic relationships?
- AgloeDreams 6y ago
  I agree, but there are base rules in most markets, which is why AB5 exists. For example, an upstart McDonalds-like chain that uses App-ordering could charge much less for a burger if they paid $3 an hour. Consumers would obviously choose this chain if tyhe product is still good as it is much much cheaper. (Capitalism obviously doesn't have a conscience.) For this reason, we have minimum wage laws and (somewhat as a hack, I don't agree with the rules) health care mandates for employers, to create fair and legal playing fields to ensure that businesses' are taking action to better the economy and the American people. I suppose a universal point I am trying to state here is: Corporations exist to better the people. Wouldn't it be overall more efficient if the the company paid fairly and the people who work for that company don't have to then request funds from the government? This ensures competition is possible by setting a floor on the race to the bottom costs.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  Competitive markets are the best way for capital to extract value from workers, because without collective bargaining they pit individuals against huge corporate operations with wildly disproportionate access to legal and financial power. They are not the best way to allocate resources - not least because they have huge social and political opportunity costs which are rarely understood by their fervent devotees. Cash is not a solution to this, although it can be a productive first step in some limited circumstances. The "arbitrary economic relationships" here are the ones being peddled by Uber and Lyft. The point is neither Uber nor Lyft are viable businesses. Even with its advantages Uber is somehow managing to lose $3bn a year on its ride sharing service. It only exists at all because investors hope it will somehow be able to throw its beta-drivers under the proverbial bus when self-driving cars finally become a thing, and too many of its drivers aren't aware of this and are expecting it to act like a long-term employer.
tathougies 6y ago
> it does not pay a reasonable wage for anyone to live on, Why is the purpose of a wage to live on? Many uber drivers drive part time for fun or extra pocket change. The existence of thousands of uber drivers -- who in my experience, have all been quite reasonable, nice people -- seem to directly contradict your claim that it does not pay a 'reasonable wage'. Clearly, it does for those invested parties.
- bergstromm466 6y ago
  What about this example? 'Driving For Uber, Sleeping In Her Car' (VICE News): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9abrZwnPThE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9abrZwnPThE > The existence of thousands of uber drivers -- who in my experience, have all been quite reasonable, nice people -- seem to directly contradict your claim that it does not pay a 'reasonable wage'. Clearly, it does for those invested parties. Maybe we can leave it up to the academic researchers and labor rights organizations? Why do you make a claim and link to no sources, please could you provide your sources? Here are some sources I found: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/precariat-global-class-rise-of-populism/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/precariat-global-clas... https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/gig-economy/2016/08/25/for-40-percent-of-us-the-future-of-work-has-already-arrived/ https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/gig-economy/2016/08/25/for... https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/29/gig-economy-traps-workers-in-precarious-existence-says-report https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/29/gig-economy... https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/aug/31/the-new-resistance-how-gig-economy-workers-are-fighting-back https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/aug/31/the-new-resist... https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/20/high-score-low-pay-gamification-lyft-uber-drivers-ride-hailing-gig-economy https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/20/high-score-... > Why is the purpose of a wage to live on? This isn't a serious question is it?
- AgloeDreams 6y ago
  Many Uber drivers are great people! I know a bunch, I know how they have been screwed. The costs are never upfront. The Driving rarely lasts as people eventually get taken out by upkeep expenses, waiting for fares, and lost values in vehicles.
yoelo 6y ago
Exactly. Uber and Lyft are a 19th century labor situation which masks itself by using 21st century technology
- bergstromm466 6y ago
  Exactly. As Professor Guy Standing says: "The Precariat is the first class in history to be losing acquired rights – cultural, civil, social, economic and political. This is documented in A Precariat Charter. It leads to the most crucial feature. Those in it are reduced to being supplicants. The Latin root of precariousness is “to obtain by prayer”. The precariat must ask for favours, for charity, to show obsequiousness, to plead with figures of authority. It is degrading and stigmatizing." [1] [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/precariat-global-class-rise-of-populism/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/precariat-global-clas...
- kmlx 6y ago
  by giving drivers the right to turn the app off at any time? when did that happen in the 19th century?
  - mike00632 6y ago
    A taxi could simply turn its light off.
  - mdorazio 6y ago
    Underpaid day laborers could walk off the job site any time they wanted to and go to another site the next day...
cactus2093 6y ago
I agree with you on one point, "ridesharing" is a silly word. I would call it something like an "Open Car Service". The main reason I can't get on board with the rest of this line of argument is that it ultimately just comes down to paternalistic protection of the poor disenfranchised gig workers that you clearly view as being less than capable, rational adult humans. The number of gig economy workers has been growing exponentially for years? Somebody must be tricking them into taking this shit work, and confusing them about the real costs. Gig economy workers have overwhelmingly spoken that they like this work, by continuing to sign up for it in massive numbers. Or at least that they like it more than their alternatives at the time. If it were some massive trap, don't you think the word would have gotten out by now? The ability to entirely set their own schedule and work as much or little as they choose is appealing enough to draw people in in droves, despite all of the downsides of this type of work. Getting rid of Uber and Lyft completely throws out the baby with the bathwater here. It won't magically create alternative full time jobs that these workers will prefer to their current situation, it'll just make it much harder for many of them to have any work. Surely there are better incremental policies that could limit the downsides for many of these workers without taking away most of the positives for them too. As with many far-leftist beliefs these days, I can't help but conclude that the driving factor for a law like AB5 is punitive anger towards successful, wealthy organizations. Just like with the NIMBYs using socialist rhetoric to justify blocking needed middle class housing, it's much more important that the organizations they see as the bad guys suffer than it is to maximize the overall, utilitarian good for the parties they claim to care about. I sincerely hope this way of thinking dies out, almost as much as I hope the current far-right way of thinking dies out.
- bergstromm466 6y ago
  > it ultimately just comes down to paternalistic protection Isn't this same 'paternalistic protection' the same force Silicon Valley uses to guarantee monopoly rents from 'intellectual property'? "A globalised intellectual property rights system was immensely strengthened by TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) passed through the World Trade Organisation in 1994, shaped by a few US multinationals, backed by the US and UK governments. This has facilitated the commercialisation, privatisation and colonisation of ideas. Since 1994, the annual filing of patents has more than tripled, with the global stock of patents close to 12 million, each giving monopolistic control of some idea for 20 years or more. Many patents result from publicly-funded research, diminishing the risk. But TRIPS allows corporations to receive monopolistic income for two decades, or use the patent to block others from producing something. Those claiming to believe in free markets should have opposed the trend, but reveal their class-based ideology by keeping quiet. There is evidence that the patent system hinders economic growth and innovation. It merely increases inequality and rentier capitalism. George Osborne, as Chancellor, made it even more blatant with his Patent Box tax break that in practice benefits multinationals coming to Britain if they have patented products, particularly Big Tech and Big Pharma. That tax break merely accentuated the plunder of the intellectual commons." [1] [1] https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/plunder-commons-compensate-commoners/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/plunder-commons-...
colechristensen 6y ago
In many many uber/lyft rides i have met a very few drivers who actually were doing real ride sharing. A person would get off work and turn on the app to get a fare in the direction of home.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
I've yet to hear of an Uber/Lyft rep putting a gun to one of their driver's heads and forcing them to work for them. There are other sources of income out there. However, I wouldn't have a problem with the government stepping in and requiring them to set rates to guarantee a certain amount of pay per hour. Seems ridiculously low right now. It seems like we need another "type" of employee outside of the 20th century definitions of contractor and "employee". Also it seems like healthcare should be in there for those who put in significant amounts of hours.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bergstromm466 6y ago

> 'Ridesharing' (Which is a hilarious term for the simple fact that the ride is not being shared, the driver is not intending to go to your favorite bar. ) isn't a 21st century situation or solution. Great summary for this scary situation. > I see this as an attempt to make the Gig Economy pay all workers fairly in addition to healthcare costs and to put the onus on the company rather than their taxes. There is a new word for this class of gig workers doing precarious labor that I've started using: the Precariat. "In sociology and economics, the precariat (/prɪˈkɛəriət/) is a neologism for a social class formed by people suffering from precarity, which is a condition of existence without predictability or security, affecting material or psychological welfare. The term is a portmanteau obtained by merging precarious with proletariat.[1] Unlike the proletariat class of industrial workers in the 20th century who lacked their own means of production and hence sold their labour to live, members of the precariat are only partially involved in labour and must undertake extensive "unremunerated activities that are essential if they are to retain access to jobs and to decent earnings". Classic examples of such unpaid activities include continually having to search for work (including preparing for and attending job interviews), as well as being expected to be perpetually responsive to calls for "gig" work (yet without being paid an actual wage for being "on call"). The hallmark of the precariat class is the condition of lack of job security, including intermittent employment or underemployment and the resultant precarious existence.[2] The emergence of this class has been ascribed to the entrenchment of neoliberal capitalism.[3][4]" [..] "The British economist Guy Standing has analysed the precariat as a new emerging social class in work done for the think tank Policy Network and the World Economic Forum.[6] In his 2014 book entitled A Precariat Charter he argued that all citizens have a right to socially inherited wealth.[8][9] The latest in the series is titled The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class[2][10] where he proposed basic income as a solution for addressing the problem. The analysis of the results of the Great British Class Survey of 2013, a collaboration between the BBC and researchers from several UK universities, contended there is a new model of class structure consisting of seven classes, ranging from the Elite at the top to the Precariat at the bottom.[11] The Precariat class was envisaged as "the most deprived British class of all with low levels of economic, cultural and social capital." This was contrasted with "the Technical Middle Class" in Great Britain in that instead of having disposable income but no interests, people of the new Precariat Class have all sorts of potential activities they like to engage in but cannot do any of them because they have no money, insecure lives, and are usually trapped in old industrial parts of the country. The precariat class has been emerging in societies such as Japan, where it includes over 2 million so-called "freeters".[12]" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat

bgorman 6y ago

Why do you get to decide what a fair wage is, or what a positive force in the economy is? Taxis are an obsolete service, Lyft and Uber are overwhelmingly favored by customers and businesses.

AgloeDreams 6y ago
Lyft and Uber are favored due to convenience and price. Nothing stops a regulated Uber that pays fair wages from convenience...but the price paid will have to become higher to support people. This is like McDonald's paying workers $3 an hour, charging $2 for a value menu meal, and then people saying 'wow, McDonald's has made Burger King obsolete!'. Of course customers will prefer the cheaper service that screws workers and does not pay fairly, but (some) workers will work it because it's their only choice.
- umvi 6y ago
  Before Uber/Lyft existed, the taxi experience sucked. Uber/Lyft provided: - A way to pre-pay - A way to communicate current location and destination clearly to driver - All from an intuitive app on your phone I'm guessing you never went to NYC, tried in vain to find a taxi when you needed one, then got a taxi driver who barely spoke English, tried to communicate where to go, ended up paying way more than you intended?
  - aabhay 6y ago
    I agree, but imagine that this Uber/Lyft experience was not subsidized by VC money. Would you be willing to pay 2x of a typical taxi to get this enhanced experience? Probably most people would stick with the street taxi in that case...
    - smsm42 6y ago
      > subsidized by VC money Wait, so I get a comfortable ride, I get it fast, I get it cheap, somebody else pays for the majority of it, that somebody else has tons of their own money, not coming from my taxes, which they spend willingly on giving me a good cheap ride - and somehow this is a bad thing?

boreas 6y ago

Ridesharing created a more or less competitive market for this slice of the transportation sector. Competitive markets are the best way to allocate resources. If you don't agree with that, it will be hard to have a productive discussion. But if you do agree with that, shouldn't we resolve inequalities by directly supporting the least fortunate (with cash) rather than force parties into arbitrary economic relationships?

AgloeDreams 6y ago
I agree, but there are base rules in most markets, which is why AB5 exists. For example, an upstart McDonalds-like chain that uses App-ordering could charge much less for a burger if they paid $3 an hour. Consumers would obviously choose this chain if tyhe product is still good as it is much much cheaper. (Capitalism obviously doesn't have a conscience.) For this reason, we have minimum wage laws and (somewhat as a hack, I don't agree with the rules) health care mandates for employers, to create fair and legal playing fields to ensure that businesses' are taking action to better the economy and the American people. I suppose a universal point I am trying to state here is: Corporations exist to better the people. Wouldn't it be overall more efficient if the the company paid fairly and the people who work for that company don't have to then request funds from the government? This ensures competition is possible by setting a floor on the race to the bottom costs.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Competitive markets are the best way for capital to extract value from workers, because without collective bargaining they pit individuals against huge corporate operations with wildly disproportionate access to legal and financial power. They are not the best way to allocate resources - not least because they have huge social and political opportunity costs which are rarely understood by their fervent devotees. Cash is not a solution to this, although it can be a productive first step in some limited circumstances. The "arbitrary economic relationships" here are the ones being peddled by Uber and Lyft. The point is neither Uber nor Lyft are viable businesses. Even with its advantages Uber is somehow managing to lose $3bn a year on its ride sharing service. It only exists at all because investors hope it will somehow be able to throw its beta-drivers under the proverbial bus when self-driving cars finally become a thing, and too many of its drivers aren't aware of this and are expecting it to act like a long-term employer.

tathougies 6y ago

> it does not pay a reasonable wage for anyone to live on, Why is the purpose of a wage to live on? Many uber drivers drive part time for fun or extra pocket change. The existence of thousands of uber drivers -- who in my experience, have all been quite reasonable, nice people -- seem to directly contradict your claim that it does not pay a 'reasonable wage'. Clearly, it does for those invested parties.

bergstromm466 6y ago
What about this example? 'Driving For Uber, Sleeping In Her Car' (VICE News): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9abrZwnPThE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9abrZwnPThE > The existence of thousands of uber drivers -- who in my experience, have all been quite reasonable, nice people -- seem to directly contradict your claim that it does not pay a 'reasonable wage'. Clearly, it does for those invested parties. Maybe we can leave it up to the academic researchers and labor rights organizations? Why do you make a claim and link to no sources, please could you provide your sources? Here are some sources I found: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/precariat-global-class-rise-of-populism/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/precariat-global-clas... https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/gig-economy/2016/08/25/for-40-percent-of-us-the-future-of-work-has-already-arrived/ https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/gig-economy/2016/08/25/for... https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/29/gig-economy-traps-workers-in-precarious-existence-says-report https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/29/gig-economy... https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/aug/31/the-new-resistance-how-gig-economy-workers-are-fighting-back https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/aug/31/the-new-resist... https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/20/high-score-low-pay-gamification-lyft-uber-drivers-ride-hailing-gig-economy https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/20/high-score-... > Why is the purpose of a wage to live on? This isn't a serious question is it?
AgloeDreams 6y ago
Many Uber drivers are great people! I know a bunch, I know how they have been screwed. The costs are never upfront. The Driving rarely lasts as people eventually get taken out by upkeep expenses, waiting for fares, and lost values in vehicles.

yoelo 6y ago

Exactly. Uber and Lyft are a 19th century labor situation which masks itself by using 21st century technology

bergstromm466 6y ago
Exactly. As Professor Guy Standing says: "The Precariat is the first class in history to be losing acquired rights – cultural, civil, social, economic and political. This is documented in A Precariat Charter. It leads to the most crucial feature. Those in it are reduced to being supplicants. The Latin root of precariousness is “to obtain by prayer”. The precariat must ask for favours, for charity, to show obsequiousness, to plead with figures of authority. It is degrading and stigmatizing." [1] [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/precariat-global-class-rise-of-populism/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/precariat-global-clas...
kmlx 6y ago
by giving drivers the right to turn the app off at any time? when did that happen in the 19th century?
- mike00632 6y ago
  A taxi could simply turn its light off.
- mdorazio 6y ago
  Underpaid day laborers could walk off the job site any time they wanted to and go to another site the next day...

cactus2093 6y ago

I agree with you on one point, "ridesharing" is a silly word. I would call it something like an "Open Car Service". The main reason I can't get on board with the rest of this line of argument is that it ultimately just comes down to paternalistic protection of the poor disenfranchised gig workers that you clearly view as being less than capable, rational adult humans. The number of gig economy workers has been growing exponentially for years? Somebody must be tricking them into taking this shit work, and confusing them about the real costs. Gig economy workers have overwhelmingly spoken that they like this work, by continuing to sign up for it in massive numbers. Or at least that they like it more than their alternatives at the time. If it were some massive trap, don't you think the word would have gotten out by now? The ability to entirely set their own schedule and work as much or little as they choose is appealing enough to draw people in in droves, despite all of the downsides of this type of work. Getting rid of Uber and Lyft completely throws out the baby with the bathwater here. It won't magically create alternative full time jobs that these workers will prefer to their current situation, it'll just make it much harder for many of them to have any work. Surely there are better incremental policies that could limit the downsides for many of these workers without taking away most of the positives for them too. As with many far-leftist beliefs these days, I can't help but conclude that the driving factor for a law like AB5 is punitive anger towards successful, wealthy organizations. Just like with the NIMBYs using socialist rhetoric to justify blocking needed middle class housing, it's much more important that the organizations they see as the bad guys suffer than it is to maximize the overall, utilitarian good for the parties they claim to care about. I sincerely hope this way of thinking dies out, almost as much as I hope the current far-right way of thinking dies out.

bergstromm466 6y ago
> it ultimately just comes down to paternalistic protection Isn't this same 'paternalistic protection' the same force Silicon Valley uses to guarantee monopoly rents from 'intellectual property'? "A globalised intellectual property rights system was immensely strengthened by TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) passed through the World Trade Organisation in 1994, shaped by a few US multinationals, backed by the US and UK governments. This has facilitated the commercialisation, privatisation and colonisation of ideas. Since 1994, the annual filing of patents has more than tripled, with the global stock of patents close to 12 million, each giving monopolistic control of some idea for 20 years or more. Many patents result from publicly-funded research, diminishing the risk. But TRIPS allows corporations to receive monopolistic income for two decades, or use the patent to block others from producing something. Those claiming to believe in free markets should have opposed the trend, but reveal their class-based ideology by keeping quiet. There is evidence that the patent system hinders economic growth and innovation. It merely increases inequality and rentier capitalism. George Osborne, as Chancellor, made it even more blatant with his Patent Box tax break that in practice benefits multinationals coming to Britain if they have patented products, particularly Big Tech and Big Pharma. That tax break merely accentuated the plunder of the intellectual commons." [1] [1] https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/plunder-commons-compensate-commoners/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/plunder-commons-...

colechristensen 6y ago

In many many uber/lyft rides i have met a very few drivers who actually were doing real ride sharing. A person would get off work and turn on the app to get a fare in the direction of home.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

I've yet to hear of an Uber/Lyft rep putting a gun to one of their driver's heads and forcing them to work for them. There are other sources of income out there. However, I wouldn't have a problem with the government stepping in and requiring them to set rates to guarantee a certain amount of pay per hour. Seems ridiculously low right now. It seems like we need another "type" of employee outside of the 20th century definitions of contractor and "employee". Also it seems like healthcare should be in there for those who put in significant amounts of hours.