9 ms·

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 t

by 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-...
- cactus2093 6y ago
  Sure? I'm not particularly familiar with this law, but I generally agree patents should have relatively modest limits. Not sure how this applies to the current conversation though, of all the things that Uber and Lyft are commonly accused of I don't think protectionist patent enforcement is among them?
  - bergstromm466 6y ago
    > Not sure how this applies to the current conversation though You mentioned you disagreed with all of the OP's substantial arguments, and then you made a few claims without any sources to back it up. I am using your idea of 'paternalistic protection' to challenge a commonly held idea which posits that the current neoliberal regulations are somehow neutral. Your statement that the big tech gig-worker platforms provide likeable or meaningful jobs is very misguided and naive imo. To address one of your statements: > Gig economy workers have overwhelmingly spoken that they like this work, by continuing to sign up for it in massive numbers. “Uber is lauded as an exemplary ‘platform’. When it arrives in a target city, it launches a packaged recruiting programme for drivers, usually offering incentives. Then it undercuts official taxi fares by operating a flexible, demand-based fare scheme; this lowers fares at times of slack demand and raises them when demand is strong so as to attract more drivers. Once established, Uber uses drivers to offer other services. Just as Google uses search-related advertising to generate income with which it enters other businesses, so Uber’s plan is to offer ‘transportation as reliable as running water, everywhere for everyone’.9 Thus it has branched out into delivery services, providing lunch delivery, cycle courier services and deliveries of household supplies in various US cities. It reaches out to retailers as well, offering same-day deliveries. While others such as Postmates and Shyp are in the same space, Uber has greater scale and financial clout. It can raise cash quickly from new city operations and has been able to tap investors for huge sums – more than $9 billion by the end of 2015 – with which to intimidate competitors. This has enabled Uber to finance operational losses as it expands into new markets by undercutting actual and potential rivals. According to leaked documents the company prepared for investors, operational losses reached a staggering $1 billion in the first half of 2015.10 Yet Uber more than doubled its cash holdings to over $4 billion, giving it a handy war chest for future expansion. Private equity financing enables Uber to squash competition through predatory pricing, extracting greater rents as its near-monopoly strengthens. Other start-ups are also gaining near-monopoly positions with the help of venture capital. They are not competing in free markets. The USA has led the way. Paradoxically, private investors and private companies, as opposed to publicly listed companies, were boosted by the US Jobs Act of 2012 (Jumpstart Our Businesses), which was supposed to encourage firms to go public and list on Wall Street. President Obama said at the time that public companies were desirable because they expanded more quickly, created more jobs and operated with ‘greater oversight and greater transparency’. But, whereas previously private firms were required to publish detailed financial information once they had over 500 shareholders, the Act increased that to 2,000. As a result, many more companies can opt to stay private so as to keep control in the hands of a restricted group and avoid public scrutiny of their dealings. The capital for digital platforms, even the largest of which have chosen to remain private, comes from a narrow circle of investors from mutual funds, private equity firms, hedge funds and sovereign wealth funds. It is a market reserved for the elite and plutocracy, a sort of closet capitalism. Making it even more so, investors often demand assurances that the company will indemnify them if it goes public at a lower valuation. This ‘ratchet’ arrangement grants them extra shares to compensate for any shortfall. They thereby receive a free insurance against risk, a special form of rent.” [...] “In the first round of this predatory model, the taskers (in this case drivers) may be among the beneficiaries, receiving loyalty premiums. But this is likely to be short-lived once a platform has established monopoly control of the market (or possibly oligopoly control by several platforms that tacitly agree to divvy up the market). The earnings of Uber drivers have already been cut in cities where the company is successfully established.” - Guy Standing, The Corruption of Capitalism: Why rentiers thrive and work does not pay
electricviolet 6y ago
MLM companies continue to be popular, despite the fact that the majority of people lose money by participating. I agree that portions of the left can be paternalistic sometimes, but that doesn't mean Uber and Lyft aren't exploitative.
- ericsoderstrom 6y ago
  I think MLM is different. A small number of people might make a lot of money, funded by the losses of most of the rest. In that respect its more like gambling, and people can be more easily fooled to think that they'll be one of the lucky few. Working as a driver for uber/lyft isn't really like that at all. You know approximately how much you can stand to make per hour. There isn't a small pool of drivers somehow making tons of money at the expense of the rest. Being a driver isn't predicated on mistakenly calculating your odds of winning big.
  - the-dude 6y ago
    > A small number of people might make a lot of money, funded by the losses of most of the rest Sounds like Uber to me.
    - ericsoderstrom 6y ago
      Not sure what you mean. Are you saying later round investors in Uber are funding profits for early round investors? I could see some tech investment structures as possibly resembling MLM due to winner-take-all effects and outsized profits going to the earliest investors. Though this isn't a property specific to Uber
  - electricviolet 6y ago
    > Being a driver isn't predicated on mistakenly calculating your odds of winning big Not exactly, but there are parallels. Most drivers don't take into account the costs of wear and tear on their cars, which can be significant, and Uber isn't transparent about how drivers should anticipate those costs. So part of your wages as a driver are essentially borrowing against the future value of your car. And it can take years before the wear and tear becomes apparent, so many current drivers may not have run up against that reality yet.
acituan 6y ago
> 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 That is one way to editorialize what is going on. An alternative explanation is that human organization is inherently a high friction, high cost endevor, and in the case of a company vs workers/contractors, we have a massive assymetry in the degree of organization in incentives; a company is a well defined entity, gathered around the normativity of profit maximization, every stop and turn of its machinery is well oiled and properly encoded, acting as a single agent in every negotiation. Whereas workers/contractors, even though have their individual interests heavily aligned (don’t be stiffed, get a fair wage), this alignment is not by default organized, as the employer-employee relationship is a one-to-many relationship. This asymmetry, not paternalizing non-adult humans, is what drives the unfairness in negotiations in favor of companies. Unions, legislation etc merely represents an effort in organization of the will of the “many” and to cure this asymmetry. Not saying they are perfect, not even that they work, but there is an asymmetry that gets exploited. > Gig economy workers have overwhelmingly spoken that they like this work, by continuing to sign up for it in massive numbers The problem in this model of negotiation is that the gig workers choices of expression are limited to “work or gtfo”. For one, given the fact that people need money to live, their participation doesn’t necessarily mean “they like this work”. Going back to the organization principle, if they were to carry out the combinatorially explosive task of communicating among themselves that they would want $5/hr more payment, or they would not work at all (quite symmetrical to the maneuver lyft&uber pulled today) it is very likely that they would get it. But “work or gtfo” binary doesn’t allow any room for expressing that. In other words, current price point is an artifact of lessened negotiation power of the collective gig workers because it is not as easy for them to negotiate collectively as uber/lyft can set the pricing. > Getting rid of Uber and Lyft completely throws out the baby with the bathwater here. No one is suggesting this. Not saying that the legistlation that was proposed is perfect, but the argument is “let’s level the playing field” and if Uber and Lyft can exist under fair conditions, then they do deserve to exist. There is nothing far-left or vindictive about this. It is catching up with the innovation of exponentially scaling, tech based, loss-leader market captures. It is as far-left as reducing work days to 5 or outlawing child labor was.
paulmd 6y ago
> I agree with you on one point, "ridesharing" is a silly word. I would call it something like an "Open Car Service". Let's not beat around the bush, the appropriate term already exists, it's called a "taxi service". The fact that the taxi operators provide their own vehicles is not novel.
- anticensor 6y ago
  Taxis and real-time ride sharing operate quite differently, for one, I cannot just turn up and hand signal to stop a moving vehicle from the latter.
  - paulmd 6y ago
    False, you cannot street-hail all kinds of taxis - for example in New York it's only yellow cabs+green cabs, black car taxis you need to use an app or call. Uber is a pretty standard black-car taxi service, with an app.
    - anticensor 6y ago
      Still different, black cabs usually calculate the fares the same way as yellow cabs, but more expensive due to pre-reservation and luxury vehicles; which are not necessarily the case with RTRS.
      - paulmd 6y ago
        Does uber not charge per pickup and per mile? And they certainly do allow you to choose luxury vehicles. Maybe I'm missing the distinction you're trying to draw. But either way that's irrelevant to the general point of whether Uber's general business model is that of a black-car taxi service. The feature set doesn't have to match exactly to demonstrate that taxi service will not vanish instantly from California if Uber decides to leave - taxis existed before Uber and they will exist after. Uber could increase fares and continue operating if they choose. If they decide it's not worth their time, c'est la vie, there will be others who fill this niche instead. This is just a transparent ploy to use the employees as leverage to reduce their operating costs, they will actually continue operating here even if it passes.
cookiecaper 6y ago
Yeah, there are many reasons that people like driving for Uber and/or Lyft, and it's very closed-minded to say that the market can't exist if it doesn't fully and completely replace a "real job" for all of its drivers, up to and including full-time employment with attached benefit packages. I've had friends who've done it just because they enjoy meeting people who are coming into town and hearing their stories, telling them about the area, etc. Many of the rides I've taken, upon talking to the driver, they'll say they do it because it gets them out of the house and they can work whenever they want. Very few of the people were trying to use it to replace a conventional employment situation. We should all be grateful that the state is rescuing all of these people from the exploitative habits of these unprofitable companies, I guess.
kllrnohj 6y ago
Rational adult humans sell themselves into modern day slavery in order to feed their families, see the Qatar World Cup Stadium for example. That doesn't mean we as a society should support or enable that. That's a ridiculously naive line of reasoning. What is rational for an individual in extreme circumstances does not and should not automatically make that valid legally. Similarly, if a market is saturated with under-paid over-worked labor forces, then you can't end up with humane, fair alternatives. You'll get those when you eliminate the exploitative markets first. Uber & Lyft didn't make new markets. They didn't create new job opportunities. They replaced existing ones - namely, taxis, and they achieved disruption via unsustainable economics & exploitative practices. There's no reason to believe that when that hole is plugged that all "order a ride" services will vanish. We'll just have taxis again. Remove some of the barriers that gave taxi services pseudo-monopolies, and there you go.
- strbean 6y ago
  > They replaced existing ones - namely, taxis, and they achieved disruption via unsustainable economics & exploitative practices. Corrupt, exploitative industry gets replaced with less corrupt, equally exploitative industry while also delivering far better value to consumers. Seems like a win to me. Why are we so up in arms about Uber, when Dominos delivery drivers get about the same paltry compensation, no benefits, and far less freedom? The same could be said for pretty much all minimum wage jobs. Like the parent insinuated, all these socialist / egalitarian arguments don't explain why we are in such a rush to fix for Uber drivers what has been broken for every low-paying job ever. (That being said, with a rise in independent contractors, we should fix unemployment insurance to include them)
- cactus2093 6y ago
  Uber & Lyft are just about as perfect an example as I can think of, of the fact that wealth isn't zero sum. You seem to be implying that it is. How in the world could you argue that they didn't create markets or job opportunities? There are probably 10x more uber/lyft drivers in almost every city in the US than there ever were taxi drivers. People simply take more trips, or have someone else drive them when they would have previously driven themselves, now that Uber & Lyft are so prevalent. People order delivery food from restaurants more often instead of cooking for themselves. This is new money added into the economy, yes a big slice goes to the corporations, but only ~30%, the rest goes directly to drivers for whom this is a newly available source of income. Apparently 80% of drivers do it part time as an additional source of income, which they wouldn't have a way to generate otherwise. You seem to fit very cleanly into the category I just mentioned above, you're so angry about some perceived injustice of Uber & Lyft merely existing, that you want them to be punished more than you care about any other part of this outcome. And this is not a slavery ring, nobody is being exploited, so you should take a deep breath about that too. In polls drivers overwhelmingly express a preference to remain independent contractors rather than become full-time.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
SquishyPanda23 6y ago
> Gig economy workers have overwhelmingly spoken that they like this work, by continuing to sign up for it in massive numbers. This reflects the fact that they like to eat.
- mahkeiro 6y ago
  So how comes that Uber can operate in Switzerland a country where the state will always feed you and provide a home?
  - vinay427 6y ago
    This is not exactly true. It may sort of hold (see below) if you're a Swiss citizen but nearly everyone else who make up 25% of residents is liable to be deported, not be eligible for naturalization down the line, and/or face other consequences if they cannot provide for themselves. Also, the social services for anyone from what I've heard (as I live here but haven't used them myself) are sufficient but not always comfortable. It's noticeably far from a welfare state model like Sweden is made out to be.
    - mahkeiro 6y ago
      No that's simply not true all long term resident (in CH for more than 15 years) have the same right to apply to it and their permit cannot be revoked. They represent like 18% of the 25% you mentioned. Of course it will create an issue if they want to become a swiss citizen, but most don't give a heck like my wife born in CH and here for 42 years, or like many friends that didn't want to go the army. The social service will depend on the canton, but they will rent a flat for you, provide 1000.- and take care of your health insurance, something that is just inexistant in the US.
      - vinay427 6y ago
        I assume you mean people on C permits? Saying my statement is "simply not true" is a little strong when I specifically included an "and/or." I'm aware that permanent residents won't be kicked out for this (and probably should have clarified that it affects residents with residency dependent on financial stability), but my point is that they'll still face some consequences even if it's the effect on future naturalization and the regular chiding to apply for jobs, which I actually agree with. I'm not trying to argue that Switzerland is a bad place for those who are unemployed, but that there are reasons that many people here wouldn't want to depend on it if a low-commitment job like driving for Uber is available.
jmeister 6y ago
Another driving factor is intra-elite competition: http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/intra-elite-competition-a-key-concept-for-understanding-the-dynamics-of-complex-societies/ http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/intra-elite-competition...

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-...

cactus2093 6y ago
Sure? I'm not particularly familiar with this law, but I generally agree patents should have relatively modest limits. Not sure how this applies to the current conversation though, of all the things that Uber and Lyft are commonly accused of I don't think protectionist patent enforcement is among them?
- bergstromm466 6y ago
  > Not sure how this applies to the current conversation though You mentioned you disagreed with all of the OP's substantial arguments, and then you made a few claims without any sources to back it up. I am using your idea of 'paternalistic protection' to challenge a commonly held idea which posits that the current neoliberal regulations are somehow neutral. Your statement that the big tech gig-worker platforms provide likeable or meaningful jobs is very misguided and naive imo. To address one of your statements: > Gig economy workers have overwhelmingly spoken that they like this work, by continuing to sign up for it in massive numbers. “Uber is lauded as an exemplary ‘platform’. When it arrives in a target city, it launches a packaged recruiting programme for drivers, usually offering incentives. Then it undercuts official taxi fares by operating a flexible, demand-based fare scheme; this lowers fares at times of slack demand and raises them when demand is strong so as to attract more drivers. Once established, Uber uses drivers to offer other services. Just as Google uses search-related advertising to generate income with which it enters other businesses, so Uber’s plan is to offer ‘transportation as reliable as running water, everywhere for everyone’.9 Thus it has branched out into delivery services, providing lunch delivery, cycle courier services and deliveries of household supplies in various US cities. It reaches out to retailers as well, offering same-day deliveries. While others such as Postmates and Shyp are in the same space, Uber has greater scale and financial clout. It can raise cash quickly from new city operations and has been able to tap investors for huge sums – more than $9 billion by the end of 2015 – with which to intimidate competitors. This has enabled Uber to finance operational losses as it expands into new markets by undercutting actual and potential rivals. According to leaked documents the company prepared for investors, operational losses reached a staggering $1 billion in the first half of 2015.10 Yet Uber more than doubled its cash holdings to over $4 billion, giving it a handy war chest for future expansion. Private equity financing enables Uber to squash competition through predatory pricing, extracting greater rents as its near-monopoly strengthens. Other start-ups are also gaining near-monopoly positions with the help of venture capital. They are not competing in free markets. The USA has led the way. Paradoxically, private investors and private companies, as opposed to publicly listed companies, were boosted by the US Jobs Act of 2012 (Jumpstart Our Businesses), which was supposed to encourage firms to go public and list on Wall Street. President Obama said at the time that public companies were desirable because they expanded more quickly, created more jobs and operated with ‘greater oversight and greater transparency’. But, whereas previously private firms were required to publish detailed financial information once they had over 500 shareholders, the Act increased that to 2,000. As a result, many more companies can opt to stay private so as to keep control in the hands of a restricted group and avoid public scrutiny of their dealings. The capital for digital platforms, even the largest of which have chosen to remain private, comes from a narrow circle of investors from mutual funds, private equity firms, hedge funds and sovereign wealth funds. It is a market reserved for the elite and plutocracy, a sort of closet capitalism. Making it even more so, investors often demand assurances that the company will indemnify them if it goes public at a lower valuation. This ‘ratchet’ arrangement grants them extra shares to compensate for any shortfall. They thereby receive a free insurance against risk, a special form of rent.” [...] “In the first round of this predatory model, the taskers (in this case drivers) may be among the beneficiaries, receiving loyalty premiums. But this is likely to be short-lived once a platform has established monopoly control of the market (or possibly oligopoly control by several platforms that tacitly agree to divvy up the market). The earnings of Uber drivers have already been cut in cities where the company is successfully established.” - Guy Standing, The Corruption of Capitalism: Why rentiers thrive and work does not pay

electricviolet 6y ago

MLM companies continue to be popular, despite the fact that the majority of people lose money by participating. I agree that portions of the left can be paternalistic sometimes, but that doesn't mean Uber and Lyft aren't exploitative.

ericsoderstrom 6y ago
I think MLM is different. A small number of people might make a lot of money, funded by the losses of most of the rest. In that respect its more like gambling, and people can be more easily fooled to think that they'll be one of the lucky few. Working as a driver for uber/lyft isn't really like that at all. You know approximately how much you can stand to make per hour. There isn't a small pool of drivers somehow making tons of money at the expense of the rest. Being a driver isn't predicated on mistakenly calculating your odds of winning big.
- the-dude 6y ago
  > A small number of people might make a lot of money, funded by the losses of most of the rest Sounds like Uber to me.
  - ericsoderstrom 6y ago
    Not sure what you mean. Are you saying later round investors in Uber are funding profits for early round investors? I could see some tech investment structures as possibly resembling MLM due to winner-take-all effects and outsized profits going to the earliest investors. Though this isn't a property specific to Uber
- electricviolet 6y ago
  > Being a driver isn't predicated on mistakenly calculating your odds of winning big Not exactly, but there are parallels. Most drivers don't take into account the costs of wear and tear on their cars, which can be significant, and Uber isn't transparent about how drivers should anticipate those costs. So part of your wages as a driver are essentially borrowing against the future value of your car. And it can take years before the wear and tear becomes apparent, so many current drivers may not have run up against that reality yet.

acituan 6y ago

> 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 That is one way to editorialize what is going on. An alternative explanation is that human organization is inherently a high friction, high cost endevor, and in the case of a company vs workers/contractors, we have a massive assymetry in the degree of organization in incentives; a company is a well defined entity, gathered around the normativity of profit maximization, every stop and turn of its machinery is well oiled and properly encoded, acting as a single agent in every negotiation. Whereas workers/contractors, even though have their individual interests heavily aligned (don’t be stiffed, get a fair wage), this alignment is not by default organized, as the employer-employee relationship is a one-to-many relationship. This asymmetry, not paternalizing non-adult humans, is what drives the unfairness in negotiations in favor of companies. Unions, legislation etc merely represents an effort in organization of the will of the “many” and to cure this asymmetry. Not saying they are perfect, not even that they work, but there is an asymmetry that gets exploited. > Gig economy workers have overwhelmingly spoken that they like this work, by continuing to sign up for it in massive numbers The problem in this model of negotiation is that the gig workers choices of expression are limited to “work or gtfo”. For one, given the fact that people need money to live, their participation doesn’t necessarily mean “they like this work”. Going back to the organization principle, if they were to carry out the combinatorially explosive task of communicating among themselves that they would want $5/hr more payment, or they would not work at all (quite symmetrical to the maneuver lyft&uber pulled today) it is very likely that they would get it. But “work or gtfo” binary doesn’t allow any room for expressing that. In other words, current price point is an artifact of lessened negotiation power of the collective gig workers because it is not as easy for them to negotiate collectively as uber/lyft can set the pricing. > Getting rid of Uber and Lyft completely throws out the baby with the bathwater here. No one is suggesting this. Not saying that the legistlation that was proposed is perfect, but the argument is “let’s level the playing field” and if Uber and Lyft can exist under fair conditions, then they do deserve to exist. There is nothing far-left or vindictive about this. It is catching up with the innovation of exponentially scaling, tech based, loss-leader market captures. It is as far-left as reducing work days to 5 or outlawing child labor was.

paulmd 6y ago

> I agree with you on one point, "ridesharing" is a silly word. I would call it something like an "Open Car Service". Let's not beat around the bush, the appropriate term already exists, it's called a "taxi service". The fact that the taxi operators provide their own vehicles is not novel.

anticensor 6y ago
Taxis and real-time ride sharing operate quite differently, for one, I cannot just turn up and hand signal to stop a moving vehicle from the latter.
- paulmd 6y ago
  False, you cannot street-hail all kinds of taxis - for example in New York it's only yellow cabs+green cabs, black car taxis you need to use an app or call. Uber is a pretty standard black-car taxi service, with an app.
  - anticensor 6y ago
    Still different, black cabs usually calculate the fares the same way as yellow cabs, but more expensive due to pre-reservation and luxury vehicles; which are not necessarily the case with RTRS.
    - paulmd 6y ago
      Does uber not charge per pickup and per mile? And they certainly do allow you to choose luxury vehicles. Maybe I'm missing the distinction you're trying to draw. But either way that's irrelevant to the general point of whether Uber's general business model is that of a black-car taxi service. The feature set doesn't have to match exactly to demonstrate that taxi service will not vanish instantly from California if Uber decides to leave - taxis existed before Uber and they will exist after. Uber could increase fares and continue operating if they choose. If they decide it's not worth their time, c'est la vie, there will be others who fill this niche instead. This is just a transparent ploy to use the employees as leverage to reduce their operating costs, they will actually continue operating here even if it passes.

cookiecaper 6y ago

Yeah, there are many reasons that people like driving for Uber and/or Lyft, and it's very closed-minded to say that the market can't exist if it doesn't fully and completely replace a "real job" for all of its drivers, up to and including full-time employment with attached benefit packages. I've had friends who've done it just because they enjoy meeting people who are coming into town and hearing their stories, telling them about the area, etc. Many of the rides I've taken, upon talking to the driver, they'll say they do it because it gets them out of the house and they can work whenever they want. Very few of the people were trying to use it to replace a conventional employment situation. We should all be grateful that the state is rescuing all of these people from the exploitative habits of these unprofitable companies, I guess.

kllrnohj 6y ago

Rational adult humans sell themselves into modern day slavery in order to feed their families, see the Qatar World Cup Stadium for example. That doesn't mean we as a society should support or enable that. That's a ridiculously naive line of reasoning. What is rational for an individual in extreme circumstances does not and should not automatically make that valid legally. Similarly, if a market is saturated with under-paid over-worked labor forces, then you can't end up with humane, fair alternatives. You'll get those when you eliminate the exploitative markets first. Uber & Lyft didn't make new markets. They didn't create new job opportunities. They replaced existing ones - namely, taxis, and they achieved disruption via unsustainable economics & exploitative practices. There's no reason to believe that when that hole is plugged that all "order a ride" services will vanish. We'll just have taxis again. Remove some of the barriers that gave taxi services pseudo-monopolies, and there you go.

strbean 6y ago
> They replaced existing ones - namely, taxis, and they achieved disruption via unsustainable economics & exploitative practices. Corrupt, exploitative industry gets replaced with less corrupt, equally exploitative industry while also delivering far better value to consumers. Seems like a win to me. Why are we so up in arms about Uber, when Dominos delivery drivers get about the same paltry compensation, no benefits, and far less freedom? The same could be said for pretty much all minimum wage jobs. Like the parent insinuated, all these socialist / egalitarian arguments don't explain why we are in such a rush to fix for Uber drivers what has been broken for every low-paying job ever. (That being said, with a rise in independent contractors, we should fix unemployment insurance to include them)
cactus2093 6y ago
Uber & Lyft are just about as perfect an example as I can think of, of the fact that wealth isn't zero sum. You seem to be implying that it is. How in the world could you argue that they didn't create markets or job opportunities? There are probably 10x more uber/lyft drivers in almost every city in the US than there ever were taxi drivers. People simply take more trips, or have someone else drive them when they would have previously driven themselves, now that Uber & Lyft are so prevalent. People order delivery food from restaurants more often instead of cooking for themselves. This is new money added into the economy, yes a big slice goes to the corporations, but only ~30%, the rest goes directly to drivers for whom this is a newly available source of income. Apparently 80% of drivers do it part time as an additional source of income, which they wouldn't have a way to generate otherwise. You seem to fit very cleanly into the category I just mentioned above, you're so angry about some perceived injustice of Uber & Lyft merely existing, that you want them to be punished more than you care about any other part of this outcome. And this is not a slavery ring, nobody is being exploited, so you should take a deep breath about that too. In polls drivers overwhelmingly express a preference to remain independent contractors rather than become full-time.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

SquishyPanda23 6y ago

> Gig economy workers have overwhelmingly spoken that they like this work, by continuing to sign up for it in massive numbers. This reflects the fact that they like to eat.

mahkeiro 6y ago
So how comes that Uber can operate in Switzerland a country where the state will always feed you and provide a home?
- vinay427 6y ago
  This is not exactly true. It may sort of hold (see below) if you're a Swiss citizen but nearly everyone else who make up 25% of residents is liable to be deported, not be eligible for naturalization down the line, and/or face other consequences if they cannot provide for themselves. Also, the social services for anyone from what I've heard (as I live here but haven't used them myself) are sufficient but not always comfortable. It's noticeably far from a welfare state model like Sweden is made out to be.
  - mahkeiro 6y ago
    No that's simply not true all long term resident (in CH for more than 15 years) have the same right to apply to it and their permit cannot be revoked. They represent like 18% of the 25% you mentioned. Of course it will create an issue if they want to become a swiss citizen, but most don't give a heck like my wife born in CH and here for 42 years, or like many friends that didn't want to go the army. The social service will depend on the canton, but they will rent a flat for you, provide 1000.- and take care of your health insurance, something that is just inexistant in the US.
    - vinay427 6y ago
      I assume you mean people on C permits? Saying my statement is "simply not true" is a little strong when I specifically included an "and/or." I'm aware that permanent residents won't be kicked out for this (and probably should have clarified that it affects residents with residency dependent on financial stability), but my point is that they'll still face some consequences even if it's the effect on future naturalization and the regular chiding to apply for jobs, which I actually agree with. I'm not trying to argue that Switzerland is a bad place for those who are unemployed, but that there are reasons that many people here wouldn't want to depend on it if a low-commitment job like driving for Uber is available.

jmeister 6y ago

Another driving factor is intra-elite competition: http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/intra-elite-competition-a-key-concept-for-understanding-the-dynamics-of-complex-societies/ http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/intra-elite-competition...