4 ms·

This is where government policy meets business reality. The reality is, ridesharing is a low margin business. Have you seen Uber's earnings reports? It's ques

by tom-_- 6y ago

This is where government policy meets business reality. The reality is, ridesharing is a low margin business. Have you seen Uber's earnings reports? It's questionable whether the business model can ever be sustainable. So with higher wages, you're just accelerating Uber's drive into insolvency. Their only option is to cut workers and increase ride prices. But you can only do the latter so much before you lose users to the point where Uber just becomes a private taxi service for the wealthy in which case you might as well not use a rideshare model and just hire professional chauffeurs.

542354234235 6y ago
If a business model requires the exploitation of its workers to remain profitable, is that a business worth having? If forcing businesses to pay their laborers a wage sufficient to have a bare minimum standard of living before paying shareholders for their speculative investment, is that a bad thing?
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  But are they exploited? If drivers really lost money working with Uber or if it was so little money compared to minimal wages, nobody would be driving!
  - 542354234235 6y ago
    If it were true that people doing job= no exploitation, then we wouldn’t need labor laws. Paying people below poverty wages, and people doing the job because they need the money is exploitation. It is taking advantage of the asymmetry of the power in a relationship between a rich company and a poor employee to set terms that that are exploitative of the employee.
    - 908B64B197 6y ago
      But in this case, it's claimed that any fast food joint job pays better than Uber. I don't see how the platform could keep a steady number of drivers if that was true. And, to he honest, I really don't like the condescending attitude some politicians have toward Uber drivers. They seem to assume they can't do the math to figure out if they are profitable or not.
- tom-_- 6y ago
  Therein lies the harsh business reality. Every product and service you use, somewhere along its production (including basic materials), distribution or marketing has workers earning poverty level wages. And many can only function as a business with low wage workers or automation. Are these business worth having? If we hope to maintain our quality of life, I believe yes. And because the choice for these workers is low wages or no wages, then answer is probably yes for them as well. The only other option for higher wages would be for these businesses to be state-sponsored, which is at least worth consideration.
  - 542354234235 6y ago
    > many can only function as a business with low wage workers or automation. If this were true, they would not have extra money to give to shareholders. The idea that a corporation is allowed to pay poverty wages while still claiming profit for speculative investors is the problem. That isn't a harsh reality, that is legally sanctioned exploitation. Does every business do this? Of course not, but looking at corporate profits over the last 20 years, it is clear this is the norm. > The only other option for higher wages would be for these businesses to be state-sponsored, which is at least worth consideration. Completely untrue. The money is already there. It is just being given to speculators, not workers. Weird how average wages have gone down in the last 40 years but CEO pay has gone up almost a 1,000%.

by tom-_- 6y ago

542354234235 6y ago

If a business model requires the exploitation of its workers to remain profitable, is that a business worth having? If forcing businesses to pay their laborers a wage sufficient to have a bare minimum standard of living before paying shareholders for their speculative investment, is that a bad thing?

908B64B197 6y ago
But are they exploited? If drivers really lost money working with Uber or if it was so little money compared to minimal wages, nobody would be driving!
- 542354234235 6y ago
  If it were true that people doing job= no exploitation, then we wouldn’t need labor laws. Paying people below poverty wages, and people doing the job because they need the money is exploitation. It is taking advantage of the asymmetry of the power in a relationship between a rich company and a poor employee to set terms that that are exploitative of the employee.
  - 908B64B197 6y ago
    But in this case, it's claimed that any fast food joint job pays better than Uber. I don't see how the platform could keep a steady number of drivers if that was true. And, to he honest, I really don't like the condescending attitude some politicians have toward Uber drivers. They seem to assume they can't do the math to figure out if they are profitable or not.
tom-_- 6y ago
Therein lies the harsh business reality. Every product and service you use, somewhere along its production (including basic materials), distribution or marketing has workers earning poverty level wages. And many can only function as a business with low wage workers or automation. Are these business worth having? If we hope to maintain our quality of life, I believe yes. And because the choice for these workers is low wages or no wages, then answer is probably yes for them as well. The only other option for higher wages would be for these businesses to be state-sponsored, which is at least worth consideration.
- 542354234235 6y ago
  > many can only function as a business with low wage workers or automation. If this were true, they would not have extra money to give to shareholders. The idea that a corporation is allowed to pay poverty wages while still claiming profit for speculative investors is the problem. That isn't a harsh reality, that is legally sanctioned exploitation. Does every business do this? Of course not, but looking at corporate profits over the last 20 years, it is clear this is the norm. > The only other option for higher wages would be for these businesses to be state-sponsored, which is at least worth consideration. Completely untrue. The money is already there. It is just being given to speculators, not workers. Weird how average wages have gone down in the last 40 years but CEO pay has gone up almost a 1,000%.