6 ms·

Lets say I have a club I own, but I need to keep the riff raff out. I cant openly ban poor or low society people from entering which would be considered "evil"

Lets say I have a club I own, but I need to keep the riff raff out. I cant openly ban poor or low society people from entering which would be considered "evil". But what if I mandated every service from a staff must be tipped with atleast 100$, because we value our workers more here. This achieves the same purpose and I get to pretend to be egalitarian. If this law is passed, ride sharing apps will still exist. They will have a smaller roster of higher quality of drivers and be more expensive to use. It will be perfectly fine for most of the people commenting here. Who it will destroy is the "riff raff", the people at the lowest rungs of the ladder on both ends. Those who cannot contribute work of sufficient quality to be paid for full time work and benefits. And those who cant afford more expensive ride sharing. Basically a way to ask people of a certain level to leave the state because they cant participate in the economy anymore and appear compassionate at the same time. Insidiously genius.

auggierose 6y ago
"ride sharing" is not how people use it. People use it as a cab.
- bufferoverflow 6y ago
  And it doesn't matter. Now it's a fully consensual relationship between Uber and the driver (and the customer), where everyone involved agrees to the terms voluntarily. The law changes that, and will simply result in the loss of jobs.
  - benjaminjosephw 6y ago
    How much choice do the drivers have if that's where all the customers are? It sounds to me like you're confusing the willingness of drivers to relent to market forces outside of their control for their consent. Some are definitely happier than others but none have the degree of agency you seem to suggest they do.
  - La1n 6y ago
    And someone can consent to working in a chemical plant without protection but OSHA won't let that happen. Worker rights need to be protected by law, or it is a race to the bottom for the working conditions of the poorest.
benjaminjosephw 6y ago
You seem to be suggesting that some people don't deserve full-time employment but should be allowed to carry out the same kind of work under worse conditions because, otherwise, those people have no other options. Endorsing systematic exploitation like this is truly worrying. This gets even more problematic when these same hiring practices are normalized and exported to other industries where the same arguments are then made. The result would be a society where there are two classes of "employees" - those worth hiring because they are already better than most and those who aren't. This creates a feedback loop that traps the poor in poverty because they can't improve at the same rate as full-time employees. Companies have a responsibility to train their employees so that they can "contribute work of sufficient quality". Making this entirely the problem of the workers until a certain standard is reached is really the "insidiously genius" ploy of companies in redefining their relationship with their workers. Transferring risk and investment in training entirely to the workers themselves is not a path towards a compassionate and equitable society.
- humanrebar 6y ago
  Some people, in some jobs at least, aren't productive enough to support themselves. It's not about "deserve". Some people have a lot of potential but need a chance to prove themselves and gain experience. Maybe they would start by bussing tables and eventually own their own restaurants. They need a ladder to success with rungs that are actually climbable. If we mandate that you must be able to support a family of four and save for retirement to work bussing tables, we won't have prosperous people bussing tables. We'll just have more self-service restaurants, sit-down dining will become more of a luxury service, and we'll have more wait staff struggling because they have to have fewer tables that they have to bus themselves. The training you yearn for can happen by virtue of the economics of the industry. It's like apprenticeship or interning. Except it's working at entry level jobs and earning advancement. And it's egalitarian because anybody can be an excellent busser. Not everyone can talk someone into funding their education on spec.
  - mLuby 6y ago
    > If we mandate [a living wage]… You're right, lots of exploitative jobs will be destroyed, and businesses will have to adapt. Thing is, they will adapt to the new market conditions, or else they'll be replaced by other businesses catering to the market's demands, or the market's demands will change. In the painful transition period, lots of exploited "employed" people will become unemployed, and lots of businesses that can't survive without exploiting people will fail. That's the unfortunate "cancellation fee" we should pay before moving to a more ethical economy.
ilaksh 6y ago
No one is getting benefits. Not some special group of "worthy" drivers. No one.
carapace 6y ago
This is kind of a bullshit argument because Uber is a venture-back corporation not a welfare agency. If there are people who truly "cannot contribute work of sufficient quality to be paid for full time work and benefits" then we give them a check. Are you really suggesting that uber/lyft driving is work therapy for mental invalids? https://www.ianwelsh.net/the-market-fairy-will-not-solve-the-problems-of-uber-and-lyft/ https://www.ianwelsh.net/the-market-fairy-will-not-solve-the... > They [Uber and Lyft] don’t pay the cost of their capital. > The wages they pay to their drivers are less than the depreciation of the cars and the expense of keeping the drivers fed, housed, and healthy. They pay less than minimum wage in most markets, and, in most markets, that is not enough to pay the costs of a car plus a human. > These business models are ways of draining capital from the economy and putting them into the hands of a few investors and executives. They prey on desperate people who need money now, even if the money is insufficient to pay their total costs. Drivers are draining their own reserves to get cash now, but, hey, they gotta eat and pay the bills. > This sharing economy shit works in a shitty economy. In a good economy, where people have what they need, it doesn’t work.

auggierose 6y ago

"ride sharing" is not how people use it. People use it as a cab.

bufferoverflow 6y ago
And it doesn't matter. Now it's a fully consensual relationship between Uber and the driver (and the customer), where everyone involved agrees to the terms voluntarily. The law changes that, and will simply result in the loss of jobs.
- benjaminjosephw 6y ago
  How much choice do the drivers have if that's where all the customers are? It sounds to me like you're confusing the willingness of drivers to relent to market forces outside of their control for their consent. Some are definitely happier than others but none have the degree of agency you seem to suggest they do.
- La1n 6y ago
  And someone can consent to working in a chemical plant without protection but OSHA won't let that happen. Worker rights need to be protected by law, or it is a race to the bottom for the working conditions of the poorest.

benjaminjosephw 6y ago

You seem to be suggesting that some people don't deserve full-time employment but should be allowed to carry out the same kind of work under worse conditions because, otherwise, those people have no other options. Endorsing systematic exploitation like this is truly worrying. This gets even more problematic when these same hiring practices are normalized and exported to other industries where the same arguments are then made. The result would be a society where there are two classes of "employees" - those worth hiring because they are already better than most and those who aren't. This creates a feedback loop that traps the poor in poverty because they can't improve at the same rate as full-time employees. Companies have a responsibility to train their employees so that they can "contribute work of sufficient quality". Making this entirely the problem of the workers until a certain standard is reached is really the "insidiously genius" ploy of companies in redefining their relationship with their workers. Transferring risk and investment in training entirely to the workers themselves is not a path towards a compassionate and equitable society.

humanrebar 6y ago
Some people, in some jobs at least, aren't productive enough to support themselves. It's not about "deserve". Some people have a lot of potential but need a chance to prove themselves and gain experience. Maybe they would start by bussing tables and eventually own their own restaurants. They need a ladder to success with rungs that are actually climbable. If we mandate that you must be able to support a family of four and save for retirement to work bussing tables, we won't have prosperous people bussing tables. We'll just have more self-service restaurants, sit-down dining will become more of a luxury service, and we'll have more wait staff struggling because they have to have fewer tables that they have to bus themselves. The training you yearn for can happen by virtue of the economics of the industry. It's like apprenticeship or interning. Except it's working at entry level jobs and earning advancement. And it's egalitarian because anybody can be an excellent busser. Not everyone can talk someone into funding their education on spec.
- mLuby 6y ago
  > If we mandate [a living wage]… You're right, lots of exploitative jobs will be destroyed, and businesses will have to adapt. Thing is, they will adapt to the new market conditions, or else they'll be replaced by other businesses catering to the market's demands, or the market's demands will change. In the painful transition period, lots of exploited "employed" people will become unemployed, and lots of businesses that can't survive without exploiting people will fail. That's the unfortunate "cancellation fee" we should pay before moving to a more ethical economy.

ilaksh 6y ago

No one is getting benefits. Not some special group of "worthy" drivers. No one.

carapace 6y ago

This is kind of a bullshit argument because Uber is a venture-back corporation not a welfare agency. If there are people who truly "cannot contribute work of sufficient quality to be paid for full time work and benefits" then we give them a check. Are you really suggesting that uber/lyft driving is work therapy for mental invalids? https://www.ianwelsh.net/the-market-fairy-will-not-solve-the-problems-of-uber-and-lyft/ https://www.ianwelsh.net/the-market-fairy-will-not-solve-the... > They [Uber and Lyft] don’t pay the cost of their capital. > The wages they pay to their drivers are less than the depreciation of the cars and the expense of keeping the drivers fed, housed, and healthy. They pay less than minimum wage in most markets, and, in most markets, that is not enough to pay the costs of a car plus a human. > These business models are ways of draining capital from the economy and putting them into the hands of a few investors and executives. They prey on desperate people who need money now, even if the money is insufficient to pay their total costs. Drivers are draining their own reserves to get cash now, but, hey, they gotta eat and pay the bills. > This sharing economy shit works in a shitty economy. In a good economy, where people have what they need, it doesn’t work.