3 ms·

Unless you are a slave, abolishing slavery would only cause you to face higher prices ...

cody3222 6y ago
No one is forcing them to do this work. They opt-in to being a driver. Slavery is coerced labor, how can you even make the comparison?
- tdeck 6y ago
  Because our society depends on economic precarity to compel an underclass of people to work in whatever shitty jobs are offered in order to meet their basic needs.
  - cody3222 6y ago
    I don't think that's true. Creating more jobs for people to opt-in to only helps them. When people no longer work these jobs, then companies come up with other solutions to get the job done. This is what happened in Japan and why automation is so big there.
    - mdorazio 6y ago
      > Creating more jobs for people to opt-in to only helps them. Except if the only jobs available are awful and don't actually pay enough to have a decent standard of living. You seem to be assuming that more available jobs of any kind = better for workers over time, but a quick review of the US labor market over the last 30 years shows this isn't really the case at all. I'm also not sure why you're bringing Japan into this discussion - its economic, demographic, and societal conditions are so different from the US that it doesn't make much sense to use it as a comparison.
      - cody3222 6y ago
        If these jobs didn't exist, wouldn't they be even worse off? The default state of humanity (or any other species) is not one of abundance.
- gwd 6y ago
  > Slavery is coerced labor, how can you even make the comparison? There are different levels of coercion. After all, even a literal slave doesn't have to work -- they can just allow themselves to be beaten to death. But given the choice between being beaten to death and working, most people choose working. But the fact is that even people who aren't slaves still have to have a place to live and something to eat. In the 1800's, lots of white people in the North weren't legal slaves; but they were "wage slaves" in factories -- they worked 11 hours a day, 7 days a week, for just enough to have a roof over their head and food in their stomachs; and if they got sick or injured they were just out of luck. The idea that all of those people were "opting in" to that kind of life is preposterous. They were being coerced to work by their physical needs; and the Market, recognizing this, offered them the smallest amount better than "homeless and starving" that they could. Obviously things are better now than they were in the 1800s, but only because we have laws against "opting in" to bad jobs. As soon as those laws are taken away, the Market will ensure things go back to the way they were. Uber and Lyft have done many things differently than traditional taxi companies; but one of the things they've done is make an end-run round the labor laws that stop the Market from coercing people into dead-end jobs. The only other way to prevent that kind of coersion is Universal Basic Income. If employees can walk away from a job that's dangerous and pays poorly, then the Market will make sure employers offer more reasonable conditions.
  - cody3222 6y ago
    I follow your logic and see your point...but it still seems like a stretch to label this as coercion. Where do you draw the line? You can always try to argue that the lowest income earners deserve more. Who is to judge their life is too deep in "survival mode?" Uber has literally been a way out for many of them (earn that extra income on their own schedule). PS: I also think UBI is a fantastic idea and a great way to avoid all these expensive discussions and campaigns about what to do. UBI would enable the elimination of so much costly regulation while solving this underlying discussion of people in "survival mode."
    - gwd 6y ago
      > I follow your logic and see your point...but it still seems like a stretch to label this as coercion. Where do you draw the line? Do you mean for Uber and Lyft, or for 19th-century factory workers? I absolutely think the 19th century factory workers had it better than the 19th century plantation slaves. Exactly where we draw the line for "coercion" matters less to me than the recognition that such a lifestyle still wasn't "voluntary": they were forced into doing something nobody should be forced to do. I don't really know whether Uber or Lyft reach the level of coercion at the moment; but unless there's something to prevent it, the same thing will happen eventually. > You can always try to argue that the lowest income earners deserve more. Who is to judge their life is too deep in "survival mode?" I like John Rawl's "Veil of Ignorance": https://fs.blog/2017/10/veil-ignorance/ https://fs.blog/2017/10/veil-ignorance/

No one is forcing them to do this work. They opt-in to being a driver. Slavery is coerced labor, how can you even make the comparison?

tdeck 6y ago
Because our society depends on economic precarity to compel an underclass of people to work in whatever shitty jobs are offered in order to meet their basic needs.
- cody3222 6y ago
  I don't think that's true. Creating more jobs for people to opt-in to only helps them. When people no longer work these jobs, then companies come up with other solutions to get the job done. This is what happened in Japan and why automation is so big there.
  - mdorazio 6y ago
    > Creating more jobs for people to opt-in to only helps them. Except if the only jobs available are awful and don't actually pay enough to have a decent standard of living. You seem to be assuming that more available jobs of any kind = better for workers over time, but a quick review of the US labor market over the last 30 years shows this isn't really the case at all. I'm also not sure why you're bringing Japan into this discussion - its economic, demographic, and societal conditions are so different from the US that it doesn't make much sense to use it as a comparison.
    - cody3222 6y ago
      If these jobs didn't exist, wouldn't they be even worse off? The default state of humanity (or any other species) is not one of abundance.
gwd 6y ago
> Slavery is coerced labor, how can you even make the comparison? There are different levels of coercion. After all, even a literal slave doesn't have to work -- they can just allow themselves to be beaten to death. But given the choice between being beaten to death and working, most people choose working. But the fact is that even people who aren't slaves still have to have a place to live and something to eat. In the 1800's, lots of white people in the North weren't legal slaves; but they were "wage slaves" in factories -- they worked 11 hours a day, 7 days a week, for just enough to have a roof over their head and food in their stomachs; and if they got sick or injured they were just out of luck. The idea that all of those people were "opting in" to that kind of life is preposterous. They were being coerced to work by their physical needs; and the Market, recognizing this, offered them the smallest amount better than "homeless and starving" that they could. Obviously things are better now than they were in the 1800s, but only because we have laws against "opting in" to bad jobs. As soon as those laws are taken away, the Market will ensure things go back to the way they were. Uber and Lyft have done many things differently than traditional taxi companies; but one of the things they've done is make an end-run round the labor laws that stop the Market from coercing people into dead-end jobs. The only other way to prevent that kind of coersion is Universal Basic Income. If employees can walk away from a job that's dangerous and pays poorly, then the Market will make sure employers offer more reasonable conditions.
- cody3222 6y ago
  I follow your logic and see your point...but it still seems like a stretch to label this as coercion. Where do you draw the line? You can always try to argue that the lowest income earners deserve more. Who is to judge their life is too deep in "survival mode?" Uber has literally been a way out for many of them (earn that extra income on their own schedule). PS: I also think UBI is a fantastic idea and a great way to avoid all these expensive discussions and campaigns about what to do. UBI would enable the elimination of so much costly regulation while solving this underlying discussion of people in "survival mode."
  - gwd 6y ago
    > I follow your logic and see your point...but it still seems like a stretch to label this as coercion. Where do you draw the line? Do you mean for Uber and Lyft, or for 19th-century factory workers? I absolutely think the 19th century factory workers had it better than the 19th century plantation slaves. Exactly where we draw the line for "coercion" matters less to me than the recognition that such a lifestyle still wasn't "voluntary": they were forced into doing something nobody should be forced to do. I don't really know whether Uber or Lyft reach the level of coercion at the moment; but unless there's something to prevent it, the same thing will happen eventually. > You can always try to argue that the lowest income earners deserve more. Who is to judge their life is too deep in "survival mode?" I like John Rawl's "Veil of Ignorance": https://fs.blog/2017/10/veil-ignorance/ https://fs.blog/2017/10/veil-ignorance/