3 ms·

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 t

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/
- unishark 6y ago
  > I absolutely think the 19th century factory workers had it better than the 19th century plantation slaves. The step below "19th century factory work" is subsistence farming. Slavery is still categorically different.
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Coercion is definitely a continuum. In some sense, my biology "coerces" me to continue breathing. To say that coercion is bad but then to fail to specify the degree of coercion that would be bad is equivocation. To a capitalist, the type of coercion that comes from needing to eat and therefore needing to either gather food or gather resources to trade for food is on the OK side of that line. To a hardcore progressive, it might not be. But all that labeling a practice like this coercion does is reveal where you stand on that matter of degrees. It doesn't create a qualitative distinction here, because none actually exists.

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/

unishark 6y ago
> I absolutely think the 19th century factory workers had it better than the 19th century plantation slaves. The step below "19th century factory work" is subsistence farming. Slavery is still categorically different.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

Coercion is definitely a continuum. In some sense, my biology "coerces" me to continue breathing. To say that coercion is bad but then to fail to specify the degree of coercion that would be bad is equivocation. To a capitalist, the type of coercion that comes from needing to eat and therefore needing to either gather food or gather resources to trade for food is on the OK side of that line. To a hardcore progressive, it might not be. But all that labeling a practice like this coercion does is reveal where you stand on that matter of degrees. It doesn't create a qualitative distinction here, because none actually exists.