5 ms·

Maybe I'm too libertarian-leaning, but doesn't the author of the article have the option of NOT driving for Uber? If California is truly one of the wealthiest e

by jimmar 6y ago

Maybe I'm too libertarian-leaning, but doesn't the author of the article have the option of NOT driving for Uber? If California is truly one of the wealthiest economies, the author should be able to find a different line of work.

piokoch 6y ago
That's a valid point. The question is why all other Uber/Lyft drivers are not changing jobs for something fancier if that is so easy.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  Well, maybe it's because the flexibility of work is important to those people, and they don't want a full-time job. Nearly 75% of all Uber drivers in CA drive <25 hours per week. More than 40% of all trips in CA are driven by those drivers.
- Oliphaunts 6y ago
  Some plausible reasons the drivers don't change jobs are (1) that RideCos offer the drivers paying work they prefer to their other realistic options, and (2) relatedly, that RideCos are more willing than other companies to offer the drivers work. Perhaps the drivers would have more good options if employment in other professions were not so heavily regulated. But (absent significant price controls) it seems like this is the sort of profession we should expect to attract marginal, low-skilled employees whose lives may inspire some sympathy, through no particular fault of the RideCos.
satya71 6y ago
Have you tried finding work when your education is not in demand? Please don’t minimize other’s lived experience.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  That's a fair point, but if your education is not in demand, I don't see a reason to think that driving a car, something that 80+% of American adults are capable of doing, should provide a full household income on 40 hours per week of effort. That initial condition (your education is not in demand) definitely represents a tough position, but it's not clear that it's ride-sharing's "fault" in any way. Instead, it seems to me like ride-sharing is providing them with a better alternative than whatever their next-best alternative is; in other words, it's helping them not harming them.
  - pixelbash 6y ago
    Sorry, are you saying that working a 40 hour week shouldn't earn a living wage if it's a non-specialised skill?
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      I'm saying that if there is not enough demand for that work to support a wage that will provide a living wage on 40 hours/week, that you can't legislate up enough excess demand to make the equation solve the way you might like it to. In most (maybe all) markets, there is not enough consumer demand at the prices that would be required to support a living wage for everyone for whom flexible ride-share driving is the most lucrative work readily available. Now, iff that's true, what should the legislature do? Prevent that work from being done at all? Ration the supply (medallions or companies refusing to let drivers choose when/if to work)? The people said no, including a lot of current ride-share drivers.
    - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
      I think you need to give the parent poster a little more credit. People have all kinds of preferences for employment that go into determining a market-clearing wage. e.g. it is probably the case that loading garbage onto a truck doesn't require more skill/specialization than driving a car for hire However, the overwhelmingly vast amount of people prefer to do the job that they can do while sitting down, in an air-conditioned vehicle, vs. the one they have to do surrounded by stinking detritus, outside in all weathers. Based on my own prejudices, driving a car for hire sits in a relative sweet-spot of low skill, low physical demand, low discomfort. I agree there are undoubtedly personal safety factors that you're more exposed to than, say, flipping burgers at McDonalds.
- refurb 6y ago
  Sure. But can anyone honestly argue that driving for Uber/Lyft is the only employment option they have? I mean, what would they have done before those companies existed?
- eplanit 6y ago
  A little off topic, but where does this now commonly used phrase "lived experience" that lefties love to use so much come from. Doesn't the word "experience" cover the idea? Is it to differentiate from their reading or television "experiences"? I think the redundant "lived" part is added for dramatic effect.
- bazooka_penguin 6y ago
  Why do you think Uber/Lyft will remain accessible if drivers have to be employees?
rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago
You could say that to miners complaining about their work conditions in the 19th century, too.
- Jommi 6y ago
  This is gig work. You can change whenever you want. You can move across the country. This isn't the 19th century.
darod 6y ago
Many don't have the luxury of changing their line of work or company. Organizing the workers and potentially unionizing is an option for those people.
- qorrect 6y ago
  Uber is still bleeding money, unionizing would essentially put Uber out of business.
  - jowsie 6y ago
    If a company can't both sustain itself and its employees financially, surely that's a failed business? If the only way you can survive is by exploiting the poor, maybe you should be rethinking your strategy.
    - qorrect 6y ago
      | exploiting the poor I think a lot of those people wouldn't have jobs otherwise, is something better than nothing? Also it's not just the poor, I've had many friends use uber as a stop gap between jobs. One of my drivers had a masters in Finance - I don't see anything wrong with gig work as long as both sides know what they are signing up for.
      - baq 6y ago
        Why would they be out of a job? Surely bleeding money in Uber’s case is a self-inflicted wound, because they provide a service below cost? Raise prices, problem solved. Oh wait there are other companies that also follow the same model and Uber would lose all customers the moment it raised prices? Looks like something in the rules doesn’t add up unless VC money doesn’t stop flowing.
ultramundane8 6y ago
The problem with this line of thinking is that a state is not a person is not a company is not an x. (Let's put aside any tangential Citizens United rebuttal.) Or more simply, why is California one of the wealthiest economies? Is it because a typical California resident is one of the wealthiest people (on certain scales I wouldn't be surprised if this were actually true)? Or are there several subsets of people who are very wealthy due to California's unusually successful industries with global reach (I can think of two obvious giants.)? And how large are these subsets? If we answer all of these questions, we should answer your original question or at least come close. Edit: Changed "every California resident" to "a typical"
- treeman79 6y ago
  Weather. Much of California has such awesome weather. I don’t want want to go back for many reasons, but man I miss the mild temperatures.
x3ro 6y ago
Maybe I'm too left-leaning, but doesn't it feel wrong to deny people the possibility of seeing a doctor, calling in sick if they don't feel good or earning enough money to afford more than Ramen at the end of the month, no matter their line of work? It's great that the HN crowd is primarily privileged from an income point of view, but I find it hard to fathom that people lose sight of the fact that not everyone is this fortunate, and those less fortunate also deserve to live a life without fear of getting sick.
- greggyb 6y ago
  > Maybe I'm too left-leaning, but doesn't it feel wrong to deny people the possibility of seeing a doctor, calling in sick if they don't feel good or earning enough money to afford more than Ramen at the end of the month, no matter their line of work? It does feel wrong to deny people the possibility of seeing a doctor. It does feel wrong that some people can't afford basic necessities. Why do you insist on drawing a line around people who have found employment and saying that they deserve these things, but if they don't have employment they deserve a second, lesser system? If people don't have healthcare and you think they should - provide healthcare, don't try to make someone else do so. If people don't have money and you think they should - give them money, don't require others to pay more to those people who can get a job. Maybe tying benefits to employment and subsistence levels of cash to employment are a bad way to solve the problems you claim to care about.
  - x3ro 6y ago
    I fully agree with you. In a society where people would not have any existential fears, employed or not, Uber would not get away with what they're doing anyway. But I think the argument is orthogonal to what I meant. In context of the system that Uber drivers are living in right now, Prop22 is a step in the wrong direction: it gives affirmation to companies that actively deprives gig workers of the rights we talk about above. Of course it'd be better to solve this problem at a higher level, but I'm happy to argue against proponents of steps in the wrong direction (e.g. Prop22).
    - 6y ago

by jimmar 6y ago

piokoch 6y ago

That's a valid point. The question is why all other Uber/Lyft drivers are not changing jobs for something fancier if that is so easy.

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
Well, maybe it's because the flexibility of work is important to those people, and they don't want a full-time job. Nearly 75% of all Uber drivers in CA drive <25 hours per week. More than 40% of all trips in CA are driven by those drivers.
Oliphaunts 6y ago
Some plausible reasons the drivers don't change jobs are (1) that RideCos offer the drivers paying work they prefer to their other realistic options, and (2) relatedly, that RideCos are more willing than other companies to offer the drivers work. Perhaps the drivers would have more good options if employment in other professions were not so heavily regulated. But (absent significant price controls) it seems like this is the sort of profession we should expect to attract marginal, low-skilled employees whose lives may inspire some sympathy, through no particular fault of the RideCos.

satya71 6y ago

Have you tried finding work when your education is not in demand? Please don’t minimize other’s lived experience.

sokoloff 6y ago
That's a fair point, but if your education is not in demand, I don't see a reason to think that driving a car, something that 80+% of American adults are capable of doing, should provide a full household income on 40 hours per week of effort. That initial condition (your education is not in demand) definitely represents a tough position, but it's not clear that it's ride-sharing's "fault" in any way. Instead, it seems to me like ride-sharing is providing them with a better alternative than whatever their next-best alternative is; in other words, it's helping them not harming them.
- pixelbash 6y ago
  Sorry, are you saying that working a 40 hour week shouldn't earn a living wage if it's a non-specialised skill?
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    I'm saying that if there is not enough demand for that work to support a wage that will provide a living wage on 40 hours/week, that you can't legislate up enough excess demand to make the equation solve the way you might like it to. In most (maybe all) markets, there is not enough consumer demand at the prices that would be required to support a living wage for everyone for whom flexible ride-share driving is the most lucrative work readily available. Now, iff that's true, what should the legislature do? Prevent that work from being done at all? Ration the supply (medallions or companies refusing to let drivers choose when/if to work)? The people said no, including a lot of current ride-share drivers.
  - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
    I think you need to give the parent poster a little more credit. People have all kinds of preferences for employment that go into determining a market-clearing wage. e.g. it is probably the case that loading garbage onto a truck doesn't require more skill/specialization than driving a car for hire However, the overwhelmingly vast amount of people prefer to do the job that they can do while sitting down, in an air-conditioned vehicle, vs. the one they have to do surrounded by stinking detritus, outside in all weathers. Based on my own prejudices, driving a car for hire sits in a relative sweet-spot of low skill, low physical demand, low discomfort. I agree there are undoubtedly personal safety factors that you're more exposed to than, say, flipping burgers at McDonalds.
refurb 6y ago
Sure. But can anyone honestly argue that driving for Uber/Lyft is the only employment option they have? I mean, what would they have done before those companies existed?
eplanit 6y ago
A little off topic, but where does this now commonly used phrase "lived experience" that lefties love to use so much come from. Doesn't the word "experience" cover the idea? Is it to differentiate from their reading or television "experiences"? I think the redundant "lived" part is added for dramatic effect.
bazooka_penguin 6y ago
Why do you think Uber/Lyft will remain accessible if drivers have to be employees?

rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago

You could say that to miners complaining about their work conditions in the 19th century, too.

Jommi 6y ago
This is gig work. You can change whenever you want. You can move across the country. This isn't the 19th century.

darod 6y ago

Many don't have the luxury of changing their line of work or company. Organizing the workers and potentially unionizing is an option for those people.

qorrect 6y ago
Uber is still bleeding money, unionizing would essentially put Uber out of business.
- jowsie 6y ago
  If a company can't both sustain itself and its employees financially, surely that's a failed business? If the only way you can survive is by exploiting the poor, maybe you should be rethinking your strategy.
  - qorrect 6y ago
    | exploiting the poor I think a lot of those people wouldn't have jobs otherwise, is something better than nothing? Also it's not just the poor, I've had many friends use uber as a stop gap between jobs. One of my drivers had a masters in Finance - I don't see anything wrong with gig work as long as both sides know what they are signing up for.
    - baq 6y ago
      Why would they be out of a job? Surely bleeding money in Uber’s case is a self-inflicted wound, because they provide a service below cost? Raise prices, problem solved. Oh wait there are other companies that also follow the same model and Uber would lose all customers the moment it raised prices? Looks like something in the rules doesn’t add up unless VC money doesn’t stop flowing.

ultramundane8 6y ago

The problem with this line of thinking is that a state is not a person is not a company is not an x. (Let's put aside any tangential Citizens United rebuttal.) Or more simply, why is California one of the wealthiest economies? Is it because a typical California resident is one of the wealthiest people (on certain scales I wouldn't be surprised if this were actually true)? Or are there several subsets of people who are very wealthy due to California's unusually successful industries with global reach (I can think of two obvious giants.)? And how large are these subsets? If we answer all of these questions, we should answer your original question or at least come close. Edit: Changed "every California resident" to "a typical"

treeman79 6y ago
Weather. Much of California has such awesome weather. I don’t want want to go back for many reasons, but man I miss the mild temperatures.

x3ro 6y ago

Maybe I'm too left-leaning, but doesn't it feel wrong to deny people the possibility of seeing a doctor, calling in sick if they don't feel good or earning enough money to afford more than Ramen at the end of the month, no matter their line of work? It's great that the HN crowd is primarily privileged from an income point of view, but I find it hard to fathom that people lose sight of the fact that not everyone is this fortunate, and those less fortunate also deserve to live a life without fear of getting sick.

greggyb 6y ago
> Maybe I'm too left-leaning, but doesn't it feel wrong to deny people the possibility of seeing a doctor, calling in sick if they don't feel good or earning enough money to afford more than Ramen at the end of the month, no matter their line of work? It does feel wrong to deny people the possibility of seeing a doctor. It does feel wrong that some people can't afford basic necessities. Why do you insist on drawing a line around people who have found employment and saying that they deserve these things, but if they don't have employment they deserve a second, lesser system? If people don't have healthcare and you think they should - provide healthcare, don't try to make someone else do so. If people don't have money and you think they should - give them money, don't require others to pay more to those people who can get a job. Maybe tying benefits to employment and subsistence levels of cash to employment are a bad way to solve the problems you claim to care about.
- x3ro 6y ago
  I fully agree with you. In a society where people would not have any existential fears, employed or not, Uber would not get away with what they're doing anyway. But I think the argument is orthogonal to what I meant. In context of the system that Uber drivers are living in right now, Prop22 is a step in the wrong direction: it gives affirmation to companies that actively deprives gig workers of the rights we talk about above. Of course it'd be better to solve this problem at a higher level, but I'm happy to argue against proponents of steps in the wrong direction (e.g. Prop22).
  - 6y ago