3 ms·

To the people downvoting you for a lack of political correctness... It isn't even relevant if potential drivers are excellent with money. If you advertise a po

by 55555 5y ago

To the people downvoting you for a lack of political correctness... It isn't even relevant if potential drivers are excellent with money. If you advertise a position with excessive externalities -- a really, really terrible job -- the only people that accept it will, by definition, have miscalculated the externalities, and certainly some people will still accept it. Are we then supposed to just say "they are smart so they wouldn't have taken it if it wasn't a good job" and ignore it? People get scammed all the time. idk if this applies to the case of Amazon AU. I'm just saying it's very in vogue to deny that anyone could benefit from help and that doesn't quite seem right.

bombcar 5y ago
It’s the same thing with landlords - there’s a reason that the only single family homes being rented are owned by individuals. Banks will have nothing to do with it because the externalities are too high. Things like insurance alone can be a tipping point - and drivers famously didn’t carry enough of the right type of insurance, which works fine most of the time … Taking advantage of the fact that most people are bad at the math is frankly immoral (a similar argument probably applies to the lottery also but nobody likes mentioning that either).
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >a similar argument probably applies to the lottery also but nobody likes mentioning that either In a vaccuum, yes, people are losing money on the lottery. I personally see it as kind of a "lesser of two evils" kind of thing, though. It allows people to scratch the "if I were rich" itch that causes some folk to risk everything they have (note that the exact same imagery is used to advertise both the lotto and high-risk speculative investments/ponzi schemes) while limiting the losses to the cost of a ticket each week. Not saying that lottery addicts don't exist, but they're far less likely to lose everything than a problem gambler/day trader.

by 55555 5y ago

bombcar 5y ago

It’s the same thing with landlords - there’s a reason that the only single family homes being rented are owned by individuals. Banks will have nothing to do with it because the externalities are too high. Things like insurance alone can be a tipping point - and drivers famously didn’t carry enough of the right type of insurance, which works fine most of the time … Taking advantage of the fact that most people are bad at the math is frankly immoral (a similar argument probably applies to the lottery also but nobody likes mentioning that either).

AussieWog93 5y ago
>a similar argument probably applies to the lottery also but nobody likes mentioning that either In a vaccuum, yes, people are losing money on the lottery. I personally see it as kind of a "lesser of two evils" kind of thing, though. It allows people to scratch the "if I were rich" itch that causes some folk to risk everything they have (note that the exact same imagery is used to advertise both the lotto and high-risk speculative investments/ponzi schemes) while limiting the losses to the cost of a ticket each week. Not saying that lottery addicts don't exist, but they're far less likely to lose everything than a problem gambler/day trader.