3 ms·

> I suppose what you're saying is that the exploitation was short-lived during their early days? Not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying 2008-2020 was a bi-mod

> I suppose what you're saying is that the exploitation was short-lived during their early days? Not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying 2008-2020 was a bi-modal situation. Just like the COVID shutdown was: recall how for many workers, it meant working from home and a buildup of funds because there was nowhere to spend it. For another group it meant struggling, gig work, moving back in with parents, and draining your savings - because their entire industry was just GONE. Depending on what numbers you look at, and at what resolution, you see the first group, the second group, or both. So wages went up during the 2010-2020 period, but for who? Minimum wage didn’t keep up with inflation in most places during that period. More lower paying jobs, less overall power. What are you going to do, quit this $10/hour job and go work at another $10/hour job? Why bother

randomdata 4y ago
> Minimum wage didn’t keep up with inflation in most places during that period. Locally, minimum wage increased 50% over that period. Inflation was 17% over the same period. Like I asked before, maybe they only exploited workers in certain markets? There is no evidence of the bi-modal situation that you refer to locally. Obviously not all locales are equal, but the remark is presented without local information, hence wanting to know more about what it means. Does Uber treat workers like gold in some markets? > What are you going to do, quit this $10/hour job and go work at another $10/hour job? Why bother The reason you'd go to the other $10/hr job is to not face the same exploitation found at Uber. If all jobs on the market are seen as being equally fair, you're not being exploited... You might not be worth what you wish you were, but that's not what exploitation is.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  I’m glad in your area minimum wage has beaten inflation - I’d argue it actually hasn’t, because to my knowledge minimum wage hasn’t kept up with inflation anywhere. It may have gone up 50% in the past ten years, but it languished for decades before that. But that’s a side point. On the main point - first in most US states minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. Second - does minimum wage apply to gig workers in your location? Because in most places they have successfully classified their employees as “contractors”. As to your point, uber is in many many places in the world - and the degree at which they have exploited their workers is variable. Where I am, uber costs about the same as a regular taxi did before uber arrived. But taxis drivers made and do make more than uber drivers. That sounds like a middle man got in and lowered wages. The same work, less money for workers, more for middle men? That is exploitation.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    > It may have gone up 50% in the past ten years, but it languished for decades before that. I appreciate your attempt to find some kind of reply, but, locally, minimum wage is up 1,567% since the first year it was in effect. Inflation is up only 810% over the same period. That's a substantial real gain. > Second - does minimum wage apply to gig workers in your location? As of a couple of months ago, yes. But, really, was anyone turning on their car for less than minimum wage before? You'd be losing money hand over fist doing that. There is no purpose in driving for Uber if you are losing money. Doing nothing at all is the clear winner in that scenario. > Because in most places they have successfully classified their employees as “contractors”. Which is fair. It's clearly a contractor position by every measure, and remains a contractor position here even with the recent laws surrounding those contracted services. As you can see, contractor doesn't have to mean a free-for-all. Contractors can be given worker rights too. > But taxis drivers made and do make more than uber drivers. That sounds like a middle man got in and lowered wages. Taxis, in many jurisdictions, have historically held a monopoly/oligopoly. That sounds more like new competition has increased competitiveness, which doesn't come as any surprise. A lowered price isn't the same as exploitation, though.
    - kennywinker 4y ago
      > But, really, was anyone turning on their car for less than minimum wage before? You'd be losing money hand over fist doing that. Yet people were. That’s literally what we’re talking about here. Because starvation was the other option. Burning your capital (i.e. your car) to the ground was a sensible choice given the other options. > A lowered price isn't the same as exploitation See my other comment. It isn’t exploitation, unless someone else is getting rich off it. Which they were.
      - randomdata 4y ago
        > Burning your capital (i.e. your car) to the ground was a sensible choice given the other options. But that brings us back to the top. If you're going to burn your car to the ground, why not burn it by driving it to an employer? The farmer at the edge of the city has been paying $25-30 per hour (even pre-pandemic), sometimes more, to anyone willing to show up – and still, nobody shows up. It might not be the most desirable work, and maybe you're not quitting your developer job over it, but compared to losing money driving for Uber because you're in a crunch? You're not losing money making $25-30 per hour in an employment situation, even with some commute required to get there. As we have discussed multiple times, not all locations are the same, but the question: "Does Uber treat its drivers like gold in some markets?" remains outstanding. There is an implication that Uber is exploitative everywhere (perhaps to varying degrees), and if that's the case, why so where the job market seeks workers elsewhere? > It isn’t exploitation, unless someone else is getting rich off it. That's not in line with the common definition of exploitation, and even if you want to use your pet definition, saying that all client-worker relationships are exploitative isn't particularly useful.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  > If all jobs on the market are seen as being equally fair, you're not being exploited That’s one interpretation of the data. Another would be that a lack of worker power is preventing wage increases. How does your interpretation of the data handle the fact that people on the capital side of the economy - i.e. uber ceos and shareholders - are getting rich off all those $10 hour jobs? There is clearly lots of money in the system… it’s just not going to the workers
aperson_hello 4y ago
Minimum wage arguments are a red herring in this economy. No one except the young, disabled, and felons are getting paid minimum wage now. Looking at prevailing "low skill" wages, they more than doubled for starting positions in my area since 2010. From something like $8 in 2010 to something like $16-17 today.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  Do the young, disabled, and felons deserve to suffer so you can get a coffee for 50c cheaper? And you forgot immigrants, the other large group working minimum wage jobs.
  - aperson_hello 4y ago
    Good point re: immigrants! I was making an inflation/wages argument, not a value-based one here. The prevailing minimum wage (for 95% of "low skill" jobs) is significantly different than federal minimum wages.
    - kennywinker 4y ago
      I think my point was actually a little off as well. Framing it as someone suffering for your cheap goods. Some things ARE like that. Fast fashion's $6 t-shirts come to mind. But service industry stuff like your cup of coffee - it's usually more like: does someone have to suffer so that you can get your cup of coffee and someone can become VERY rich off it.
- moe091 4y ago
  that's just not true. Maybe in some areas, definitely not in others. Do you actually know a lot of people working at CVS or dollar stores or supermarkets, etc? Wawa is paying $15 an hour and every single other place in my area is significantly below that

randomdata 4y ago

> Minimum wage didn’t keep up with inflation in most places during that period. Locally, minimum wage increased 50% over that period. Inflation was 17% over the same period. Like I asked before, maybe they only exploited workers in certain markets? There is no evidence of the bi-modal situation that you refer to locally. Obviously not all locales are equal, but the remark is presented without local information, hence wanting to know more about what it means. Does Uber treat workers like gold in some markets? > What are you going to do, quit this $10/hour job and go work at another $10/hour job? Why bother The reason you'd go to the other $10/hr job is to not face the same exploitation found at Uber. If all jobs on the market are seen as being equally fair, you're not being exploited... You might not be worth what you wish you were, but that's not what exploitation is.

kennywinker 4y ago
I’m glad in your area minimum wage has beaten inflation - I’d argue it actually hasn’t, because to my knowledge minimum wage hasn’t kept up with inflation anywhere. It may have gone up 50% in the past ten years, but it languished for decades before that. But that’s a side point. On the main point - first in most US states minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. Second - does minimum wage apply to gig workers in your location? Because in most places they have successfully classified their employees as “contractors”. As to your point, uber is in many many places in the world - and the degree at which they have exploited their workers is variable. Where I am, uber costs about the same as a regular taxi did before uber arrived. But taxis drivers made and do make more than uber drivers. That sounds like a middle man got in and lowered wages. The same work, less money for workers, more for middle men? That is exploitation.
- randomdata 4y ago
  > It may have gone up 50% in the past ten years, but it languished for decades before that. I appreciate your attempt to find some kind of reply, but, locally, minimum wage is up 1,567% since the first year it was in effect. Inflation is up only 810% over the same period. That's a substantial real gain. > Second - does minimum wage apply to gig workers in your location? As of a couple of months ago, yes. But, really, was anyone turning on their car for less than minimum wage before? You'd be losing money hand over fist doing that. There is no purpose in driving for Uber if you are losing money. Doing nothing at all is the clear winner in that scenario. > Because in most places they have successfully classified their employees as “contractors”. Which is fair. It's clearly a contractor position by every measure, and remains a contractor position here even with the recent laws surrounding those contracted services. As you can see, contractor doesn't have to mean a free-for-all. Contractors can be given worker rights too. > But taxis drivers made and do make more than uber drivers. That sounds like a middle man got in and lowered wages. Taxis, in many jurisdictions, have historically held a monopoly/oligopoly. That sounds more like new competition has increased competitiveness, which doesn't come as any surprise. A lowered price isn't the same as exploitation, though.
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    > But, really, was anyone turning on their car for less than minimum wage before? You'd be losing money hand over fist doing that. Yet people were. That’s literally what we’re talking about here. Because starvation was the other option. Burning your capital (i.e. your car) to the ground was a sensible choice given the other options. > A lowered price isn't the same as exploitation See my other comment. It isn’t exploitation, unless someone else is getting rich off it. Which they were.
    - randomdata 4y ago
      > Burning your capital (i.e. your car) to the ground was a sensible choice given the other options. But that brings us back to the top. If you're going to burn your car to the ground, why not burn it by driving it to an employer? The farmer at the edge of the city has been paying $25-30 per hour (even pre-pandemic), sometimes more, to anyone willing to show up – and still, nobody shows up. It might not be the most desirable work, and maybe you're not quitting your developer job over it, but compared to losing money driving for Uber because you're in a crunch? You're not losing money making $25-30 per hour in an employment situation, even with some commute required to get there. As we have discussed multiple times, not all locations are the same, but the question: "Does Uber treat its drivers like gold in some markets?" remains outstanding. There is an implication that Uber is exploitative everywhere (perhaps to varying degrees), and if that's the case, why so where the job market seeks workers elsewhere? > It isn’t exploitation, unless someone else is getting rich off it. That's not in line with the common definition of exploitation, and even if you want to use your pet definition, saying that all client-worker relationships are exploitative isn't particularly useful.
kennywinker 4y ago
> If all jobs on the market are seen as being equally fair, you're not being exploited That’s one interpretation of the data. Another would be that a lack of worker power is preventing wage increases. How does your interpretation of the data handle the fact that people on the capital side of the economy - i.e. uber ceos and shareholders - are getting rich off all those $10 hour jobs? There is clearly lots of money in the system… it’s just not going to the workers

aperson_hello 4y ago

Minimum wage arguments are a red herring in this economy. No one except the young, disabled, and felons are getting paid minimum wage now. Looking at prevailing "low skill" wages, they more than doubled for starting positions in my area since 2010. From something like $8 in 2010 to something like $16-17 today.

kennywinker 4y ago
Do the young, disabled, and felons deserve to suffer so you can get a coffee for 50c cheaper? And you forgot immigrants, the other large group working minimum wage jobs.
- aperson_hello 4y ago
  Good point re: immigrants! I was making an inflation/wages argument, not a value-based one here. The prevailing minimum wage (for 95% of "low skill" jobs) is significantly different than federal minimum wages.
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    I think my point was actually a little off as well. Framing it as someone suffering for your cheap goods. Some things ARE like that. Fast fashion's $6 t-shirts come to mind. But service industry stuff like your cup of coffee - it's usually more like: does someone have to suffer so that you can get your cup of coffee and someone can become VERY rich off it.
moe091 4y ago
that's just not true. Maybe in some areas, definitely not in others. Do you actually know a lot of people working at CVS or dollar stores or supermarkets, etc? Wawa is paying $15 an hour and every single other place in my area is significantly below that