4 ms·

> 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

> 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
> That's not in line with the common definition of exploitation What’s that definition? I’m using exploitation in the common sense of “treating someone unfairly” or “making use of someone for your own gain”. Work relationships are not always exploitive. Ideally they are mutually beneficial. Sometimes they’re slightly skewed where one party profits a little more than they other. None of that is what we’re talking about.
- randomdata 4y ago
  > Sometimes they’re slightly skewed where one party profits a little more than they other. I imagine they wish they could profit. Uber isn't profitable. They lose stupid amounts of money. It subsists on investments made by capitalists looking to metaphorically burn up their car. Given your definition, if the workers were making more than nothing they would be the ones exploiting Uber. While your definitions are correct, your interpretation is not. "Fair" in economics isn't some moral position. It simply refers to where people generally agree. If Uber isn't meeting its agreements with the workers then there may be a case for exploitation, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Your point, if I interpret correctly, seems to be that the workers are making agreements that you wouldn't agree to.

kennywinker 4y ago

> That's not in line with the common definition of exploitation What’s that definition? I’m using exploitation in the common sense of “treating someone unfairly” or “making use of someone for your own gain”. Work relationships are not always exploitive. Ideally they are mutually beneficial. Sometimes they’re slightly skewed where one party profits a little more than they other. None of that is what we’re talking about.

randomdata 4y ago
> Sometimes they’re slightly skewed where one party profits a little more than they other. I imagine they wish they could profit. Uber isn't profitable. They lose stupid amounts of money. It subsists on investments made by capitalists looking to metaphorically burn up their car. Given your definition, if the workers were making more than nothing they would be the ones exploiting Uber. While your definitions are correct, your interpretation is not. "Fair" in economics isn't some moral position. It simply refers to where people generally agree. If Uber isn't meeting its agreements with the workers then there may be a case for exploitation, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Your point, if I interpret correctly, seems to be that the workers are making agreements that you wouldn't agree to.