3 ms·

That is not the scenario described. There wasn't an industry of employee Uber drivers prior to Uber coming on the scene. In fact, taxi drivers in California we

That is not the scenario described. There wasn't an industry of employee Uber drivers prior to Uber coming on the scene. In fact, taxi drivers in California were all typically self employed already. These positions fall apart under even the most cursory examination.

jjoonathan 4y ago
> industry of employee Uber drivers prior to Uber Wow, you really did a good job of accounting for the aggregate labor supply/demand dynamics right there. There was no Uber before Uber therefore Uber is great! You heard it here first, people! > These positions fall apart under even the most cursory examination. Right back atcha.
- remote_phone 4y ago
  Your rebuttal is wrong. The number of drivers exploded by 100x or more after Uber showed up. Before Uber, the taxi industry had a monopoly on rides. Uber destroyed that and orders of magnitude more drivers showed up and then more customers showed up. So the supply increased, there are less jobs there are orders of magnitude more. Educate yourself.
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  We can talk about it, provided you can be civil. As I said, this was a new growth industry. Taxis do not have a supply/demand dynamic because (for example in SF) the industry is artificially constricted by the medallion system or other controls. There have never been unallocated taxi medallions in SF. As I also previously pointed out, taxi drivers were already independent contractors prior to Uber -- so if non-employee work is inherently immoral then this doesn't represent a change from the status quo. It's difficult to see how Uber's system of allowing people to work if and when they feel like it is worse than the city's system where people would have to finance up to $1 million to buy a ticket allowing them to work within the regulatory system. > Right back atcha. No, as I've shown you simply did not read carefully. Please be civil in your response and please take some time to consider what's already been said.
ethbr0 4y ago
You can't really rebut the idea that in our society people are forced to work to live with "that is not the scenario described" Parent was making an observation about the mandate of working in our society, and you replied that you weren't talking about people who have to work... :/
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  You absolutely can, because the question is specifically regarding people who are already not working, and who would not otherwise be working. I think you should re-read OP's original comment more carefully.

jjoonathan 4y ago

> industry of employee Uber drivers prior to Uber Wow, you really did a good job of accounting for the aggregate labor supply/demand dynamics right there. There was no Uber before Uber therefore Uber is great! You heard it here first, people! > These positions fall apart under even the most cursory examination. Right back atcha.

remote_phone 4y ago
Your rebuttal is wrong. The number of drivers exploded by 100x or more after Uber showed up. Before Uber, the taxi industry had a monopoly on rides. Uber destroyed that and orders of magnitude more drivers showed up and then more customers showed up. So the supply increased, there are less jobs there are orders of magnitude more. Educate yourself.
throwaway09223 4y ago
We can talk about it, provided you can be civil. As I said, this was a new growth industry. Taxis do not have a supply/demand dynamic because (for example in SF) the industry is artificially constricted by the medallion system or other controls. There have never been unallocated taxi medallions in SF. As I also previously pointed out, taxi drivers were already independent contractors prior to Uber -- so if non-employee work is inherently immoral then this doesn't represent a change from the status quo. It's difficult to see how Uber's system of allowing people to work if and when they feel like it is worse than the city's system where people would have to finance up to $1 million to buy a ticket allowing them to work within the regulatory system. > Right back atcha. No, as I've shown you simply did not read carefully. Please be civil in your response and please take some time to consider what's already been said.

ethbr0 4y ago

You can't really rebut the idea that in our society people are forced to work to live with "that is not the scenario described" Parent was making an observation about the mandate of working in our society, and you replied that you weren't talking about people who have to work... :/

throwaway09223 4y ago
You absolutely can, because the question is specifically regarding people who are already not working, and who would not otherwise be working. I think you should re-read OP's original comment more carefully.