5 ms·

But there aren't any fallacies in the GP's argument. And it is quite directly making an absurd and unsupportable statement regarding indentured servitude for a

But there aren't any fallacies in the GP's argument. And it is quite directly making an absurd and unsupportable statement regarding indentured servitude for a job opportunity that is undeniably no strings attached.

pessimizer 4y ago
> People are not agents of free will, and any sub-utopic framework they have to participate in is immoral? This is so fallacious that it almost doesn't parse as English (largely imo because it's been fluffed up to hide the utterly commonplace "so you're saying everything is wrong unless it's perfect?" strawman.)
- kryogen1c 4y ago
  It's intended to be a steelman and is a rephrasing of an argument said to me in the past; you could dig it up in my comment history from a previous uber discussion should you be so inclined. Regardless, feel free to ignore my strawman and tell me the real argument.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    >It's intended to be a steelman I think maybe you've misunderstood steelmanning. It's not about taking an argument to the absolute extreme, it's about constructing the most convincing and effective form of the argument.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    The real argument is that gig employers have found a way to skirt regulations protecting “real” employees. And that the people who suffer from this are primarily in an economic position such that they don’t have much of a choice but to accept those conditions. That doesn’t mean “any sub-utopic framework they have to participate in is immoral”, it just means this particular one is.
    - throwaway09223 4y ago
      "Real employees" have not historically done these jobs. Your assertion is simply not true.
      - ada1981 4y ago
        Uber replaced taxi cabs, which had some of the most historic Union protections in American history.
        throwaway09223 4y ago
        Sorry, no. These exact same complaints have been swirling around for decades before Uber came on the scene: https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2017/12/12/taxi-drivers-employees-independent-contractors/ https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2017/12/12/taxi-drivers-emplo... The only change is that Uber grew the market and popularized hiring cars, and the state of California decided to start attacking its own tech industry. There's a lot of hypocrisy here. If the state truly had worker's interests at heart it would be looking at the farming industry, not ridesharing.
      - jakelazaroff 4y ago
        Not sure what you think that has to do with my point?
      - Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
        “Real humans have not historically done these jobs”. A tragically myopic argument to make.
        throwaway09223 4y ago
ckw 4y ago
The indentured servitude statement is apt: the GP implies that willful entrance into a contract of employment is by virtue of this willfulness incapable of being exploitative. But indentured servitude is entered into in the same manner, and few would deny the exploitative nature of indentured servitude.
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  No, it isn't. There is no contract in this scenario whatsoever, equitable or otherwise. It's an absurd analogy.
  - ckw 4y ago
    Do you mean gig workers enter into no contract, or indentured servants entered into no contract, or something else? Indentured Servitude: ‘Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years. The contract, called an "indenture", may be entered voluntarily for eventual compensation or debt repayment, or it may be imposed as a judicial punishment.’ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude As for Uber drivers: it’s pretty hard to be an independent contractor without entering into a contract.
    - throwaway09223 4y ago
      Obviously I mean there's no contract demanding ongoing work performance from Uber drivers. Drivers can stop at any time. The only terms stipulate how they can work and under what terms, should they choose to do so. It is the polar opposite of an arrangement which demands continuing performance. It's even less restrictive than a typical employer-employee relationship.
      - ckw 4y ago
        GGP: How is it exploitative if the worker willfully enters into the contract? GP: But indentured servants enter willfully into their contracts, and indentured servitude is exploitative. So how is the willful nature of gig work relevant to the question of whether it is exploitative? You: GP has equated gig work with indentured servitude, and they are in no way comparable, because gig workers can quit whenever they choose. Me: GP did not equate indentured servitude and gig work, they used indentured servitude as a tool to show the flawed reasoning of GGP. You: Gig work is nothing like indentured servitude, because gig workers can quit whenever they want, and indentured servants can’t. Do you see the problem here?

pessimizer 4y ago

> People are not agents of free will, and any sub-utopic framework they have to participate in is immoral? This is so fallacious that it almost doesn't parse as English (largely imo because it's been fluffed up to hide the utterly commonplace "so you're saying everything is wrong unless it's perfect?" strawman.)

kryogen1c 4y ago
It's intended to be a steelman and is a rephrasing of an argument said to me in the past; you could dig it up in my comment history from a previous uber discussion should you be so inclined. Regardless, feel free to ignore my strawman and tell me the real argument.
- thfuran 4y ago
  >It's intended to be a steelman I think maybe you've misunderstood steelmanning. It's not about taking an argument to the absolute extreme, it's about constructing the most convincing and effective form of the argument.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  The real argument is that gig employers have found a way to skirt regulations protecting “real” employees. And that the people who suffer from this are primarily in an economic position such that they don’t have much of a choice but to accept those conditions. That doesn’t mean “any sub-utopic framework they have to participate in is immoral”, it just means this particular one is.
  - throwaway09223 4y ago
    "Real employees" have not historically done these jobs. Your assertion is simply not true.
    - ada1981 4y ago
      Uber replaced taxi cabs, which had some of the most historic Union protections in American history.
      - throwaway09223 4y ago
        Sorry, no. These exact same complaints have been swirling around for decades before Uber came on the scene: https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2017/12/12/taxi-drivers-employees-independent-contractors/ https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2017/12/12/taxi-drivers-emplo... The only change is that Uber grew the market and popularized hiring cars, and the state of California decided to start attacking its own tech industry. There's a lot of hypocrisy here. If the state truly had worker's interests at heart it would be looking at the farming industry, not ridesharing.
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      Not sure what you think that has to do with my point?
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
      “Real humans have not historically done these jobs”. A tragically myopic argument to make.
      - throwaway09223 4y ago

ckw 4y ago

The indentured servitude statement is apt: the GP implies that willful entrance into a contract of employment is by virtue of this willfulness incapable of being exploitative. But indentured servitude is entered into in the same manner, and few would deny the exploitative nature of indentured servitude.

throwaway09223 4y ago
No, it isn't. There is no contract in this scenario whatsoever, equitable or otherwise. It's an absurd analogy.
- ckw 4y ago
  Do you mean gig workers enter into no contract, or indentured servants entered into no contract, or something else? Indentured Servitude: ‘Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years. The contract, called an "indenture", may be entered voluntarily for eventual compensation or debt repayment, or it may be imposed as a judicial punishment.’ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude As for Uber drivers: it’s pretty hard to be an independent contractor without entering into a contract.
  - throwaway09223 4y ago
    Obviously I mean there's no contract demanding ongoing work performance from Uber drivers. Drivers can stop at any time. The only terms stipulate how they can work and under what terms, should they choose to do so. It is the polar opposite of an arrangement which demands continuing performance. It's even less restrictive than a typical employer-employee relationship.
    - ckw 4y ago
      GGP: How is it exploitative if the worker willfully enters into the contract? GP: But indentured servants enter willfully into their contracts, and indentured servitude is exploitative. So how is the willful nature of gig work relevant to the question of whether it is exploitative? You: GP has equated gig work with indentured servitude, and they are in no way comparable, because gig workers can quit whenever they choose. Me: GP did not equate indentured servitude and gig work, they used indentured servitude as a tool to show the flawed reasoning of GGP. You: Gig work is nothing like indentured servitude, because gig workers can quit whenever they want, and indentured servants can’t. Do you see the problem here?