5 ms·

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 discuss

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

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