4 ms·

So from your writing I can extract: profit is bad and incentives to work are bad, no matter the improvement on the service or if people do it bc they found it a

So from your writing I can extract: profit is bad and incentives to work are bad, no matter the improvement on the service or if people do it bc they found it an option? If you consider a job as exploitation, in the free world you can find another job, right? That is what I do: I will not work in what I think it is bad. But in my case at least that job should be very bad by all measures, bc there is no worst thing for me than getting social benefits just because a job was "too bad", "too exploited" or "too hard". All in all, I do not think driving taxis has something to do with exploitation.

pasquinelli 4y ago
the boss makes more off your work than you do, that's what people mean by exploitation when they're talking about work.
- germandiago 4y ago
  I know what they mean, and it is an incorrect assessment with a great bias towards their own interests. The boss is another role. You can be a boss. Why not? Ah, it entails risks also: paying bills, managing, taking decisions, risk of going bankrupt... so when most people talk about expoitation they do not talk about the other side of things so that their complaints look legit. Also, working in an already setup environment usually multiplies your productivity. But if it is not the case, then the natural consequence is that copying the business model and starting to compete should be an easy alternative. If people complain and do not do it, there are more reasons they are not talking about. For sure there will be bad bosses, and bad employees, do not misunderstand this. But if it is so bad and exploited you have other options: become the boss, switch job. If you do not want either of those, you should wonder why, not starting to insult people who give you the possibility to improve your life conditions or survive. Out of mutual interest, of course. Not bc they are saints. It is very funny when I see people talking about how they are exploited by others and instead of finding an alternative, like taking the risk to invest their accumulated wealth, they just come with this discourse. Remember that if you are an employee you can just switch jobs also, you can do something else, you can try to build something your own. What you cannot do is go with that discourse assuming the other part does not pay any cost: for example, when there is an investment, you have to spend a bunch of money for something that is likely (most business do) to fail, putting your money in advance. The people who work just work, leave and find something else.
  - NeuNeurosis 4y ago
    Interesting, you only cover the options that exist in the current paradigm around a advanced economy where there are plenty of individual options that you are right most people don't explore. The weakness from my perspective in your argument is that the current economic structure you are describing and which we are living in, is by its very nature exploitative. It has deep historical roots in destroying any other means of sustenance beyond what the system controlled. Cultivatable land was stolen, captured and monopolized at the expense of those relying on those sytems. Means of sustenance have been continually destroyed or over exploited such as the buffalo in the States, the swamps drained and turned to farmland everywhere, seasonal water sources captured and guarded everywhere, jungles burned or cut down through out Asia and South America. This direct exploitation of communal resources by groups of people against other groups of for economic gain and control has forced people who did choose a different form of life is directly exploitative. This led to Nomads everywhere given "incentives" everywhere to settle down and become part of the larger economic system and culture, native american boarding houses in both US and CA that led to the mass deaths of thousands of Native children. This has led to loss of culture, languages, and peoples all over the world. When the larger system doesn't approve the smaller systems disappear. Yes we have options in the current economic system but we have no options outside of it.
    - germandiago 4y ago
      Your argument that the system exploits is dead easy to drop. Think of it. You are at home. Jump to the bed, do nothing. You die. Poor is the natural condition of the man. That is obvious. Now think: if you must be provided something, and you do not work for it (I assume in conditions working by mutual agreement) you are just reversing things: the one who won't work is the one demanding and exploiting others' work in fact to live from them. There is no such thing as an exploiting salary. There is just someone offering something and you can either take it, negotiate or leave it. Bc if they pay u what u demand (did u ever see someone complain saying "my salary is too high?") probably the business cannot exist bc pol dnt use it for a higher cost. And if u work for them it is bc it is ur best alternative at the time. So saying that not being payed enough is exploiting is totally absurd in free conditions. First, because you can find alternatives and second, because if I pay you something for your work (bc I give u support for getting customers, for example, with trchnology) you can leave it, take it, or build an alterbative. What you cannot do is to insult them just bc you want a bigger part and that generates a frustration feeling for you bc of your feeling of unjust. But if some people do it it is clearly bc it is their best alternative. I do not want to steal the food of those ppl. Whwn they find something better they will move on and customers have a service.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
SergeAx 4y ago
I am talking about concrete examples and consequent trend. Uber is fiddling with price hikes and "high demand areas" to make drivers work more. Yandex.Taxi in Russia gives drivers "let's go home" button to catch a ride towards their home, but before driver hits that button Yandex will give them a ride in the opposite direction - to increase total mileage. Those are just known facts, and there are lots less researched, like gamification, bonus payments for achievements, which are highly exploitable via collected datasets. Something is done voluntary doesn't automatically means it is legal or ethical.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  > but before driver hits that button Yandex will give them a ride in the opposite direction - to increase total mileage Isn't that good for the driver?
  - SergeAx 4y ago
    Since Yandex virtually khows from collected data when the driver going to go home, it effectively gives driver extra ride in the wrong direction and then longer ride in the right direction, makes driver literally make extra miles.
    - marcosdumay 4y ago
      Are those trips not paid?
      - SergeAx 4y ago
        Of course they are paid, what's your point?
        marcosdumay 4y ago
        The driver is seeing extra revenue from an activity that is inherently limited (how long he will drive back on the direction of home). As a rule, isn't that beneficial for drivers? Why are you talking like if it is inherently bad? Is there something that doesn't fit my description?

pasquinelli 4y ago

the boss makes more off your work than you do, that's what people mean by exploitation when they're talking about work.

germandiago 4y ago
I know what they mean, and it is an incorrect assessment with a great bias towards their own interests. The boss is another role. You can be a boss. Why not? Ah, it entails risks also: paying bills, managing, taking decisions, risk of going bankrupt... so when most people talk about expoitation they do not talk about the other side of things so that their complaints look legit. Also, working in an already setup environment usually multiplies your productivity. But if it is not the case, then the natural consequence is that copying the business model and starting to compete should be an easy alternative. If people complain and do not do it, there are more reasons they are not talking about. For sure there will be bad bosses, and bad employees, do not misunderstand this. But if it is so bad and exploited you have other options: become the boss, switch job. If you do not want either of those, you should wonder why, not starting to insult people who give you the possibility to improve your life conditions or survive. Out of mutual interest, of course. Not bc they are saints. It is very funny when I see people talking about how they are exploited by others and instead of finding an alternative, like taking the risk to invest their accumulated wealth, they just come with this discourse. Remember that if you are an employee you can just switch jobs also, you can do something else, you can try to build something your own. What you cannot do is go with that discourse assuming the other part does not pay any cost: for example, when there is an investment, you have to spend a bunch of money for something that is likely (most business do) to fail, putting your money in advance. The people who work just work, leave and find something else.
- NeuNeurosis 4y ago
  Interesting, you only cover the options that exist in the current paradigm around a advanced economy where there are plenty of individual options that you are right most people don't explore. The weakness from my perspective in your argument is that the current economic structure you are describing and which we are living in, is by its very nature exploitative. It has deep historical roots in destroying any other means of sustenance beyond what the system controlled. Cultivatable land was stolen, captured and monopolized at the expense of those relying on those sytems. Means of sustenance have been continually destroyed or over exploited such as the buffalo in the States, the swamps drained and turned to farmland everywhere, seasonal water sources captured and guarded everywhere, jungles burned or cut down through out Asia and South America. This direct exploitation of communal resources by groups of people against other groups of for economic gain and control has forced people who did choose a different form of life is directly exploitative. This led to Nomads everywhere given "incentives" everywhere to settle down and become part of the larger economic system and culture, native american boarding houses in both US and CA that led to the mass deaths of thousands of Native children. This has led to loss of culture, languages, and peoples all over the world. When the larger system doesn't approve the smaller systems disappear. Yes we have options in the current economic system but we have no options outside of it.
  - germandiago 4y ago
    Your argument that the system exploits is dead easy to drop. Think of it. You are at home. Jump to the bed, do nothing. You die. Poor is the natural condition of the man. That is obvious. Now think: if you must be provided something, and you do not work for it (I assume in conditions working by mutual agreement) you are just reversing things: the one who won't work is the one demanding and exploiting others' work in fact to live from them. There is no such thing as an exploiting salary. There is just someone offering something and you can either take it, negotiate or leave it. Bc if they pay u what u demand (did u ever see someone complain saying "my salary is too high?") probably the business cannot exist bc pol dnt use it for a higher cost. And if u work for them it is bc it is ur best alternative at the time. So saying that not being payed enough is exploiting is totally absurd in free conditions. First, because you can find alternatives and second, because if I pay you something for your work (bc I give u support for getting customers, for example, with trchnology) you can leave it, take it, or build an alterbative. What you cannot do is to insult them just bc you want a bigger part and that generates a frustration feeling for you bc of your feeling of unjust. But if some people do it it is clearly bc it is their best alternative. I do not want to steal the food of those ppl. Whwn they find something better they will move on and customers have a service.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

SergeAx 4y ago

I am talking about concrete examples and consequent trend. Uber is fiddling with price hikes and "high demand areas" to make drivers work more. Yandex.Taxi in Russia gives drivers "let's go home" button to catch a ride towards their home, but before driver hits that button Yandex will give them a ride in the opposite direction - to increase total mileage. Those are just known facts, and there are lots less researched, like gamification, bonus payments for achievements, which are highly exploitable via collected datasets. Something is done voluntary doesn't automatically means it is legal or ethical.

marcosdumay 4y ago
> but before driver hits that button Yandex will give them a ride in the opposite direction - to increase total mileage Isn't that good for the driver?
- SergeAx 4y ago
  Since Yandex virtually khows from collected data when the driver going to go home, it effectively gives driver extra ride in the wrong direction and then longer ride in the right direction, makes driver literally make extra miles.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    Are those trips not paid?
    - SergeAx 4y ago
      Of course they are paid, what's your point?
      - marcosdumay 4y ago
        The driver is seeing extra revenue from an activity that is inherently limited (how long he will drive back on the direction of home). As a rule, isn't that beneficial for drivers? Why are you talking like if it is inherently bad? Is there something that doesn't fit my description?