3 ms·

I would be even more mad if I was driving for Uber in those cities and overnight the government made the decision for me to remove that as an income option.

jakelazaroff 3y ago
According to the article, Uber and Lyft made the decision to stop operating, not the government.
- bogota 3y ago
  It now costs you 100k a year in taxes for your property. You then move and everyone say its your fault because you don’t want to take a loss every year. Do i have this correct?
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    No, because the actual issue is that Uber’s profit model in Minneapolis required them to pay below the legal minimum wage.
  - cma 3y ago
    They were just asking for something like minimum wage after expenses and employers portion social security equivalent.
  - jakelazaroff 3y ago
    Kind of! In this analogy I’m cheating on my taxes, and everyone tells me it’s my fault when the government makes me pay what I actually owe. I’d also go to prison, whereas Uber and Lyft just get to say “whoops!” and leave town.
    - tick_tock_tick 3y ago
      ex post facto laws are illegal just like Uber and Lyft you wouldn't be punished for what happened before they changed the laws.
kstrauser 3y ago
I’d be furious if the government told my employer they had to pay me overtime, and my employer closed up shop rather than abide by the same rules as everyone else. This is Uber’s fault, not the government’s fault for enforcing basic employee rights.
- hollerith 3y ago
  So, do you think Minneapolis should pass a second law prohibiting Uber from pulling out of Minneapolis?
  - IllIlIIllI 3y ago
    Moreso that you should be mad at Uber for not following the law, not the state for trying to enforce its laws.
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    Of course not! Uber should be free to not operate in places where they don’t want to obey the local laws.
    - hollerith 3y ago
      I agree: of course not.
LoganDark 3y ago
That's exactly how Uber wants you to think. That's what they're doing: making it seem like the law is preventing them from operating (they just don't want to pay reasonable wages) so that the people get mad and vote it out, at which point they can simply continue to pay unlivable wages again.
- goalonetwo 3y ago
  This is backward. The issue is that in an healthy low unemployment environment, more companies would compete for those workers that would be able to negotiate a higher wage. There is a ton of research on this and a lot of things I have read around minimum wages is that it might actually hurt workers more than anything. Once minimum wage laws come in, a company needs to decide to raise prices or stop doing business. Raising price helps inflation and starts that feedback loop. Stop doing business means now the workers are out of a job which is even worse. The real solution is to create an environment where companies compete to get workers. This was the case not so long ago after covid where most people didn't want to go back to work and some fast food chains had to raise wages to 25$/h
  - LoganDark 3y ago
    > This is backward. How so? Your comment refutes something I didn't say. I said that Uber is blaming the law for their own decision to pull out of that market and that this is an intentional/manipulative decision on their part, which seems not to disagree with your comment. > The real solution is to create an environment where companies compete to get workers. This will remain impossible while there are far more workers than jobs (that they can work). Every job I apply to already has hundreds of other applicants. I can't get in anywhere, so I have to apply everywhere. Everyone else also does this. Workers have to compete for jobs & employers routinely fuck you over because they know they have leverage. While it would sure be nice if jobs had to compete for me instead, I need to live today so I need money today and this "healthy low employment environment" will never exist. I have to take the first job I get an offer from because it might be my only job opportunity for years.

jakelazaroff 3y ago

According to the article, Uber and Lyft made the decision to stop operating, not the government.

bogota 3y ago
It now costs you 100k a year in taxes for your property. You then move and everyone say its your fault because you don’t want to take a loss every year. Do i have this correct?
- kstrauser 3y ago
  No, because the actual issue is that Uber’s profit model in Minneapolis required them to pay below the legal minimum wage.
- cma 3y ago
  They were just asking for something like minimum wage after expenses and employers portion social security equivalent.
- jakelazaroff 3y ago
  Kind of! In this analogy I’m cheating on my taxes, and everyone tells me it’s my fault when the government makes me pay what I actually owe. I’d also go to prison, whereas Uber and Lyft just get to say “whoops!” and leave town.
  - tick_tock_tick 3y ago
    ex post facto laws are illegal just like Uber and Lyft you wouldn't be punished for what happened before they changed the laws.

kstrauser 3y ago

I’d be furious if the government told my employer they had to pay me overtime, and my employer closed up shop rather than abide by the same rules as everyone else. This is Uber’s fault, not the government’s fault for enforcing basic employee rights.

hollerith 3y ago
So, do you think Minneapolis should pass a second law prohibiting Uber from pulling out of Minneapolis?
- IllIlIIllI 3y ago
  Moreso that you should be mad at Uber for not following the law, not the state for trying to enforce its laws.
- kstrauser 3y ago
  Of course not! Uber should be free to not operate in places where they don’t want to obey the local laws.
  - hollerith 3y ago
    I agree: of course not.

LoganDark 3y ago

That's exactly how Uber wants you to think. That's what they're doing: making it seem like the law is preventing them from operating (they just don't want to pay reasonable wages) so that the people get mad and vote it out, at which point they can simply continue to pay unlivable wages again.

goalonetwo 3y ago
This is backward. The issue is that in an healthy low unemployment environment, more companies would compete for those workers that would be able to negotiate a higher wage. There is a ton of research on this and a lot of things I have read around minimum wages is that it might actually hurt workers more than anything. Once minimum wage laws come in, a company needs to decide to raise prices or stop doing business. Raising price helps inflation and starts that feedback loop. Stop doing business means now the workers are out of a job which is even worse. The real solution is to create an environment where companies compete to get workers. This was the case not so long ago after covid where most people didn't want to go back to work and some fast food chains had to raise wages to 25$/h
- LoganDark 3y ago
  > This is backward. How so? Your comment refutes something I didn't say. I said that Uber is blaming the law for their own decision to pull out of that market and that this is an intentional/manipulative decision on their part, which seems not to disagree with your comment. > The real solution is to create an environment where companies compete to get workers. This will remain impossible while there are far more workers than jobs (that they can work). Every job I apply to already has hundreds of other applicants. I can't get in anywhere, so I have to apply everywhere. Everyone else also does this. Workers have to compete for jobs & employers routinely fuck you over because they know they have leverage. While it would sure be nice if jobs had to compete for me instead, I need to live today so I need money today and this "healthy low employment environment" will never exist. I have to take the first job I get an offer from because it might be my only job opportunity for years.