5 ms·

> Ride share driver's aren't slaves. They chose to drive for ride share companies above the other options. If it was a bad deal then Uber and Lyft would be havi

by tivert 3y ago

> Ride share driver's aren't slaves. They chose to drive for ride share companies above the other options. If it was a bad deal then Uber and Lyft would be having trouble finding drivers. And slaves aren't slaves either, they chose to remain slaves above other options (rebel and be beaten or killed). If it was a bad deal, the slaveholders would be having trouble getting their slaves to work, and would just be killing or beating them all the time. I find type of argument irksome. It basically ignores whatever the actual situation is with a blind assumption whatever the market does is the best (or at least better) thing and is therefore fine. If you give a person terrible choices, and they pick the best of a bad lot, that choice doesn't excuse the situation. All Minneapolis did was mandate one those choices had to be better. The rest is up to Uber and Lyft, who chose to play hardball to keep exploiting their workers to the degree they've become accustomed. > How is strictly fewer options a good thing? Exploitative options aren't a acceptable.

Manuel_D 3y ago
> And slaves aren't slaves either, they chose to remain slaves above other options (rebel and be beaten or killed) Coercion is when you cannot reasonably refuse. If one faces torture and execution for refusal, then they cannot reasonably refuse. Will Uber and Lyft tie up drivers and whip them if they choose to take a job at Starbucks? Whill Uber and Lyft kill drivers? Come on, you call my argument irksome then you compare these drivers to actual chattel slavery.
- tivert 3y ago
  Remember: at it's core, capitalism uses the threat of deprivation and want to coerce cooperation with it, and it always likes an oversupply of labor. Don't want to chose to work at my sweatshop (or the sweatshop of one of my peers) for miserable wages while I get rich off your labor? Fine, go starve. And don't go trespassing on my estate to try to grow food, if you try the men with guns will come for you. What's so clever about it is the threat is indirect and systemic (instead of direct and personal), which is all some people seem to need to deny it's there. It also brings to mind the ancient Roman fire brigades, which were more of an extortion racket than anything else.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    The threat of deprivation if people don't do labor is omnipresent. If Hunter gatherers didn't gather berries and hunt for food, they faced starvation. At this point, the definition of coercion has been expanded such that humanity's very existence is inherently coercive.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > The threat of deprivation if people don't do labor is omnipresent. If Hunter gatherers didn't gather berries and hunt for food, they faced starvation. I didn't say it wasn't. But don't you realize the different social dynamic here from being a hunter gatherer? Uber and Lyft were exploiting that for their own gain, and ran away from the corrective action because they think they have the power to bully it away to maintain their gain at the level of which they've become accustomed. > At this point, the definition of coercion has been expanded such that humanity's very existence is inherently coercive. Only if you miss the point.
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        What point am I missing? What jobs will these drivers work now that they can't drive for Uber or Lyft? Whatever your response is, they had the opportunity to work that job before and made the deliberate decision to drive for Uber and Lyft instead. My point, that you're missing, is that there was no coercion in this decision between driving for ride share versus the alternative. And you're somehow trying to argue that depriving these drivers of the choice to work for Uber and Lyft and forcing them into the alternative that they previously judged an inferior opportunity is somehow a good thing. Your point about people working to avoid starvation applies just as much to whatever job these ex-drivers are going to be working instead. These drivers judged that these jobs were worse than driving for ride share, but apparently you think you know better than them despite having zero knowledge about their priorities and life situation. You edited your comment after my response: > Uber and Lyft were exploiting that for their own gain, and ran away from the corrective action because they think they have the power to bully it away to maintain their gain at the level of which they've become accustomed. How were Uber and Lyft bullying drivers? Again, you seem to be claiming that drivers were somehow coerced into driving for ride share apps instead of seeking alternative employment. But you've yet to explain how this bullying was perpetrated. What was Lyft and Uber doing to keep drivers from working at Starbucks or some other job?

by tivert 3y ago

Manuel_D 3y ago

> And slaves aren't slaves either, they chose to remain slaves above other options (rebel and be beaten or killed) Coercion is when you cannot reasonably refuse. If one faces torture and execution for refusal, then they cannot reasonably refuse. Will Uber and Lyft tie up drivers and whip them if they choose to take a job at Starbucks? Whill Uber and Lyft kill drivers? Come on, you call my argument irksome then you compare these drivers to actual chattel slavery.

tivert 3y ago
Remember: at it's core, capitalism uses the threat of deprivation and want to coerce cooperation with it, and it always likes an oversupply of labor. Don't want to chose to work at my sweatshop (or the sweatshop of one of my peers) for miserable wages while I get rich off your labor? Fine, go starve. And don't go trespassing on my estate to try to grow food, if you try the men with guns will come for you. What's so clever about it is the threat is indirect and systemic (instead of direct and personal), which is all some people seem to need to deny it's there. It also brings to mind the ancient Roman fire brigades, which were more of an extortion racket than anything else.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  The threat of deprivation if people don't do labor is omnipresent. If Hunter gatherers didn't gather berries and hunt for food, they faced starvation. At this point, the definition of coercion has been expanded such that humanity's very existence is inherently coercive.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > The threat of deprivation if people don't do labor is omnipresent. If Hunter gatherers didn't gather berries and hunt for food, they faced starvation. I didn't say it wasn't. But don't you realize the different social dynamic here from being a hunter gatherer? Uber and Lyft were exploiting that for their own gain, and ran away from the corrective action because they think they have the power to bully it away to maintain their gain at the level of which they've become accustomed. > At this point, the definition of coercion has been expanded such that humanity's very existence is inherently coercive. Only if you miss the point.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      What point am I missing? What jobs will these drivers work now that they can't drive for Uber or Lyft? Whatever your response is, they had the opportunity to work that job before and made the deliberate decision to drive for Uber and Lyft instead. My point, that you're missing, is that there was no coercion in this decision between driving for ride share versus the alternative. And you're somehow trying to argue that depriving these drivers of the choice to work for Uber and Lyft and forcing them into the alternative that they previously judged an inferior opportunity is somehow a good thing. Your point about people working to avoid starvation applies just as much to whatever job these ex-drivers are going to be working instead. These drivers judged that these jobs were worse than driving for ride share, but apparently you think you know better than them despite having zero knowledge about their priorities and life situation. You edited your comment after my response: > Uber and Lyft were exploiting that for their own gain, and ran away from the corrective action because they think they have the power to bully it away to maintain their gain at the level of which they've become accustomed. How were Uber and Lyft bullying drivers? Again, you seem to be claiming that drivers were somehow coerced into driving for ride share apps instead of seeking alternative employment. But you've yet to explain how this bullying was perpetrated. What was Lyft and Uber doing to keep drivers from working at Starbucks or some other job?