4 ms·

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

by 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?
    - tivert 3y ago
      > What point am I missing? What jobs will these drivers work now that they can't drive for Uber or Lyft? The problem is (it appears) you're looking at this solely from the framework of free market dogma. The operation of market is assumed to be optimal, the Uber drivers had a nominal choice when they took a job with Uber, and that nominal choice cures any issue anyone could have with the terms of their employment, etc. While seductive, that framework is oversimple, and misses much. > My point, that you're missing, is that there was no coercion in this decision between driving for ride share versus the alternative. I am not missing that point at all. In fact, I find that point exceedingly tiresome due to how often it's repeated. At it's core, it's an apologia for fully taking advantage of a man's desperation (which I reject), and then twists that into some kind of good deed, so someone can pat themselves on the back for it afterwards (which just adds insult to injury). > How were Uber and Lyft bullying drivers? What I was referring to is their attempt to bully the Minneapolis city government and other governments that may take action to give drivers a better deal.
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        Again, how are Uber and Lyft taking advantage of drivers' desperation any more than the jobs they're going to have to work instead, now that Uber and Lyft are banned? These drivers already had the opportunity stop driving and work those jobs instead. Why is the former "taking advantage of man's desperation" but the latter is not? > The operation of market is assumed to be optimal, the Uber drivers had a nominal choice when they took a job with Uber, and that nominal choice cures any issue anyone could have with the terms of their employment, etc. > While seductive, that framework is oversimple, and misses much. Except... it does? You're insisting that this misses the point, but you don't actually explain what is misses. Again, what will these drivers be doing to make ends meet when Uber and Lyft leave Minneapolis? Guess what, they already had that choice before and decided that ride share was better. Maybe it was the flexibility, maybe it was the independence, who knows. But they all made the decision that other available employment was worse than driving. True, these drivers were working to put food on the table. But they're still going to be working to put food on the table in whatever job they do after ride share apps shut down in Minneapolis. It's no less "taking advantage of man's desperation".

by tivert 3y ago

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?
  - tivert 3y ago
    > What point am I missing? What jobs will these drivers work now that they can't drive for Uber or Lyft? The problem is (it appears) you're looking at this solely from the framework of free market dogma. The operation of market is assumed to be optimal, the Uber drivers had a nominal choice when they took a job with Uber, and that nominal choice cures any issue anyone could have with the terms of their employment, etc. While seductive, that framework is oversimple, and misses much. > My point, that you're missing, is that there was no coercion in this decision between driving for ride share versus the alternative. I am not missing that point at all. In fact, I find that point exceedingly tiresome due to how often it's repeated. At it's core, it's an apologia for fully taking advantage of a man's desperation (which I reject), and then twists that into some kind of good deed, so someone can pat themselves on the back for it afterwards (which just adds insult to injury). > How were Uber and Lyft bullying drivers? What I was referring to is their attempt to bully the Minneapolis city government and other governments that may take action to give drivers a better deal.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      Again, how are Uber and Lyft taking advantage of drivers' desperation any more than the jobs they're going to have to work instead, now that Uber and Lyft are banned? These drivers already had the opportunity stop driving and work those jobs instead. Why is the former "taking advantage of man's desperation" but the latter is not? > The operation of market is assumed to be optimal, the Uber drivers had a nominal choice when they took a job with Uber, and that nominal choice cures any issue anyone could have with the terms of their employment, etc. > While seductive, that framework is oversimple, and misses much. Except... it does? You're insisting that this misses the point, but you don't actually explain what is misses. Again, what will these drivers be doing to make ends meet when Uber and Lyft leave Minneapolis? Guess what, they already had that choice before and decided that ride share was better. Maybe it was the flexibility, maybe it was the independence, who knows. But they all made the decision that other available employment was worse than driving. True, these drivers were working to put food on the table. But they're still going to be working to put food on the table in whatever job they do after ride share apps shut down in Minneapolis. It's no less "taking advantage of man's desperation".