> Okay but to be fair that wasn't the original model That is true: initially the business model exploited people and society before we could mobilize our slow

> Okay but to be fair that wasn't the original model That is true: initially the business model exploited people and society before we could mobilize our slow government to force them to be more decent and less exploitative. We as a society, acting through our government, aren't under an obligation to make sure every business model that everyone wants to use is legal, and we decided their old one shouldn't be, because it was exploitative. > It was only due to the minimum wage law... that caused uber to restrict when drivers could take rides. The law didn't cause that. Uber's decisions caused that, and they could have decided differently. Indeed, the decent response for Uber and Lyft would be to figure out the spirit of the law, and comply with that as well as the letter. Treating drivers decently, as employees, would be one way to accomplish that. Another way might be lowering ride prices when supply exceeds demand. In contrast, the companies are trying to eat their cake and have it too, by continuing to be exploitative with these actions in the article. Unfortunately they will need to be slapped down again, because the actions are illegal, as pointed out in my post above. > the minimum wage law... essentially forced uber to pay for time even if there wasn't any riders Correct: that is precisely what we wanted when we passed the law. This isn't an error that we need Uber and Lyft's help fixing. If Uber decides what work its workers can do and when (perhaps because it's more profitable for Uber that way), then that makes the workers, employees.