[dorfsmay]

They are both valid debates, not opposed:

- is Uber too capitalistic (not in my opinion, the only unethical thing quoted in the article are their actions against Lyft)

- are the current economic practice sustainable in a worker less society (in my opinion, no, but that doesn't mean we throw the current system away, there is still a need for workers, it is changing at an accelerating pace, we need to adapt and ease into a new system)

[ThomPete]

Thats the problem though. You seem to imply that it's just a matter of changing the skills of the workforce.

But thats not the discussion thats worth having I think, cause the real issue is whether that's even possible anymore.

I don't know if anything can be too capitalistic, but since uber is trying to get around normal legislation (taking the best from defining their drivers as freelancers and treating them as employers)

[dorfsmay]

> Thats the problem though. You seem to imply that it's just a matter of changing the skills of the workforce.

Not what I meant, but it is a much bigger discussion than Uber and ethics that involves concepts of basic income, which work can and cannot be automated, rewarding work that's not interesting, rewarding innovation, etc...

The article here confuse capitalism with ethics, and tries to defend one form of capitalism vs another (debate about medaillons).

[ThomPete]

Yes it's bigger which is why I was commenting on it since parent seemed to try and dismiss the essays claim by pointing toward some rational inconsistency.

At least that's how it read to me.