[atonse]

It doesn't matter if they could exist. The point is that the minimum wage is there so the _employees_ can exist and make a living.

If a company's business model relies on paying people shit wages, the blame lies totally on the company to fix it.

[allthenews]

But this is an excellent example of a case where forcing minimum wage equivalent on ride sharing would result in a net loss of jobs, is it not? Where is the money going to come from? I use ride sharing because it is cheap and convenient, but it is something I can gladly go back to living without.

Meanwhile, on the "market" supply side, you have individual people rationally choosing to drive, and you are advocating to essentially take that agency away from them, by artificially setting a price floor.

[atonse]

But as we all have seen, the ride sharing market as it stands right now is artificial.

Even though people are getting paid a pittance, the actual fares are severely subsidized by VC money, so what you're paying for isn't sustainable.

The other shoe will drop soon. And drivers STILL won't get paid much. So it's not like this business model is that strong as it is.

[allthenews]

And if the shoe drops, drivers quit, or the whole system goes belly up for lack of profitability, and the market has solved the problem, without any artificial meddling which otherwise guarantees a less than optimal result.

I don't understand the problem. Especially in this business model. This isn't some sweatshop where people are required to grind all day and have no way out. These are people who generally earn extra cash in their spare time with a vehicle they would have anyway. I just don't see why they need any kind of special protection from a nanny state.

If you feel that ride sharing is not profitable, don't start driving. Let everyone else drive if they want, for whatever rate they deem is sufficient compensation.

[atonse]

For most of us that read this site, we are lucky that the minimum wage debate is largely an intellectual exercise. We can throw economic and free market theory into the debate until the cows come home. But to me, this is a bigger issue of what is the base standard of living we want for members of our society. I don't think it's crazy to ask businesses to pay their employees a fair wage in this age of historic profits. And as we've seen time and again, raising the minimum wage to something like $15 has had no negative economic impact (like in Seattle).

And even with the very low rates that Uber pays its drivers, they're still rushing to build an automated fleet. So this argument that a minimum wage will make these jobs go away, just doesn't hold water, because those motivations are _already_ there, and the trend is _already_ going in that direction.

You're also right that Uber isn't a sweatshop, nor is anyone being forced to drive for them. But to throw your hands up and just say "oh well, it's just how it happened, that's just how the market is", as if this wasn't a carefully planned way for Uber to skirt employment and labor laws, and ignore all the malice and greed involved, simply doesn't faithfully represent the actual situation.

By the way, I say all this knowing that my consumer behavior is hypocritical: I use Lyft every now and then, and I still shop at Amazon.