|
|
|
|
|
by allthenews
3029 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
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.