[toyg]

> the contractors working for gig apps, [...] have chosen not to exercise their rights

It's sad to see this sort of propaganda on HN.

Gig workers choose to take up a gig job in alternative to starvation, in most cases. There are big socioeconomic problems undermining the misguided notion that it might be a rational choice, in the overwhelming majority of cases.

This is why the State, in a modern society, is supposed to step in and forbid employers from taking advantage of workers.

These are lessons that were first learnt in the XIX and early XX century.

[smsm42]

> Gig workers choose to take up a gig job in alternative to starvation

Would like to see a source on the claim that Uber drivers' only alternative is starvation. Uber has been founded in 2009, I am old enough not to remember mass starvation anywhere in the US before that. I am also vaguely aware of something called welfare state in the US that collects massive taxes exactly to prevent people from starvation (among other things), and I don't remember - before 2009 - any claims that this system has failed so much that people are suffering starvation in the US on the massive scale, or were until Uber came along to rescue us.

Moreover, to work for Uber, you must have a car (and a driver's license). Not just any junker clunker car barely moving around - a relatively nice car that a passenger would be fine with sitting it. Usually people literally starving do not have those, I think. In most cases.

My personal experience with Uber drivers (and other gig workers, like TaskRabbit or Fiverr) also does not match the description that they were starving before they had this job. Of course, this is only a personal anecdote, so I would very much like to see your source to that claim. Though I suspect you do not have one.

[toyg]

There is no need to be disingenuous, you know very well what I meant.

Gig workers, at least in the UK, are overwhelmingly from minority and disadvantaged backgrounds; they don't do it out of choice, but because they have little or no alternative.

> to work for Uber, you must have a car

This is the same as for regular taxi work (there are various arrangements, but in most cases drivers end up paying for their vehicle one way or another). In fact, Uber lowered requirements since you don't need a specific type of cars (like UK cabs) or paint jobs/registrations (in most countries). And that's why it got popular: it lowered standards even further, in a sector already predominantly staffed by the worse-off.

> My personal experience with Uber drivers [...] also does not match the description

Of course; they want your five stars, they'll all try to look and sound happy and successful - not unlike many entrepreneurs.

[smsm42]

> they don't do it out of choice, but because they have little or no alternative.

If they have no alternative, that means removing these jobs would leave them with literally no income at all. How can anyone think it's a good thing?

> This is the same as for regular taxi work

No, it's not, at least not in the US where taxi medallion (completely government-imposed cost) could cost over a million before Uber, and even now can cost hundreds of thousands. Uber medallion costs $0 - they give you the windshield decal for free, as I heard.

> In fact, Uber lowered requirements since you don't need a specific type of cars (like UK cabs) or paint jobs/registrations (in most countries)

And that's bad because it allows those with no other alternatives to earn income access these jobs without impossibly high upfront investment, which also allows to better serve customers, which is obviously bad because.... ? I can't finish this phrase.

> Of course; they want your five stars, they'll all try to look and sound happy and successful

And that's bad because... ? Anyway, you can't be starving and dirt-poor and "look" an owner of an upscale Mercedes - you'd need the Mercedes at least. You can't just "look" like having one - you have to actually get one.

[RugnirViking]

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/nutriti...

While it's not literal death from starvation, it's as close as you'll get in a country with agriculture subsidised in the way that it is.

That's not to say it's as melodramatic a situation as maybe the word 'starvation' presents itself, but do not delude yourself; people really are actually poor in real life. It happens. A lot.

[smsm42]

Sorry, I can't believe you compare nutritional disbalance (which is caused, in part, by abundance of cheap available calories in cheap available foods with ) with actual starvation. Yes, common American diet is nutritionally unsound (and government meddling for decades using bad science carries serious part of the blame, agro subsidies do too) but this is radically different from not being able to afford any food at all. I can't believe this needs to be spelled out.

> people really are actually poor in real life. It happens. A lot.

Who you are arguing with? I never claimed there are no poor people in real life. What I said that Uber drivers aren't doing it because their alternative is starving. Most people who are really poor do not participate in the gig economy at all.

[antidesitter]

A factually-correct statement isn’t “propaganda” just because you don’t like it.