| > 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. |