[toomuchtodo]

Basic economics have failed when a company that has existed for over a decade without any ability to turn a profit IPOs. And indeed, I am all for using laws against abusive corporate entities.

I am also for using data protection laws (and not minimum wage regulations) to break the ability of social media companies to survive (or at the very least, rein them in). Have to use the right tool for a job.

[inflatableDodo]

Laws against abusive company practices I am all for. Laws written with a specific company in mind, less so. Of course a specific company's behaviour can be a trigger for the drafting of a law, but if so, that law should be carefully thought through in light of the general rather than the specific issues, otherwise you just end up playing kingmaker.

[jimmywanger]

> Basic economics have failed when a company that has existed for over a decade without any ability to turn a profit IPOs.

The markets are irrational sometimes. Basic economics assume rational behaviour, which is something that cannot be assumed.

> And indeed, I am all for using laws against abusive corporate entities.

I don't think you can pass laws against companies specifically. First, define what you mean by abusive. Uber/Lyft doesn't have a gun against your head to force you to drive.

You have to pass them against specific behaviours. Also, for ridesharing companies, what does "per hour mean"? Time you spent logged in, adding time you spent stuck in traffic getting to the customer, or time you are actively moving towards your destination after pickup? There are obviously unintended side effects to give in to knee jerk reactions to something that you feel is wrong. Would Uber/Lyft drivers be happy if the companies implode and they're stuck with a bunch of worthless predatory leases on cars? Or the fact that part time drivers no longer have that option to at least make some money?