[shados]

> not after worker supply has increased

Ironically, not only do tech workers aren't worried about this, they embrace it and encourage it. An enormous amount of work is being done to lower the bar, make things more accessible, reduce the need for diplomas and certifications, downplay the value of experience, etc. Basically ensuring that they'll see significant competition in the future (those initiatives don't help "a little". They literally change the landscape of the industry).

So it's a bit hard to convince people that they should work to protect their job when they're already working so hard to do the opposite (with the well being of others in mind, of course)

[wrong_variable]

Not only that, by expanding the industry - tech has been able to "eat" other industry, due to its inclusiveness.

20 years ago the internet was less than 0.01% of global GDP. Tech will continue eating industries that are structured unfairly.

[AlexandrB]

> Tech will continue eating industries that are structured unfairly.

Like how tech took driving a taxi from a job that (unfairly) paid a living wage to one that doesn't.

[bsder]

The problem is that there is a big difference in the effect Uber/Lyft had on places with functioning cab systems (New York, San Francisco, Chicago, DC--where Uber/Lyft should have gotten squashed by law) and those places where there wasn't (Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, Pittsburgh, etc.--where ridesharing was a boon)

While I'm not a big Uber/Lyft fan, prior to them the cab companies in the non-functional cities were atrocious.

I spent 40 minutes getting a bloody taxi at my lawyer's office in Las Vegas--and then had to wonder if I could get one back from the restaurant I went to. Getting from Monroeville to the Pittsburgh airport was a disaster. I can go on and on.

With Uber/Lyft in existence, a whole bunch of things don't happen with impunity anymore. Drivers can't refuse to pick you up. Drivers can't blow you off and not show up. Drivers can't refuse to take a credit card. etc.

Uber/Lyft aren't my favorite companies, but neither were the taxis.

[barry-cotter]

Indeed, it is terrible that many more people can do a job now, with lower barriers to entry, and that the service is more easily available, more reliable and often cheaper. The medallion system of decreasing supply with employee drivers and a taxi regulator that did everything possible to protect drivers and frustrate consumer complaints about drivers not picking up black customers or refusing to drive people to places within the mandated service area was far superior for those who could buy medallions and rent them out to drivers, and for drivers who could refuse customers and still be able to pick up a fare.

[manfredo]

Most estimates place wages for Uber and Lyft drivers at roughly the same as taxis after expenses are covered. And if you factor in the six (or at its peak, seven) figure cost of a medallion, it's basically impossible to claim that traditional taxi jobs are better than rideshare.

[bduerst]

At the cost of billions in venture capital. The market is starting to correct itself now that most ridesharing companies are publicly traded profit seekers and cutting wages.

[shados]

Not arguing its a bad thing that we make things more inclusive (my employer is very much into these initiatives and I fully support it and am involved in some of it!), but a lot of this growth happened in companies not exactly known for it. Netflix, Google, etc, were not paragons of fairness and inclusivity when they made it big.

[walshemj]

Its much harder to go the self taught autodidact route now compared to when I started mumble decades ago.

Yes I know there are outliers but the vast majority of entrants are BSC grads.