[moate]

Frame it another way: You have 120 hours of shifts that you need covered at your job in a given week. You can hire 12 people who each work 10 hours, or 3 full-time employees.

The "better" choice again comes down to your goal: More jobs or "better", full time jobs.

[clinta]

There are more considerations than just "number of jobs" vs "quality of jobs" in evaluating what is better.

Consumers should also be considered. If casual drivers are excluded, the smaller pool of drivers will cause prices to rise. Some consumers who previously used ride sharing will go back to driving their own cars.

There's also the removal of a smooth transition driving as a career. If you can do it casually for a few hours you can discover if you enjoy it and want to quit your job and do it full time. If the only option is to be a full time employee, you have to go through the hiring process and take a risk of quitting your current job just to see if it's for you.

[moate]

>>There are more considerations than just "number of jobs" vs "quality of jobs" in evaluating what is better.

And this is why I'm specifically and repeatedly not getting into the discussion of "which is better". Because that's a whole other discussion.

I'm just pointing out that when it comes to job creation, there's 2 axis. Both have pros, both have cons. You say X is better, I say Y is better, objectively there's data on either side, subjectively there's opinions on both sides, frankly I'm not interested in all that. Just pointing out that there's a rational opponent to your points. Not trying to be him.