[boreas]

Ridesharing created a more or less competitive market for this slice of the transportation sector. Competitive markets are the best way to allocate resources. If you don't agree with that, it will be hard to have a productive discussion.

But if you do agree with that, shouldn't we resolve inequalities by directly supporting the least fortunate (with cash) rather than force parties into arbitrary economic relationships?

[TheOtherHobbes]

Competitive markets are the best way for capital to extract value from workers, because without collective bargaining they pit individuals against huge corporate operations with wildly disproportionate access to legal and financial power.

They are not the best way to allocate resources - not least because they have huge social and political opportunity costs which are rarely understood by their fervent devotees.

Cash is not a solution to this, although it can be a productive first step in some limited circumstances.

The "arbitrary economic relationships" here are the ones being peddled by Uber and Lyft.

The point is neither Uber nor Lyft are viable businesses. Even with its advantages Uber is somehow managing to lose $3bn a year on its ride sharing service.

It only exists at all because investors hope it will somehow be able to throw its beta-drivers under the proverbial bus when self-driving cars finally become a thing, and too many of its drivers aren't aware of this and are expecting it to act like a long-term employer.

[TheOperator]

Competitive markets combined with regulation are the way we allocate resources in virtually every country. Unchecked competition can lead to exploitative races to the bottom, concentration of capital in the hands of people who cannot use it efficiently, and wanton externalising of costs (pollution, insurance, congestion). Ridesharing did create a competitive market and now its negative aspects should be curtailed.

I'm not in favour of a return to the 40 hour workweek which seems arbitrary and archaic and smacks of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I would prefer an equivalent to the 40 hour workweek for contractors, we have price controls for farm workers, but for some reason act as though it's normal for Uber drivers to work for effectively well under minimum wage. We need to ensure the drivers are getting a bigger share of the proceeds at the time the profits are being generated, not afterwards after labour has lost all of its negotiating leverage and granted a massive warchest of money to capital. States like California should be competitive and fight for a share of profits, not passively roll over.

[igor47]

> the best way to allocate resources

i think the word that jumps out at me here is "best". what does this mean? is there an absolute agreed-upon best, or is best relative?

in this situation (re: ride-share companies), i think it's entirely possible that there are overall market wins -- more money ends up circulating -- but that there are local losers, specifically the employees of these companies, and local winners -- the management, investors, and employees of these companies -- and that the group of losers actually outnumbers the winners.

some folks put the rideshare-using public into the group of winners, which i think is debatable.

either way, i think it should be permissible to defend the group that's least able to defend itself -- rideshare drivers who are doing gig work to make ends meet -- even if that results in "suboptimal" global outcomes.

i think this debate broadly parallels the overall debate in neoliberal economics. for instance, yes, trade makes everyone better off on average, but in practice it makes some folks (the 1%) much, much better off, and impoverishes broad groups of other people.

i think i heard from this podcast: https://www.vox.com/2020/7/17/21327166/american-compass-the-...

the term "economic piety" -- the naive idea that by growing the pie, everyone becomes better off. this hasn't proved to be true in practice, and some economists are beginning to regard the idea with a bit of embarrassment.

[boreas]

I meant "best" in the sense of achieving some sort of maximum total utility, mean utility, median utility, etc.

My point is that instead of inspecting every economic relationship for "winners" and "losers", we should tax the winners and support the losers at a global level.

[microtherion]

It's not really a "competitive market" if the new entrants are massively subsidized by investors and therefore never had to compete on equal economic footing.

[AgloeDreams]

I agree, but there are base rules in most markets, which is why AB5 exists.

For example, an upstart McDonalds-like chain that uses App-ordering could charge much less for a burger if they paid $3 an hour. Consumers would obviously choose this chain if tyhe product is still good as it is much much cheaper. (Capitalism obviously doesn't have a conscience.) For this reason, we have minimum wage laws and (somewhat as a hack, I don't agree with the rules) health care mandates for employers, to create fair and legal playing fields to ensure that businesses' are taking action to better the economy and the American people.

I suppose a universal point I am trying to state here is: Corporations exist to better the people. Wouldn't it be overall more efficient if the the company paid fairly and the people who work for that company don't have to then request funds from the government? This ensures competition is possible by setting a floor on the race to the bottom costs.