[haroldegibbons]

> they have decided that this is their best option

Do you think they'd still sign up if Uber was upfront about only paying ~$4/hr?

> why should only employed people deserve than minimum standard

Why does Uber think unemployed people don't deserve the minimum standard?

> Surely our legislature is to blame for allowing people to have such a low standard of living

Do you think this ruling lines up with that?

[brian_cloutier]

I don't quite understand what you're saying. If I'm understanding you right then you don't quite understand what I'm saying.

My claim is that it's disingenuous to say that Uber is exploiting their workers. If you think these are terrible conditions that nobody would ever work under unless they were being coerced you have to grapple with the fact that nobody is coercing anybody to become Uber drivers.

If you think that these are immoral working conditions then what you really believe is that a large chunk of our society is immorally made to live in poverty, and you're blaming Uber but how could this be Uber's fault?

If someone has genuinely decided to accept work for $4/hr and this shocks you so much that you're demanding Uber give them more, you should also be shocked that so many people are currently earning $0/hr if you have any hope of having a consistent worldview.

When seen from this lens the whole argument over SB 5 and Prop 22 makes no sense at all. Stop focusing on Uber, ask your legislators to stop focusing on Uber, and to start attempting to solve the real problem.

[haroldegibbons]

I think I hear you. Let people do what they want. Caveat emptor.

Here is what I am saying.

Imagine you're very poor and have a son who isn't very smart. He comes home excited about a new "job" washing the neighbor's car for $2 every other weekend because it means he'll be able to go to Disneyland this summer. Summer rolls around and it turns out he only made a quarter each wash because he had to replace his bike tires riding to and from the neighbor's house, and pay for soap and rags and stuff. You go to the neighbors and they tell you "tough shit" because your kid was too dumb to realize not even Mr Clean himself could make it to Disneyland washing cars for $2, and that the whole game was rigged from the start. Your neighbor just wanted a clean car without having to pay for it. Then after all this drama, they're texting your son that he should keep washing the cars for $2 because washing it for $10 isn't in his best interest.

[brian_cloutier]

In another part of this thread I mention that there are some genuinely non-consensual or otherwise exploitive agreements which we are right to ban; the situation you're describing seems to veer into that territory.

To the extent that your counterparty lies to you about your future take-home pay that is fraud and is already illegal whether you're an employee or a contractor. To the extent they strongly imply you'll be taking home $2 per week or that you'll be able to afford Disneyland, well aware neither are true, that is likely also fraud.

To the extent that someone is genuinely dumb and naive it seems easier to legally put them into an exploitative situation but I reject the notion that this is an accurate description of most Uber drivers.

You have brought up a good point, the system I'm imagining doesn't have a good solution for people who are dumb and naive and who unknowingly put themselves into exploitive situations. Luckily I don't think there are many people like this, hopefully they have a network of friends/family guiding them, and hopefully the safety net I'm describing puts some bounds on their downside: by picking a bad job they might not make it to Disneyland but at least they won't make it into poverty.

[qeternity]

> Do you think they'd still sign up if Uber was upfront about only paying ~$4/hr?

Do you think that people would continue to work for Uber after the first month if they were really earning $4/hr when they could walk into a fastfood chain and earn minimum wage?

So either your number is wrong, or the answer is yes. Either way, you're not arguing for what you think you are.