[schalab]

Lets say I have a club I own, but I need to keep the riff raff out.

I cant openly ban poor or low society people from entering which would be considered "evil". But what if I mandated every service from a staff must be tipped with atleast 100$, because we value our workers more here.

This achieves the same purpose and I get to pretend to be egalitarian.

If this law is passed, ride sharing apps will still exist. They will have a smaller roster of higher quality of drivers and be more expensive to use. It will be perfectly fine for most of the people commenting here.

Who it will destroy is the "riff raff", the people at the lowest rungs of the ladder on both ends. Those who cannot contribute work of sufficient quality to be paid for full time work and benefits. And those who cant afford more expensive ride sharing.

Basically a way to ask people of a certain level to leave the state because they cant participate in the economy anymore and appear compassionate at the same time. Insidiously genius.

[benjaminjosephw]

You seem to be suggesting that some people don't deserve full-time employment but should be allowed to carry out the same kind of work under worse conditions because, otherwise, those people have no other options. Endorsing systematic exploitation like this is truly worrying.

This gets even more problematic when these same hiring practices are normalized and exported to other industries where the same arguments are then made. The result would be a society where there are two classes of "employees" - those worth hiring because they are already better than most and those who aren't. This creates a feedback loop that traps the poor in poverty because they can't improve at the same rate as full-time employees.

Companies have a responsibility to train their employees so that they can "contribute work of sufficient quality". Making this entirely the problem of the workers until a certain standard is reached is really the "insidiously genius" ploy of companies in redefining their relationship with their workers. Transferring risk and investment in training entirely to the workers themselves is not a path towards a compassionate and equitable society.

[humanrebar]

Some people, in some jobs at least, aren't productive enough to support themselves. It's not about "deserve".

Some people have a lot of potential but need a chance to prove themselves and gain experience. Maybe they would start by bussing tables and eventually own their own restaurants. They need a ladder to success with rungs that are actually climbable.

If we mandate that you must be able to support a family of four and save for retirement to work bussing tables, we won't have prosperous people bussing tables. We'll just have more self-service restaurants, sit-down dining will become more of a luxury service, and we'll have more wait staff struggling because they have to have fewer tables that they have to bus themselves.

The training you yearn for can happen by virtue of the economics of the industry. It's like apprenticeship or interning. Except it's working at entry level jobs and earning advancement. And it's egalitarian because anybody can be an excellent busser. Not everyone can talk someone into funding their education on spec.

[mLuby]

> If we mandate [a living wage]…

You're right, lots of exploitative jobs will be destroyed, and businesses will have to adapt. Thing is, they will adapt to the new market conditions, or else they'll be replaced by other businesses catering to the market's demands, or the market's demands will change.

In the painful transition period, lots of exploited "employed" people will become unemployed, and lots of businesses that can't survive without exploiting people will fail. That's the unfortunate "cancellation fee" we should pay before moving to a more ethical economy.

[humanrebar]

It's not exploitive to pay people a modest wage for modest productivity, especially if the role can be part of a successful career.

You also ignore the point that entry level jobs provide advancement opportunities that are sometimes better for disadvantaged folks (or even folks changing careers) compared to expecting them to (re)train at four year universities, etc.

People talk a lot about apprenticeship these days... Apprenticeships are entry level, low paid positions.

[benjaminjosephw]

You're not wrong as long as the definition of "modest wage" isn't subjective and is instead collectively agreed within society (i.e. a minimum/living wage).

I think you're saying the same as this Economist article[0] which says that "the workers who are most vulnerable to losing their job as a result of the minimum wage are those whose productivity is low". Empirical data on this also shows, perhaps counter-intuitively, that a "minimum wage can sometimes lead to higher rather than lower employment".

Entry-level jobs are important but so is human dignity and freedom. I don't think you need to sacrifice one for the other here - we can (eventually) have both.

[0] - https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/2020/08/13/what-harm...

[humanrebar]

There's nothing undignified about working an entry level job. I've done so myself, as have billions of others around the world.

[proc0]

Why do companies have to train you? Is this law or God's mandate? Is there even evidence that providing some safety net for your employee somehow creates a better employee and/or company?

Ultimately this is about controlling others vs. not wanting others to control you. IMHO people need to fail in order to learn properly, and safety nets remove this risk which in turn also removes the learning, effectively preventing those who would otherwise be successful. We think we are helping workers by forcing them into some contract that is supposedly beneficial, but really people are the ones making those choices. Safety nets and forcing companies will just reinforce the bad decisions some people make and will affect the whole industry in the long run because quality will go down and prices up.

[benjaminjosephw]

I got into software through a paid internship at a webdev company that was spinning out a startup on the side. The founders were great folk who invested a lot into the tech/startup scene in the city. They also invested in their employees and into me. Without them, I wouldn't have had the head-start that I did. I'm not suggesting that companies should be compelled to behave like this. I am saying that there's at least some social/ethical/civic responsibility a company has towards its employees.

If you've hired someone and they aren't doing a good enough job, it's in both of your best interests for that person to be trained and supported appropriately to help them improve. If they still aren't up to the job you should part ways but at least you've both tried to make it work. Employers and employees cooperating in the pursuit of aligned interests like this has nothing to do with control. Independently deciding what's good for people and how they will best learn sounds like it has a lot to do with control but that's what you're suggesting, not me.

I do agree that failure can sometimes be a great teacher. In my experience, the best work happens in places where it's acceptable to fail and where failures can be recovered from. Safety nets exist to allow for more risk and more failure, not less.

[proc0]

Of course it's better to train and all that, I'm saying it's probably not a good idea to somehow have a global solution to all kinds of relationship between every type of company and employee. Every industry and every company will have different solutions to what they need and they'll know best how to set their employees for success. This is all done in a mutual agreement. A better strategy is having everyone understand their options in order to make better decisions when it comes to choosing an employer/employee, and again all of this is specific to the industry.

The problem with fighting worker rights is that not all workers are the same, and having a small group of people decide all the intricacies of the system for all industries is unrealistic. At the very least there would be a concerted and visible effort to adapt solutions for each industry, but that's not what happens, it's always some global abstract mandate that has unintended consequences. Politics is the ultimate solutioning by committee, so it's always inefficient and often hurtful to use politics to solve societal problems which are really the collection of the decisions people are making. Encouraging businesses is one thing, but deliberately blocking actions and forcing decisions on ALL business is almost never a good idea.

[carapace]

This is kind of a bullshit argument because Uber is a venture-back corporation not a welfare agency.

If there are people who truly "cannot contribute work of sufficient quality to be paid for full time work and benefits" then we give them a check.

Are you really suggesting that uber/lyft driving is work therapy for mental invalids?

https://www.ianwelsh.net/the-market-fairy-will-not-solve-the...

> They [Uber and Lyft] don’t pay the cost of their capital.

> The wages they pay to their drivers are less than the depreciation of the cars and the expense of keeping the drivers fed, housed, and healthy. They pay less than minimum wage in most markets, and, in most markets, that is not enough to pay the costs of a car plus a human.

> These business models are ways of draining capital from the economy and putting them into the hands of a few investors and executives. They prey on desperate people who need money now, even if the money is insufficient to pay their total costs. Drivers are draining their own reserves to get cash now, but, hey, they gotta eat and pay the bills.

> This sharing economy shit works in a shitty economy. In a good economy, where people have what they need, it doesn’t work.

[auggierose]

"ride sharing" is not how people use it. People use it as a cab.

[bufferoverflow]

And it doesn't matter. Now it's a fully consensual relationship between Uber and the driver (and the customer), where everyone involved agrees to the terms voluntarily. The law changes that, and will simply result in the loss of jobs.

[benjaminjosephw]

How much choice do the drivers have if that's where all the customers are?

It sounds to me like you're confusing the willingness of drivers to relent to market forces outside of their control for their consent. Some are definitely happier than others but none have the degree of agency you seem to suggest they do.

[La1n]

And someone can consent to working in a chemical plant without protection but OSHA won't let that happen. Worker rights need to be protected by law, or it is a race to the bottom for the working conditions of the poorest.

[ilaksh]

No one is getting benefits. Not some special group of "worthy" drivers. No one.