|
|
|
|
|
|
by haroldegibbons
2061 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.