[vinceguidry]

All of those things would be great. But if we, the most affluent people in the world and best positioned to make our voices heard, make excuses for Zuck, make excuses for Amazon, make excuses for all these businesses that extract wealth without supporting their communities, then we'll just keep building unholy unequal pyramids, where what's normal is completely, irreparably broken, replicating the teetering social structures of the Bronze Age. (I don't back up the points I make drawing from ancient history because HN comment section isn't a place to give history lessons)

We need to not leave it up to the Kalanicks of the world to change the social order, reinventing taxis for fun and profit.

It's more than a change in legal and ethical norms. We need to not fire people who speak their minds for the social good against the company, then further marginalize the already marginalized community they're speaking up for.

We need new social norms.

[iammisc]

> We need to not leave it up to the Kalanicks of the world to change the social order, reinventing taxis for fun and profit.

Why? Uber materially improved my access to taxis. Why does everyone diss on uber's business model (I understand the company itself is a bit meh), but the idea of hailing cab drivers with an app, and then encouraging people to drive (i.e., ridesharing) is a great one.

Ultimately, I'd rather leave it up to individuals to improve their and their community's conditions, then a bureaucrat.

> It's more than a change in legal and ethical norms. We need to not fire people who speak their minds for the social good against the company, then further marginalize the already marginalized community they're speaking up for.

Okay, so I assume you are against the firings of religious employees, standing up for their beliefs? How do you reconcile when a religious employee speaks out against spreading of gender dysphoria as social contagion on facebook, and then a trans employee speaks out against him?

Or is your economic system mainly meant to impose your beliefs on everyone else?

[vinceguidry]

> the idea of hailing cab drivers with an app, and then encouraging people to drive (i.e., ridesharing) is a great one.

I didn't think I'd have to explain this, I thought most here already understood it. But okay. Nothing about hailing cab drivers with an app changes the economics of transportation. What changed the economics was exploitation. Not that the cab industry was really all that much better. But what's wrong with Uber and the gig economy at large is that we're letting huge companies with big budgets get away with not respecting labor norms. And so they have changed those norms, for the worse.

It's a clear-cut example of the tech industry making things better for the well-off, and worse for those trying to scrape by.

[iammisc]

> Not that the cab industry was really all that much better. But what's wrong with Uber and the gig economy at large is that we're letting huge companies with big budgets get away with not respecting labor norms

Hold on hold on. You previously blamed our current corporate system for preventing workers from owning their means of production.

Uber exemplifies the vision you seek... where individual workers own their own means of production. There is no need for a worker coop for drivers. A driver uses one car -- their own. They do not need to own some large capital investment (it's not like the owners need a factory to work). Why should driver A and B share cars together? That's the very vision of shareholding that you deride.

Uber, the company, is obviously not a worker coop, but frankly, its model is the most viable way towards a vision of worker-owned businesses. If you truly desire worker coops, instead of large corporations, then the vision of uber and the system it seeks to achieve ought to be lauded, even if the specifics of uber's implementations should be scorned.

Unfortunately, all the progressive labor activists made such small worker coops illegal. A more sensible solution would have been add a corporate structure that lets drivers band together for certain collectively purchased services (like health insurance and other benefits), without all the reporting requirements of normal corporations. Instead, they basically banned small businesses.

[vinceguidry]

That's... pretty laughable. A worker-owned business would get together to determine what an acceptable and transparent comp scheme would be. Instead the drivers rebel all the time against corporate's intransigent and blatantly-exploitative shenanigans. Hint: it's not because the company sees its workforce as people. If you think there's a viable way to get from here to there, well, I think I can get Bezos to sell you a bridge, on Amazon of course. And we... mostly don't care because who cares about the people who run our cabs, and if they succeed it means ubers are more expensive for us.

Sigh, sometimes I regret being a liberal rather than a leftist, because I can see all the complaints they have about us. I think I'm really done now, I've heard enough. In a nutshell, it's easy to defend the existing order when we're the one's benefiting from it.

[iammisc]

> Instead the drivers rebel all the time against corporate's intransigent and blatantly-exploitative shenanigans. Hint: it's not because the company sees its workforce as people.

For what it's worth, it's not like co-ops are immune to this criticism. For example, Winco had a case a while ago where employees were claiming that they were being mistreated. In a worker co-op with sufficient numbers of members, no individual member is powerful enough to effect change.

> If you think there's a viable way to get from here to there, well, I think I can get Bezos to sell you a bridge, on Amazon of course.

Except there is. Now that Uber has pioneered the model, I've seen worker co-ops pop up in my own town. I imagine these models will grow, as more people feel emboldened to take on such professions now that the model is validated. I don't see why this is such a stretch. It seems to me you have reached a conclusion, and don't seem interested in listening to alternatives.

> Sigh, sometimes I regret being a liberal rather than a leftist, because I can see all the complaints they have about us. I think I'm really done now, I've heard enough. In a nutshell, it's easy to defend the existing order when we're the one's benefiting from it.

Alright man. My family immigrated to this country, my father was working as a slave for a while, and my parents started off with nothing when we were small kids. Trust me, I've not benefited a whole lot from this system. I've probably seen it worse than you. So sick of being gaslit by people who think I'm some privileged WASP kid, and that they know better. Maybe try listening?

[vinceguidry]

> I've seen worker co-ops pop up in my own town.

And I wish them everlasting health and wealth. Can we please stop pretending Uber is some kind of glorious pioneer? They pioneered an industry whose very foundation is eroding the social contract. That some people are now turning around and setting up proper collectives doesn't suddenly mean now that Uber was a good thing. It's not, it's horrible, otherwise we wouldn't have the raft of alternatives, some better than others. And all of these alternatives have to compete on the open market with Uber, who enjoys the competitive advantage of exploitative economics. Let that sink in. Worsening the social contract doesn't in any way make things better, market economics will always drive a race to the bottom until people just can't stand it anymore. This is why labor norms are enforced by laws and not by us.

> So sick of being gaslit by people who think I'm some privileged WASP kid

Please don't put words in my mouth. The logic was simple. We don't care about Uber drivers, not nearly as much as we should, because higher rates means more money paid by us. We benefit directly from the tech industry who gives us services that are cheaper not because technology makes them cheaper, but because they exploit workers harder. Every time you take an uber, you participate in this exploitative economy. If you don't take uber, bully for you, you're not participating, at least not in this particular way. If I have to take an Uber, I always tip $5 or more, that's how I deal with the quandary.

You took that and turned it into purported gaslighting. I have no idea who you are, this isn't personal. You're obviously not a leftist because you rail against standard leftist platform points. I suppose you're a libertarian then. You tell me, not that it really matters for the purposes of this discussion, that's more meta-commentary.