[woodruffw]

I assume most people aren’t getting dropped off on the side of the highway. They’re being moved between more dense points that are otherwise underserved or not served by mass transit.

The existence of a job doesn’t imply that said job is unexploitative. People are attracted to (or left with) exploitative jobs for all kinds of reasons.

[Manuel_D]

What is exploitation? Working a service job for minimum wage is not what I'd call a good job, but it's not exploitation as long as the employer did not cheat employees out of wages, put them at undisclosed risk, or some other dishonest practice. Exploitation is more than just "I think the wage is too low".

These Uber and Lyft drivers picked this job out of all their options. They arrived at the conclusion that it was the best job that they could get out of all their options. Why do you think you know better than they do?

[woodruffw]

I think that using peoples’ inability to factor in the depreciation of their cars is a form of exploitation in this case. Uber and Lyft are profitable in part because they assume no maintenance or repair risk.

Edit: “out of all their options” reveals the point here: the minimum wage exists so that, in theory, there is a cap on the things that people have to do to put food in their mouths.

[Manuel_D]

If this were the case, then the remediation is to promote better awareness about depreciation and factoring it into net profit calculation. Then, once drivers realize that depreciation is a thing, Uber and Lyft would see drivers quitting en masse when they realize they're not making as much money as they thought - if what you are saying is true, that is.

But the reality is Uber and Lyft drivers aren't idiots and do indeed realize that depreciation exists. This strikes me a quite a condescending take, that Uber and Lyft drivers aren't smart enough to o take wear and tear on their vehicles into account.

[woodruffw]

> If this were the case, then the remediation is to promote better awareness about depreciation and factoring it into net profit calculation.

This is a long-standing point of public messaging around rideshares. It's not a secret; the reality is that the people who care about it aren't the ones with hundreds of millions allocated for advertising.

None of this assumes that Uber or Lyft drivers are stupid. Everybody discounts long-term externalities; it's a universal human trait, and it's why we have entire society-level issues that boil down to long-term discounting. The only thing that sets rideshare drivers apart in this particular case is that a company is actively exploiting that human weakness, and can do so in part because we allow economic privation as a fulcrum.

[Manuel_D]

No, discontinuing depreciation is not a universal human trait. You bet that when I drive for work I expense the depreciation on my car. And and Uber and Lyft driver worth his or her salt deducts the depreciation of driven miles from taxable income. Go on Uber and Lyft driver forums and this is in every beginner's guide. This notion that most drivers aren't accounting for depreciation is just not true.

[woodruffw]

> No, discontinuing depreciation is not a universal human trait. You bet that when I drive for work I expense the depreciation on my car.

The fact that you're allowed to expense your car's deprecation indicates that this is not a long-term externality for you. Of course people take advantage of reimbursements available to them; the fact that none applies here is the thing being discussed.

Again: being "worth his or her salt" reveals the point here: the point of a minimum wage is to ensure that people who aren't financially literate are, in theory, afforded a baseline quality of life. It's fine if we don't agree about the civic value of that, but that's what it boils down to: not punishing people with a life of privation for not having the skills, means, or anything else that others have.

[ydlr]

This ordinance has been push forward largely by ride share drivers. What makes you think you know better than they do?

[Manuel_D]

Have they? The linked article did not make this claim. I'd be very interested in sources studying what percentage of ride share driver's supported this law.

[ydlr]

I also haven't seen any studies of percentage of drivers that support/oppose this rule. MULDA (https://mulda.org/) is the group of drivers pushing for this ordinance.

There are clearly many people who both want to drive for these companies and want to rules in place to ensure fair pay and working conditions. It is not an either/or.

[Manuel_D]

"many" is a nebulous statements. "Many" could be less than 1% of drivers. If you want to make the claim the this is supported by a large, or even significant, segment of drivers you need to make a proportional claim.

[ydlr]

I never made that claim. I wrote that the ordinance was pushed for largely by drivers. I made no speculation on the proportion of drivers.

Nor have you. You have made the assumption that accepting the terms of employment implies that drivers accept/support the companies position in this conflict. I see no evidence for that.