[TeMPOraL]

> At the end of the day as long as the transactions are consensual, there's no need for this rhetoric of abuse.

That's one of the biggest singular pieces of bullshit I see regurgitated in the discussions about market economy.

For most of the people on this planet, a lot of Uber drivers included, there's little choice. They either have a job, or go hungry and homeless. The power asymmetry between an employer and employee is so big that you may as well enforce that "consent" at gunpoint. There's little practical difference.

[branchless]

What we need is an equitable distribution of wealth starting with equal access to land. These guys can't make a living for themselves because they don't have any land.

That was why they called the USA the land of opportunity. In the expansionary phase people could get land near others and generate wealth from it. Now people must exist in the service economy waiting for trickle-down that isn't going to come, spending most of their wages on rent.

[wutbrodo]

You're missing the point. You're absolutely right that "consent" is only _technically_ present when the alternative is something terrible, but the flaw is in blaming the less-bad alternative.

To use your example, if I force you out of your house at gunpoint and you're forced to live under a freeway, the problem isn't "this overpass isn't a very nice place to live", the problem is _the guy holding you at gunpoint_. (That example is trivially modifiable to describe homelessness: the real problem is the lack of adequate housing provided to those who can't afford it).

In the case of Uber, the problem is not that Uber is provided an alternative means of employment that's suboptimal, it's that people are forced into taking what they can get because our social safety net is such garbage.

[rconti]

What's the idealized world you're comparing this to?

An agrarian economy? Guess what, you either farm and build a shelter, or you go hungry and homeless.

Sure, maybe an agrarian economy is too market-based for you.

Try living on a commune and being the guy who specializes in "doing fuckall". I'm not sure how long you'll be welcome.

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make, but life isn't free or fair, and it never has been and never will be.

That's not a reason to not even try to make things better, but the tone of the "regurgitated bullshit" comment implies that it's being used to fight against some other, better system.

[TeMPOraL]

I'm not comparing it to any idealized world; my point is that the "voluntary trade" card is being played as justification for all types of abuse in the economy. Because it's not abuse if both participants consented, right? It's also used to support the viewpoint that if only we could further deregulate things, "remove the barriers to voluntary trade", things would be better.

Except that the ideal voluntary trade seldom exists in practice, especially when you're lower or middle class. There is so much power and information imbalance that the employee or customer rarely has any choice but to participate in the trade. Companies like Uber know this and exploit it on purpose.