Ouch. That hurts. You have taken such a small part of what I have said and used it to paint me as someone who is taking advantage of the fact that Uber offers cheaper fares than a taxi service. And then to add salt to injury, you throw in that last line. While I agree somewhat with your point, your comment was just plain rude. There are so many other ways you could have said what you wanted to say without launching a borderline personal attack on me and trying to paint me as this horrible person.
Everyone can claim to be ethical, but at the end of the day whether you realise it or not, you're supporting people in not only your own country but other countries through the purchases you make everyday, not necessarily in the best way either. That $5 coffee you might purchase every morning is benefiting people picking coffee in coffee producing areas of the world. Those same people are getting paid horribly, they're also subjected to abusive work conditions bordering on fear tactics used to keep them working. You're helping people support families, but it is a catch-22, you're also not making things better either. So lets not get all self-righteous about this. Taking an Uber is no different than deciding to buy that new TV or pair of shoes.
That iPhone or Android device you probably own was made of components mostly manufactured in China at the lowest possible price to maximise the profits of a large corporation. The same thing, people working in those factories earning a few dollars per day (way below the poverty line) because they have no choice. The MacBook Pro or desktop computer is also made up of components built and assembled by people working in deplorable conditions for cents on the dollar.
At the end of the day Uber is a job. And while I do not agree with how Uber operates as a company or their misleading advertisements to get drivers, no matter if you're choosing to take an Uber or a taxi, you're putting money into someone's pockets. It might not be the best way to help someone, but at the same time there are a lot worse jobs out there in the US and other parts of the world where working conditions are dangerous, the money is even lower and the hours longer. At least with Uber you choose your own hours, how much you work is up to you.
The people making shoes, iPhones, TVs---they don't have to do that. They could do whatever they were doing before that factory came to town. But working in that factory is preferable.
The same thing is true for Uber drivers.
You don't have to feel guilty for any of these purchaes---you should only feel good about them, if anything.
That guy was very rude, but you are just accepting his argument and trying to use it against him. It's not a valid argument.
>>The people making shoes, iPhones, TVs---they don't have to do that. They could do whatever they were doing before that factory came to town.
This isn't always true. There are situations where some big factory shows up, ruins the local economy(usually by wrecking the environment) and now the only way to make a living is to be part of the company... or move far away. Leaving your homeland of generations is technically a choice, but emotionally... not really.
Right, but it's generally true. Do we really need to point out that there can be exceptions? Of course there can be. There are probably even factories in China where people are literally slaves. Is it necessary to say "Of course there ar exceptions" every time I say something that could have exceptions? Because somebody is always going to come back and point out an exception, as if it invalidates the generalization.
> Leaving your homeland of generations is technically a choice, but emotionally... not really.
It's always, truly, a choice. People can make choices regardless of how difficult it is to do so. It's a matter of free will.
First off, I agree. It was rude and when I wrote it I was in a bad mood in general. I think the ensuing discussion is definitely worth my karma hit; I'm a little bit sorry that you had to receive that aggressiveness, but reading your response I have hope it's ok.
What I felt when I read your post, and wrote my response, was not so much about you as about an attitude that I'm fed up with, which is basically "I can see how this system isn't working out, but I'm participating anyway because it treats me pretty good". And as you say, and others in this thread, there is something - an ideology, a rationalization or a truth - which excuses if not condones this.
I don't buy that coffee, I brew my own, and always buy eco and fairtrade. I know and agree that this isn't really working out either, but it's a start, and a "market signal" or whatever. Thing is, I've been to those coffee and cocoa plantations and guess what - things aren't working out for the people working there, either.
When it comes to the electronics, I'm painfully aware of the fact that the rare minerals are often mined by actual slaves, under gunpoint. What is probably the worst war since WWII is basically about minerals for smartphones, it's in The Congo[1] and has claimed millions of lives. All the while some of the world's wealthiest people are laughing and smiling about their billion dollar profits. So I don't get a new phone all the time. I have a Geeksphone Peak, for the record. Still, it needs cobalt and coltan and tin which might well have been mined by children, literally with their hands.
What javert says about choosing to work there just isn't that simple. What branchless says further down the thread is; it's about access to land. And those people working factories in China were removed from their land in agricultural reforms. It's a political thing and it has happened all over the world; see e.g. The Enclosure[2] in Britain.
This isn't simple at all, but since it's a market economy where all decisions are ultimately made by the "consumer", which is us in the context of this discussion, we have to make the right choices. And if we have the information, we can't just disregard that with "hey, at least it's a job". That's what bothers me the most about this; a lot of people just don't have the information to make the right choices. If the people who have the information, and the wealth, to make better choices don't, then we're doomed.
I realize how this will come through all high and mighty, but I think it's worth it to get a clear message across. The idea behind the market economy is that we organize ourselves according to every individual decision. In that case, it's up to everyone to make the best choice, using all available information. You can't have the cake and eat it.
If you don't agree with how Uber operates as a company, don't do business with them.
But Uber isn't forcing their workers at gunpoint, and it wasn't them that created the situation where the workers have no other alternatives.
If people are forced to get a badly paid job at Uber because the alternative is worse, and you remove Uber, guess what happens to the people you're trying to help?
If we want to help the people using Uber, we need to give them access to a better alternative so that they can leave voluntarily - be it giving them land or whatever. I don't claim I have a good solution, but we shouldn't fall into the Politician's Fallacy¹.
¹ "We must do something, this is something, we must do this"
I'm not talking about removing Uber. I'm not, and I don't get the idea DigitalSea is, in a position to "remove Uber". I'm not talking about any overarching ideology or abstract reasoning. I'm not "trying to help" people, either. I mean, it is what it is, right? What I take issue with is the reasoning that you and I almost have a moral imperative to go with the cheapest option, even though we are intelligent and well-informed, and can see that it's just not working out.
I'm talking about individual choice.
I also don't agree with your language, by the way. Uber's drivers are not using Uber; Uber are using them.
If you know that the alternative costs twice as much, and you doubt that the driver offering a ride for cheap can actually support his family, you have a choice.
If you are worried someone else might take a chunk of the expensive ride, or if you prefer the cheap ride anyway, you could always tip. US is the land of tipping, right? But then again, that might feel weird since the payment is centralized... Funny, that.
I can heartily recommend a Fairphone to anyone bothered about the plight of workers in war-torn Congo. They have a new on coming out next year which I'm hoping will be Lollipop. (Current version is stuck on 4.2, which is a shame, but still totally workable.)
Also I think Intel is getting is stuff conflict-free.
Yeap, I think that's the right attitude. I only got a Fairphone after my previous phone died in a freak punting accident†.
Fairphone did have a recent announcement that was suggestive of new OSes... but personally I think them supporting Android is important, so it can be an off-the-shelf replacement for another phone, rather than a bizarro thing for beardy-weirdy yoghurt knitters.
You're being overly rude about this but I agree on the point you're trying to get across. Most of the taxis I've been in were also drove by people trying to support their family. They probably have a better salary and maybe even compensations. Uber is certainly not disruptor in the worker rights zone.
Taxi drivers got a terrible salary, with a huge amount of the income (as much as 45%, according to the Taxi Commission) going to the taxi companies which own the garages and medallions.
In many cases, they had to pay to work, by dropping $50-$100 on the start of the shift to lease the medallion, before even knowing they would get enough rides to pay for it.
The entire economic system is built around people trying to get the best deal possible for themselves. You can try and paint that as inhumane and abusive if you're commited to emotionalising economic dynamics, but it really doesn't make any sense. At the end of the day as long as the transactions are consensual, there's no need for this rhetoric of abuse. Uber drivers know the deal and they can take it or leave it. No one's holding a gun to their heads. Likewise, it's not Uber or anyone else's job or responsibility to guarantee anyone or anybody a certain standard of living.
You might as well vilify people for choosing the potatoes which are 10c/kg cheaper at the supermarket, isn't that a case of those wealthy enough to buy potatoes victimising helpless potato farmers?
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> The entire economic system is built around people trying to get the best deal possible for themselves ...
Getting the best deal possible is one factor, but it's not the only one, it's not dogma, and it doesn't justify bad behavior.
I think your post is a simplified approach to a complex world. For example, it assumes that the marketplace is free and fair, which it clearly is not. The powerful often use their power to prevent competition, or even to write the rules (via influence in government) of the 'free' competition. Also, profiting from others' suffering is wrong.
Finally, our economic system, while good relative to most in human history, could be greatly improved. Let's not allow a dogmatic idea that it is ideal stop us from getting better. For one thing, it could be made more free and more fair.
> it's not Uber or anyone else's job or responsibility to guarantee anyone or anybody a certain standard of living.
I strongly disagree. We all have responsibilities to our communities and society; if people didn't meet those responsibilities, the communities and society would fall apart. Those who don't do their part are parasites on those who do, in my humble opinion.
Great, so you're concerned about some people being more competitive than others in the free market. So what's your response? A monopolistic ostenisbly communally-controlled central power to oversee and address alleged abuses? Excellent, you just created a superbly manipulable tool of power for society's most capable individuals to wield. You just made problems of fundamental unfairness much worse, not better.
Uber has enough market power that it's often a monopsony, and thus has the power to depress wages more than would happen in a market that didn't have the winner take all dynamics of most app-based businesses.
You can paint it as "natural" for a monopsony buyer to squeeze every possible penny for themselves, but most humans have an emotional reaction to interactions which are perceived as unfair. This isn't irrational or dumb. It's natural and it's part of being a human.
Because we decided as a society that it is. That's why say, the concept of minimum wage exists, and plenty other labor laws. The remaining question, legally, is whether Uber is offering drivers a "job", as opposed to a software platform that they can use to be self-employed as drivers (which is Uber's argument).
If Uber is offering jobs to drivers, then certain standards must be met to avoid illegal employment practices. Then the next question is whether or not Uber actually violates those standards. The answer might be that it doesn't, life can be pretty thought for people in many professions that we have actually deemed 'fair enough' work. But if the answer is that it does, then Uber needs to change.
If 'the sharing economy' is not actually creating employer-employee relations, then it might still need to be regulated (perhaps under different regulations than labor laws), depending what society thinks of the mechanism as a whole. For example, if drivers are self-employed contractors rather than employees, then what gives Uber the rights to fix their wages? Is there such a thing as minimum wage for independent contractors? Who is responsible for things like health insurance for Uber drivers? We have plenty of answers for these questions for the kind of independent contractor that makes $50 an hour, not for the kind that makes $17 a ride. But again, it might well be that the deal as it is can be actually considered fair, compared with for example being a street market vendor or a temp worker at a convenience store. I certainly have met plenty of part-time/retired drivers in the South Bay that consider the deal a fair enough source of extra cash. The point is that we haven't figured out whether or not it is exploitative and that is the sort of question modern developed societies can afford to ask themselves and weight against the benefit of 'it creates some value for some people and pays the bills for some others'.
Edit: I'll add that I use ride-sharing services often, want them to continue to exist in some useful form and am firm believer of 'default allow' as it comes to new business models. But that doesn't mean nobody is allowed to look into whether some new business practices are exploitative or not or that there can be no harm in allowing any voluntary economic transaction.
The entire economic system is built around people trying to get the best deal possible for themselves. You can try and paint that as inhumane and abusive...
Wow -- you're so damn close to the moment of insight, and yet so far.
And the irony is that people like yourself, chasing phantoms of unfairness in the free market, support the extension and entrenchment of coercive governments, an institution which is and always will be eminently corruptible, an institution whose history is a litany of abuse and overreach.
You sound like someone who's never actually gotten involved in politics.
Try getting in at the local level--volunteer for a state representative's campaign, or a local city/county commissioner. Get to know people, talk to them, see what it's really like.
What you're characterizing as "eminently corruptible" and full of "abuse and overreach" actually makes a lot more sense when you step out from behind the keyboard (and its steady supply of anti-government, libertarian websites) and get involved.
