alt Hacker NewsI'm really struggling to understand your argument, are you trying to argue in short-term or long-term trends? I'm trying to argue that in aggregate, life is getting better for people, while also awknowledging that there's not an equal distribution. For example, food has decreased in price 4x since 1900 in real terms[1]. I don't see how that's not more affordable.
> You skated right past the need for a smartphone.
Hmm? Like when I said "Another cost is it's pretty much impossible to do anything without a smartphone and internet"?
> a good Uber Eats driver can make about $13 to $16 an hour
Source? That doesn't line up with what I found.
> A performance, mind, that is subject to dozens of factors entirely outside the control of the driver.
This is just FUD if you haven't cited your sources on average/median/distribution of pay in whatever area.
You have a very good point on liability issues though.
> The solution is I think quite simple here
Thus increasing prices of rides, causing users to stop using the service, further shrinking pay? Uber just started being profitable after dumping billions of dollars in subsidies, on top of bad pay. If you make them full-time employees, you may just shut off the one source of income they have.
Uber won because they offered a superior service to taxis. I'm not going to open the can of worms of their predatory behavior, but there was still a significant part that was a better service.
Again, I am planning on helping these people, I think they should be helped, but you really need to think through what could happen if you force a company to become insolvent.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/long-term-prices-food?foc...
> I'm trying to argue that in aggregate, life is getting better for people, while also awknowledging that there's not an equal distribution.
I bet you like Steven Pinker. He does this shit too where he goes "people 50 years ago didn't even have air conditioning, and now a poor person has one in their car and one in their home" which ignores several things that are going to be their own rabbit holes so I'm just going to not, but that doesn't mean things are better. Yeah, poor people have more stuff, more creature comforts, more "luxuries" today than kings had in the 1400's. That doesn't change the fact that they're barely getting by, living perpetually on a debt and stress treadmill that studies too numerous to count have shown decrease their quality of life, shorten their overall lifespan and lead to health problems, in a country where having health problems is also, totally but coincidence I'm sure, the fastest ticket one can have to poverty.
And the worst part is, it doesn't NEED to be that way. We have more of... basically everything than we ever have, yet it all costs more, and tons of businesses go under, and everybody gets poorer, while the richest grow ever, ever, ever richer.
2 trillion was transferred from the working class to the 1% during COVID. 2. Fucking. Trillion. Dollars.
> Hmm? Like when I said "Another cost is it's pretty much impossible to do anything without a smartphone and internet"?
"Pretty much impossible" and "impossible" are not the same. It is not possible to do gig work without a smartphone.
> Source? That doesn't line up with what I found.
It's going to vary widely based on locale. Mine when I commented was the suburbs of Chicago.
> This is just FUD if you haven't cited your sources on average/median/distribution of pay in whatever area.
Yeah, it is. Because gig work is inconsistent. Would you be okay working your job when your salary was completely dependent on your performance, sure, but also just how much work you had to do during that particular day, and if there was a decent chance that one day you show up to your office, sit on your ass for 8 hours, and go home without a penny?
I doubt it.
> Thus increasing prices of rides
This just in: products and services should cost what it costs for them to be created/rendered unto you, with a little more at the end so the person doing it earns a living. If you can't afford to have a person pick up a burrito for you, drive it across town in a car, and drop it on your doorstep, I would humbly suggest you get in your own car, and get your own burrito.
> Uber just started being profitable after dumping billions of dollars in subsidies
Then shut the doors! If what you're doing doesn't work, close up shop! Why does Uber have to exist? Are people better off being Uber drivers than being homeless? I mean, I guess? I wouldn't call that an open and shut case. If all the people doing gig work were instead completely unemployed, and out protesting in the streets of their capital cities, maybe society would actually do something about the rampant exploitation? Maybe all these companies couldn't get away with paying people utterly shit wages if we didn't mandate that those on assistance programs find jobs, any jobs, even if those jobs don't get them off the assistance?
I would turn this back to you: instead of asking me why people are entitled to food, why are these massive companies entitled to exist? Why are we funneling people with few options towards them to work as many hours as they can while remaining firmly below the poverty line? Why do we demand people who are starving take a certain number of interviews every week so we give them access to a menial amount of sustenance, while judging them for taking it?
> Uber won because they offered a superior service to taxis. I'm not going to open the can of worms of their predatory behavior,
Yeah I bet you're not, because you don't want to think about HOW that victory was achieved, be it the financial cost, or the human cost. Now you have a shiny app and can get rides around your city. Nobody gives a shit about the fate of labor as long as they get instant gratifications, same as it ever was.