> The behaviour of some full-time uber drivers is simply irrational and that is effectively being exploited by companies like Uber.
Irrational to you.
> If one includes the cost of operating and maintaining the vehicle, not to mention the depreciation, the risk of losing work if it actually breaks down and so on you're not arriving at a salary that is even remotely sane or competitive.
There are a lot of reasons why people still make the economic decision to drive on ridesharing platforms, even considering all of this. 1) If the car is a sunk cost (I.e. they would have owned the car, Uber or not), then it isn't accurate to include its cost in the equation. 2) Some people will happily trade-off the slightly less competitive pay in return for not having a boss and not having to clock into a job.
> Just look at who has to pick up the cost during the corona crisis now because these people are effectively broke if they can't drive, it's everyone else.
This is literally true everywhere in the world. Coronavirus is a once-in-a-generation black swan event, and most governments' responses have been mass shut-downs of the economy and forced unemployment. The taxpayers foot the bill for most workers, employee or not. "Employment" status would not have changed that.
> In the name of flexibility we are loading social responsibility of regular employers onto the public because drivers overestimate the benefits and underestimate the risks and companies like Uber want to line their pockets.
This is how safety nets work. In many developed countries, health insurance is decoupled from employees and taxpayers foot the bill. Would you not consider this an abrogation of responsibility of Danish/Canadian employers to provide benefits for their workers?