Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I was an undercover Uber driver

citypaper.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 170 posts

Re: I was an undercover Uber driver

#161

Post by wutbrodo »

hackuser wrote: post #122
zaroth wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I realised a lot of these Uber drivers (usually migrants with broken English) probably didn't have many other options to earn money. This is just such a perfect observation. What we are seeing here is an end-run around the minimum wage. The so-called "1099 economy" is increasing employment of unskilled workers who would otherwise be unemployable at the mandatory minimum. Where else are people going to find a job th…

> If the minimum wage weren't so damn high ... It's about where it was 50 years ago, measured in real dollars: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/04/5-facts-abou... By other measurements, it's relatively low: http://www.cepr.net/publications/reports/the-minimum-wage-is...

You're talking about something completely different from the comment you're responding to. You're comparing entirely to historical averages (even the "other measurements" link is all about historical levels relative to other indicators). The parent comment appears to be speaking normatively, as in "much higher than it should reasonably be".

Re: I was an undercover Uber driver

#162

Post by javert »

smtddr wrote: post #113
javert wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

>>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 technical…

> This isn't always true.

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.

Re: I was an undercover Uber driver

#163

Post by javert »

maceo wrote: post #102
javert wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I was probably over-broad in what I said, in the following sense. Ayn Rand has been the only moral defender of capitalism. On Mount Pelerin: > Its founders included Friedrich Hayek, Karl Popper, Ludwig von Mises, George Stigler, and Milton Friedman. How many of those guys come up on TV and in politics today? None of them.

The only reason Ayn Rand ever comes up is because she has vague name recognition and the Democrats use her to take easy cheap-shots. They do the same thing with Koch Industries. In reality, Koch Industries' alleged influence is greatly exaggerated. The economists listed above are all academic giants compared to Rand. In most parts of Latin America, the names Friedman and Hayek are far more likely to be recognized tha…

No, the reason Democrats take shots at Ayn Rand is because Democrats have the moral high ground in the public's view, and have for decades, and there has only been a single person to challenge that: Ayn Rand. She really is a threat. If the Democrats lose the moral high ground, it's over for them.

Contrast this with Republicans: They are generally quibbling compromisers who say they are opposed to government expansion, but actually agree with it on a moral level, so all they accomplish is barely slowing down the rate of government expansion. The Bush presidency is a case in point, but you can see this "quibbling compromise" in practically all major Republican politicians.

Re: I was an undercover Uber driver

#164

Post by cdcarter »

rayiner wrote: post #100
cdcarter wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to look at market size to make that statistic anywhere near interesting.

Uber is 2-3x the size of the whole taxi industry in SF. Remember, it's not like there is a national taxi regulatory system. It's a bunch of separate municipal systems and Uber is far bigger than any of the other players in all of them.

Yes, of course, that's what makes the 50x-100x number so inaccurate.

Re: I was an undercover Uber driver

#165

Post by wutbrodo »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #70
jasonisalive wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. N…

> 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 emplo…

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.

Re: I was an undercover Uber driver

#166

Post by nyolfen »

javert wrote: post #163
maceo wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason Ayn Rand ever comes up is because she has vague name recognition and the Democrats use her to take easy cheap-shots. They do the same thing with Koch Industries. In reality, Koch Industries' alleged influence is greatly exaggerated. The economists listed above are all academic giants compared to Rand. In most parts of Latin America, the names Friedman and Hayek are far more likely to be recognized tha…

No, the reason Democrats take shots at Ayn Rand is because Democrats have the moral high ground in the public's view, and have for decades, and there has only been a single person to challenge that: Ayn Rand. She really is a threat. If the Democrats lose the moral high ground, it's over for them. Contrast this with Republicans: They are generally quibbling compromisers who say they are opposed to government expansion…

lol dude i think you might want to take a step back and look at election results (on all levels) 'for decades' if you think democrats have any perceptible 'high ground' among the american public

Re: I was an undercover Uber driver

#167

Post by jasonisalive »

hackuser wrote: post #128
jasonisalive wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. N…

> 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…

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.

Re: I was an undercover Uber driver

#168

Post by yesbabyyes »

javert wrote: post #162
smtddr wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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 technical…

> This isn't always true. 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 invali…

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.

I think I'm going to just let this hang there.

Re: I was an undercover Uber driver

#169

Post by javert »

nyolfen wrote: post #166
javert wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the reason Democrats take shots at Ayn Rand is because Democrats have the moral high ground in the public's view, and have for decades, and there has only been a single person to challenge that: Ayn Rand. She really is a threat. If the Democrats lose the moral high ground, it's over for them. Contrast this with Republicans: They are generally quibbling compromisers who say they are opposed to government expansion…

lol dude i think you might want to take a step back and look at election results (on all levels) 'for decades' if you think democrats have any perceptible 'high ground' among the american public

I didn't say they have the high ground. I said they have the moral high ground. That is why they keep getting elected despite not actually being appealing to the middle class.

Re: I was an undercover Uber driver

#170

Post by BurningFrog »

vacri wrote: post #143
BurningFrog wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The people working in those deplorable conditions are doing so voluntarily, right? They actually are, and if you ask them then can explain why they chose it. These factory jobs are usually very sought after, and has lifted millions from extreme poverty. I suspect you have little idea how harsh third world poverty actually is. This is a good overview: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/opinion/15kristof.html?_r=... >…

Choosing the frying pan instead of the fire isn't much of an argument in favour of 'choosing voluntarily to work at X'. Besides, having no better options absolutely does not mean that you're not getting shafted.

The frying pan/fire metaphor implies choosing between equally awful options, but the factory work is substantially better than the alternatives.

Of course, to rich westerners like you and me they are both unfathomably awful, but to the people concerned going from living on the streets to a modest bed indoors can be a huge life changing event.

Post reply on HN