> You can argue for class representation but it doesn't need to be a component of every argument. Here, it was needlessly interjected and is distracting to the main point.

I think the class narrative is extremely pertinent to this discussion. The "meh, if you don't like it, don't work there" type of argument when applied to this article doesn't hold as much water when there aren't much better alternatives for drivers like this to make as much money.

> Yeah, this is a bit narrative-y.

This comment and others in this post that summarily dismisses an argument because it is part of a "narrative" kind of forces one to make assumptions. This shortly worded retort made me assume that you fell into the hyper capitalist/anti raising minimum wage type crowd. The only assumption I made about you was that you were currently more than likely a tech worker that was more well off than the majority of society. I argue against the tech savior complex where large tech companies can do no wrong whenever I can.

> Assuming people don't have empathy for the poor is where people get things twisted. Many people who present arguments that tow a hard-line on economics came from tough backgrounds as well. In their worldview, the world is a tough-to-survive place and that is just a fact of life to them. Upending that worldview can't be done with moralism, shame, or guilt. It must be addressed through understanding and empathy, none of which you would've communicated in your earlier response.

I disagree that my comments did not touch on empathy. My whole point was to describe the viewpoints from the various cogs in the machine with an eye towards establishing empathy for those cogs and the shitty position each of those cogs is in. I absolutely agree that high level conservative/progressive talking points that are shouted at the opposing side does nothing except to further tribalize the two opposing viewpoints. The political party abstractions used to justify policies abstract out the humans that are impacted by those policies and they make it easier for people to stay adamant that they are correct and the other side is wrong. "Moralism, shame, or guilt" have a lot of overlap with empathy. One does not have shame or guilt without empathy and if someone feels shame or guilt for a given topic, then to me that sounds like progress and compromise are attainable. The only route that I see to stopping this tribalism bullshit is with using empathy to humanize both sides in an attempt to help people realize that we are all on the same team (unless someone is some sociopath that is on their own team). I'm not sure I completely understand why my points were so offensive for you specifically. I honestly meant no offense and did not think that attempting to establish empathy would be a controversial argument path.