51–60 of 74 posts
This company is in a inherently interesting space, directing large numbers of people using software for stuff that happens outside of the computer and also offer lots of jobs for people
Did you copy the other comment, or is there a bot writing pro-Uber comments in here?
Uber is becoming like Google but for the physical world. There are so many parallels -- the omnipresence for starters.
It'll be interesting to see if its able to drag Lyft, Instacart, Shyp under the water as it puts its very large oxygen tank to use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Freedom of choice comes in degrees, with no sharp divide between free and not free. The freedom of an individual to negotiate with employers exists in a context of wild inequality in negotiating position, information asymmetry, and coordination problems among workers that lead to a race to the bottom (absent collective bargaining or government intervention). I don't know enough about Uber and their workers to comment…
It doesn't seem an issue of workers negotiating with the individual business. You're redefining "freedom of choice" to mean freedom to negotiate with a company. It's clear that the parent meant freedom to choose when/where they work. If there were better alternatives, people would chose that over Uber. The fact that they aren't choosing other things shows that they're making an informed decision that they believe is…
Can't it be both? Really, I don't see how the two can be considered separately. The individual negotiation occurs in the context of the broader field of choices and consequences available, and of the relative power of the participants (which may, perhaps most relevantly, be considered as their ability to cope with any harm that results from saying "no" to a given offer).
> The fact that they aren't choosing other things shows that they're making an informed decision that they believe is best for them given their alternatives.
I don't agree that the fact of a choice having been made gives us any insight in to the degree to which it was "informed" but otherwise, sure.
My point is: that someone said "yes" and that it was within their power to say "no", is a pretty poor metric for freedom per se, and a bit more than that is going to be needed to demonstrate that (say) government intervention would necessarily be inappropriate or harmful.
The taxi companies in my town have always offered package delivery (though I've never seen it used much). The idea isn't new, though the technology could help out with the practicality of it.
It's probably worth noting that--primarily in denser locations--the rapid delivery of goods is already a thing. Delivery of papers by bicycle messenger (although that has declined), takeout delivery, grocery delivery (which has been around for a long time in many cities but has been getting more systematic with services like Instacart). Of course, there have also been massive failures trying this in the past like Koz…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is it is harmful to others. There is always someone who is willing to work for less or worse conditions which collectively affects everyone.
Competition is what allows us to do more with fewer resources, which makes us all better off.