Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Uber]: Disrupting Livery Service (And Ethics)

17172747677

Posts

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited June 18
    Darkewolfe wrote: »

    Edit: so 10.87 an hour with no benefits whatsoever. Close to the absolute lowest tier of compensation of any type of labor in the US. This is AFTER all surge pricing and bonuses for completion and stuff.

    BUT
    This analysis ignores tips, as do all the other studies.
    That is one hell of a big caveat there. The entire idea of a tipping is stupid and should go die, but until that happens excluding it from your analysis in something like this basically means it is only tentatively connected to reality.


    More over it being a 10th-15th percentile job makes sense. What propped up the compensation rate for livery? One, the knowledge of being able to navigate around a given city efficiently. This was always more of a hope than a reality in my experience, but sure its a 'skill'. Smartphone GPS has made this completely obsolete, no matter how well you know traffic in general Waze knows it now. Two, a bunch of monopolies and predatory grifts. The monopolies and the schemes both have been stopped by Uber/lyft.

    Its a job that requires minimal skills, minimal physical exertion, that in the case of Uber/Lyft you can work truly "at will" with no required hours or schedule. Why would this be a high paying profession?

    Because everyone deserves a wage that allows them to live with dignity. Your argument is the one being dissected in this video:


    And it is an ugly one at its heart.

    Is $11+tips below dignity wages? Thats 140% the minimum wage, plus tips. I'd expect even a mediocre driver would clear the $15 hour people are campaigning for. I mean, if you want to argue minimum wage should be $17 or $20 or w/e, that is a side argument. But fundamentally, what about driving a standard car around a city following Google Maps, would lead you to see it as a job that isn't making near whatever that minimum permissible figure is.


    Also, I'm not watching some 20+ minute long youtube video. If you have a point to make, make it yourself.

    I think the argument was that suggesting that professional drivers in a fleet working for a major international corporation should be making poverty wages is scummy. That you feel comfortable sharing that you have some mental hierarchy that determines who gets to live a stable life with things like healthcare and a roof over there heads - most likely based on The Thing You Do sitting well above the poverty line - is also extremely distasteful.

    Phillishere on
    AngelHedgieGnome-InterruptusFencingsaxJuliusLocal H JayjmcdonaldGnizmoDarkewolfeHefflingshryke
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Darkewolfe wrote: »

    Edit: so 10.87 an hour with no benefits whatsoever. Close to the absolute lowest tier of compensation of any type of labor in the US. This is AFTER all surge pricing and bonuses for completion and stuff.

    BUT
    This analysis ignores tips, as do all the other studies.
    That is one hell of a big caveat there. The entire idea of a tipping is stupid and should go die, but until that happens excluding it from your analysis in something like this basically means it is only tentatively connected to reality.


    More over it being a 10th-15th percentile job makes sense. What propped up the compensation rate for livery? One, the knowledge of being able to navigate around a given city efficiently. This was always more of a hope than a reality in my experience, but sure its a 'skill'. Smartphone GPS has made this completely obsolete, no matter how well you know traffic in general Waze knows it now. Two, a bunch of monopolies and predatory grifts. The monopolies and the schemes both have been stopped by Uber/lyft.

    Its a job that requires minimal skills, minimal physical exertion, that in the case of Uber/Lyft you can work truly "at will" with no required hours or schedule. Why would this be a high paying profession?

    Because everyone deserves a wage that allows them to live with dignity. Your argument is the one being dissected in this video:


    And it is an ugly one at its heart.

    Is $11+tips below dignity wages? Thats 140% the minimum wage, plus tips. I'd expect even a mediocre driver would clear the $15 hour people are campaigning for. I mean, if you want to argue minimum wage should be $17 or $20 or w/e, that is a side argument. But fundamentally, what about driving a standard car around a city following Google Maps, would lead you to see it as a job that isn't making near whatever that minimum permissible figure is.


    Also, I'm not watching some 20+ minute long youtube video. If you have a point to make, make it yourself.

    I think the argument was that suggesting that professional drivers in a fleet working for a major international corporations should be making poverty wages is scummy. That you feel comfortable sharing that you have some mental hierarchy that determines who gets to live a stable life with things like healthcare and a roof over there heads - most likely based on The Thing You Do sitting well above the poverty line - is also extremely distasteful.

    Right - the argument that someone should be forced to struggle in poverty (because the minimum wage is nowhere near being a living wage) is one very much built around a class hierarchy - as Danskin notes in the video, the idea is that the underclass needs to exist, because it's the natural state of the world, and because of that, being at the bottom means that one doesn't merit a fair, living wage.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Phillishere
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Darkewolfe wrote: »

    Edit: so 10.87 an hour with no benefits whatsoever. Close to the absolute lowest tier of compensation of any type of labor in the US. This is AFTER all surge pricing and bonuses for completion and stuff.

    BUT
    This analysis ignores tips, as do all the other studies.
    That is one hell of a big caveat there. The entire idea of a tipping is stupid and should go die, but until that happens excluding it from your analysis in something like this basically means it is only tentatively connected to reality.


    More over it being a 10th-15th percentile job makes sense. What propped up the compensation rate for livery? One, the knowledge of being able to navigate around a given city efficiently. This was always more of a hope than a reality in my experience, but sure its a 'skill'. Smartphone GPS has made this completely obsolete, no matter how well you know traffic in general Waze knows it now. Two, a bunch of monopolies and predatory grifts. The monopolies and the schemes both have been stopped by Uber/lyft.

    Its a job that requires minimal skills, minimal physical exertion, that in the case of Uber/Lyft you can work truly "at will" with no required hours or schedule. Why would this be a high paying profession?

    Because everyone deserves a wage that allows them to live with dignity. Your argument is the one being dissected in this video:


    And it is an ugly one at its heart.

    Is $11+tips below dignity wages? Thats 140% the minimum wage, plus tips. I'd expect even a mediocre driver would clear the $15 hour people are campaigning for. I mean, if you want to argue minimum wage should be $17 or $20 or w/e, that is a side argument. But fundamentally, what about driving a standard car around a city following Google Maps, would lead you to see it as a job that isn't making near whatever that minimum permissible figure is.


    Also, I'm not watching some 20+ minute long youtube video. If you have a point to make, make it yourself.

    No, because that's equivalent to half that or less in a position with any benefits whatsoever. Rule of thumb for independent contractor is to charge at least double in order to pay all the stuff an employer normally does.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    PhillishereFencingsaxJuliusshryke
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Darkewolfe wrote: »

    Edit: so 10.87 an hour with no benefits whatsoever. Close to the absolute lowest tier of compensation of any type of labor in the US. This is AFTER all surge pricing and bonuses for completion and stuff.

    BUT
    This analysis ignores tips, as do all the other studies.
    That is one hell of a big caveat there. The entire idea of a tipping is stupid and should go die, but until that happens excluding it from your analysis in something like this basically means it is only tentatively connected to reality.


    More over it being a 10th-15th percentile job makes sense. What propped up the compensation rate for livery? One, the knowledge of being able to navigate around a given city efficiently. This was always more of a hope than a reality in my experience, but sure its a 'skill'. Smartphone GPS has made this completely obsolete, no matter how well you know traffic in general Waze knows it now. Two, a bunch of monopolies and predatory grifts. The monopolies and the schemes both have been stopped by Uber/lyft.

    Its a job that requires minimal skills, minimal physical exertion, that in the case of Uber/Lyft you can work truly "at will" with no required hours or schedule. Why would this be a high paying profession?

    Because everyone deserves a wage that allows them to live with dignity. Your argument is the one being dissected in this video:


    And it is an ugly one at its heart.

    Is $11+tips below dignity wages? Thats 140% the minimum wage, plus tips. I'd expect even a mediocre driver would clear the $15 hour people are campaigning for. I mean, if you want to argue minimum wage should be $17 or $20 or w/e, that is a side argument. But fundamentally, what about driving a standard car around a city following Google Maps, would lead you to see it as a job that isn't making near whatever that minimum permissible figure is.


    Also, I'm not watching some 20+ minute long youtube video. If you have a point to make, make it yourself.

    I think the argument was that suggesting that professional drivers in a fleet working for a major international corporation should be making poverty wages is scummy. That you feel comfortable sharing that you have some mental hierarchy that determines who gets to live a stable life with things like healthcare and a roof over there heads - most likely based on The Thing You Do sitting well above the poverty line - is also extremely distasteful.

    You could argue that all of those things you want for the poor are better/more easily provided by a better social safety net. Let rich jobs subsidize poorer jobs rather than forcing jobs with low margins to no longer exist.

    One thing that also isn’t being discussed with regards to working for Uber is schedule flexibility. You work when you want, with no oversight, period. So when comparing to other low income jobs you have to account for that perk. And I will try and look it up later, but my recollection is that studies have shown people will take a not insignificant pay decrease in return for better flexibility.

    Also, while it’s not nearly as much as driving all day, there are car maintenance costs associated with every job you have to drive to. And with the increasing costs of living in urban centers, I’m guessing the commute times/distances for poor people are also not insignificant. Which is another cost that is ignored when comparing Uber driving to some other minimum wage Job.

    Non of which is to say Uber isn’t a terrible company to work for. Just that I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as people make it out to be.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    DoodmannHamHamJtinwhiskersMrMisterElvenshaeSmrtnik
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited June 18
    Darkewolfe wrote: »

    Edit: so 10.87 an hour with no benefits whatsoever. Close to the absolute lowest tier of compensation of any type of labor in the US. This is AFTER all surge pricing and bonuses for completion and stuff.

    BUT
    This analysis ignores tips, as do all the other studies.
    That is one hell of a big caveat there. The entire idea of a tipping is stupid and should go die, but until that happens excluding it from your analysis in something like this basically means it is only tentatively connected to reality.


    More over it being a 10th-15th percentile job makes sense. What propped up the compensation rate for livery? One, the knowledge of being able to navigate around a given city efficiently. This was always more of a hope than a reality in my experience, but sure its a 'skill'. Smartphone GPS has made this completely obsolete, no matter how well you know traffic in general Waze knows it now. Two, a bunch of monopolies and predatory grifts. The monopolies and the schemes both have been stopped by Uber/lyft.

    Its a job that requires minimal skills, minimal physical exertion, that in the case of Uber/Lyft you can work truly "at will" with no required hours or schedule. Why would this be a high paying profession?

    Because everyone deserves a wage that allows them to live with dignity. Your argument is the one being dissected in this video:


    And it is an ugly one at its heart.

    Is $11+tips below dignity wages? Thats 140% the minimum wage, plus tips. I'd expect even a mediocre driver would clear the $15 hour people are campaigning for. I mean, if you want to argue minimum wage should be $17 or $20 or w/e, that is a side argument. But fundamentally, what about driving a standard car around a city following Google Maps, would lead you to see it as a job that isn't making near whatever that minimum permissible figure is.


    Also, I'm not watching some 20+ minute long youtube video. If you have a point to make, make it yourself.

    I think the argument was that suggesting that professional drivers in a fleet working for a major international corporation should be making poverty wages is scummy. That you feel comfortable sharing that you have some mental hierarchy that determines who gets to live a stable life with things like healthcare and a roof over there heads - most likely based on The Thing You Do sitting well above the poverty line - is also extremely distasteful.

    What makes them "professional". Years of specialized training or that they signed up on a website? That they work for a major corporation(that loses billions of dollars a quarter)?

    I mean either you are okay with market economies valuing the skilled over the unskilled or you aren't, but that is a far broader topic than "Uber". All Uber did was show everyone that the profession of livery driver was actually no longer all that skilled and was just propped up by a bunch of monopolistic business practices. E: Practices which disproportionately hurt the poor(and minorities for other not strictly economic reasons), as they are/were the bulk of taxi users.

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
    HamHamJMrMisterElvenshaeLanlaorn
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    One thing that also isn’t being discussed with regards to working for Uber is schedule flexibility. You work when you want, with no oversight, period. So when comparing to other low income jobs you have to account for that perk. And I will try and look it up later, but my recollection is that studies have shown people will take a not insignificant pay decrease in return for better flexibility.

    It's not discussed because it doesn't actually exist. The reality of the gig economy is that you work when the work is available, which means that no, you don't actually have flexibility as you are bound to the flow of the job.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Gnome-InterruptusFencingsaxJuliusjmcdonaldGnizmoDarkewolfeOrcaHefflingshryke
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    I think the argument was that suggesting that professional drivers in a fleet working for a major international corporation should be making poverty wages is scummy. That you feel comfortable sharing that you have some mental hierarchy that determines who gets to live a stable life with things like healthcare and a roof over there heads - most likely based on The Thing You Do sitting well above the poverty line - is also extremely distasteful.

    What makes them "professional". Years of specialized training or that they signed up on a website? That they work for a major corporation(that loses billions of dollars a quarter)?

    I mean either you are okay with market economies valuing the skilled over the unskilled or you aren't, but that is a far broader topic than "Uber". All Uber did was show everyone that the profession of livery driver was actually no longer all that skilled and was just propped up by a bunch of monopolistic business practices. E: Practices which disproportionately hurt the poor(and minorities for other not strictly economic reasons), as they are/were the bulk of taxi users.

    You're arguing that it's okay for drivers to be shit upon by Uber because, in your estimation, they are not "skilled". That is one of the core issues with Uber and the gig economy in general, even if the issue as a whole is one that broadly encompasses the labor market. It doesn't matter if drivers are "skilled" or not - they still merit dignity, and in turn fair and livable wages.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    PhillishereGnome-InterruptusOrcaHefflingshryke
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited June 18
    Darkewolfe wrote: »

    Edit: so 10.87 an hour with no benefits whatsoever. Close to the absolute lowest tier of compensation of any type of labor in the US. This is AFTER all surge pricing and bonuses for completion and stuff.

    BUT
    This analysis ignores tips, as do all the other studies.
    That is one hell of a big caveat there. The entire idea of a tipping is stupid and should go die, but until that happens excluding it from your analysis in something like this basically means it is only tentatively connected to reality.


    More over it being a 10th-15th percentile job makes sense. What propped up the compensation rate for livery? One, the knowledge of being able to navigate around a given city efficiently. This was always more of a hope than a reality in my experience, but sure its a 'skill'. Smartphone GPS has made this completely obsolete, no matter how well you know traffic in general Waze knows it now. Two, a bunch of monopolies and predatory grifts. The monopolies and the schemes both have been stopped by Uber/lyft.

    Its a job that requires minimal skills, minimal physical exertion, that in the case of Uber/Lyft you can work truly "at will" with no required hours or schedule. Why would this be a high paying profession?

    Because everyone deserves a wage that allows them to live with dignity. Your argument is the one being dissected in this video:


    And it is an ugly one at its heart.

    Is $11+tips below dignity wages? Thats 140% the minimum wage, plus tips. I'd expect even a mediocre driver would clear the $15 hour people are campaigning for. I mean, if you want to argue minimum wage should be $17 or $20 or w/e, that is a side argument. But fundamentally, what about driving a standard car around a city following Google Maps, would lead you to see it as a job that isn't making near whatever that minimum permissible figure is.


    Also, I'm not watching some 20+ minute long youtube video. If you have a point to make, make it yourself.

    I think the argument was that suggesting that professional drivers in a fleet working for a major international corporation should be making poverty wages is scummy. That you feel comfortable sharing that you have some mental hierarchy that determines who gets to live a stable life with things like healthcare and a roof over there heads - most likely based on The Thing You Do sitting well above the poverty line - is also extremely distasteful.

    What makes them "professional". Years of specialized training or that they signed up on a website? That they work for a major corporation(that loses billions of dollars a quarter)?

    I mean either you are okay with market economies valuing the skilled over the unskilled or you aren't, but that is a far broader topic than "Uber". All Uber did was show everyone that the profession of livery driver was actually no longer all that skilled and was just propped up by a bunch of monopolistic business practices. E: Practices which disproportionately hurt the poor(and minorities for other not strictly economic reasons), as they are/were the bulk of taxi users.

    A livery driver is a professional. I'm sorry you are beholden to the idea that only people with years of specialized training deserve healthcare and a roof over their head, but don't expect everyone else to applaud you for it.

    Phillishere on
    AngelHedgieFencingsaxjmcdonaldNobodyHefflingshryke
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    One thing that also isn’t being discussed with regards to working for Uber is schedule flexibility. You work when you want, with no oversight, period. So when comparing to other low income jobs you have to account for that perk. And I will try and look it up later, but my recollection is that studies have shown people will take a not insignificant pay decrease in return for better flexibility.

    It's not discussed because it doesn't actually exist. The reality of the gig economy is that you work when the work is available, which means that no, you don't actually have flexibility as you are bound to the flow of the job.

    This is just fundamentally not true. An Uber driver can just not work on a random Tuesday. Doesn't need to take off, doesn't need to find someone to take their shift, etc. Can just not work it. Kid sick, got tickets to something, just would rather not? All acceptable. Basically no other field has this. A doctor can't just not show up for their shifts whenever they feel like it.

    What your bemoaning is true of all service sector jobs, they schedule shifts around the ebb and flow of the customers. More over its also true of many non-service jobs. A factory worker can't just come in cause they want to on a Saturday. "Ohh I worked from 8 to 11 Saturday , 3 hours pay please"

    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
    Jebus314MrMisterElvenshaeNSDFRandLanlaornSmrtnik
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited June 18
    I think the argument was that suggesting that professional drivers in a fleet working for a major international corporation should be making poverty wages is scummy. That you feel comfortable sharing that you have some mental hierarchy that determines who gets to live a stable life with things like healthcare and a roof over there heads - most likely based on The Thing You Do sitting well above the poverty line - is also extremely distasteful.

    What makes them "professional". Years of specialized training or that they signed up on a website? That they work for a major corporation(that loses billions of dollars a quarter)?

    I mean either you are okay with market economies valuing the skilled over the unskilled or you aren't, but that is a far broader topic than "Uber". All Uber did was show everyone that the profession of livery driver was actually no longer all that skilled and was just propped up by a bunch of monopolistic business practices. E: Practices which disproportionately hurt the poor(and minorities for other not strictly economic reasons), as they are/were the bulk of taxi users.

    You're arguing that it's okay for drivers to be shit upon by Uber because, in your estimation, they are not "skilled". That is one of the core issues with Uber and the gig economy in general, even if the issue as a whole is one that broadly encompasses the labor market. It doesn't matter if drivers are "skilled" or not - they still merit dignity, and in turn fair and livable wages.

    As someone who works in academia and seen the growth of the adjunct class in both humanities and sciences, I know that this shit also isn't based on some rational calculus. First, they figure out a way to abuse you for more money as contingent labor. Then they create a rationale for why you are worth less than a full-time employee.

    There's no real metric to any of this, and there is no amount of education, training, or experience that can protect you from it. First, they destroy your value in the marketplace. Then, they make millions off you while the free market true believers pontificate on why you deserve being destitute.

    Phillishere on
    FencingsaxJuliusjmcdonaldOrcashryke
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    One thing that also isn’t being discussed with regards to working for Uber is schedule flexibility. You work when you want, with no oversight, period. So when comparing to other low income jobs you have to account for that perk. And I will try and look it up later, but my recollection is that studies have shown people will take a not insignificant pay decrease in return for better flexibility.

    It's not discussed because it doesn't actually exist. The reality of the gig economy is that you work when the work is available, which means that no, you don't actually have flexibility as you are bound to the flow of the job.

    This is just fundamentally not true. An Uber driver can just not work on a random Tuesday. Doesn't need to take off, doesn't need to find someone to take their shift, etc. Can just not work it. Kid sick, got tickets to something, just would rather not? All acceptable. Basically no other field has this. A doctor can't just not show up for their shifts whenever they feel like it.

    What your bemoaning is true of all service sector jobs, they schedule shifts around the ebb and flow of the customers. More over its also true of many non-service jobs. A factory worker can't just come in cause they want to on a Saturday. "Ohh I worked from 8 to 11 Saturday , 3 hours pay please"

    The idea that temporary contingent contract labor is some massive anomaly is just weird to me. What you are saying can apply to any independent contractor or service provider who doesn't work a shift job. That doesn't mean that they can survive on lower wages or have unlimited freedom, just that they have more flexibility on when they deliver their products than shift laborers.

    This has nothing to do with professionalism or pay. A freelance programmer working a remote contract job for a bank may have the same flexibility, so does that mean they also only deserve $10 an hour?

    jmcdonald
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    I think the argument was that suggesting that professional drivers in a fleet working for a major international corporation should be making poverty wages is scummy. That you feel comfortable sharing that you have some mental hierarchy that determines who gets to live a stable life with things like healthcare and a roof over there heads - most likely based on The Thing You Do sitting well above the poverty line - is also extremely distasteful.

    What makes them "professional". Years of specialized training or that they signed up on a website? That they work for a major corporation(that loses billions of dollars a quarter)?

    I mean either you are okay with market economies valuing the skilled over the unskilled or you aren't, but that is a far broader topic than "Uber". All Uber did was show everyone that the profession of livery driver was actually no longer all that skilled and was just propped up by a bunch of monopolistic business practices. E: Practices which disproportionately hurt the poor(and minorities for other not strictly economic reasons), as they are/were the bulk of taxi users.

    You're arguing that it's okay for drivers to be shit upon by Uber because, in your estimation, they are not "skilled". That is one of the core issues with Uber and the gig economy in general, even if the issue as a whole is one that broadly encompasses the labor market. It doesn't matter if drivers are "skilled" or not - they still merit dignity, and in turn fair and livable wages.

    No, this is a strawman. The argument is that Uber work has a low barrier to entry, aka is low skilled, and not limited in any particular way and thus it is not strange that it would fall toward the bottom of the wage scale. Where the bottom of the wage scale is vis a vis cost of living is not relevant to that point.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    tinwhiskersJebus314MrMisterCauldElvenshaeNSDFRandLanlaornLostNinjaZek
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Darkewolfe wrote: »

    Edit: so 10.87 an hour with no benefits whatsoever. Close to the absolute lowest tier of compensation of any type of labor in the US. This is AFTER all surge pricing and bonuses for completion and stuff.

    BUT
    This analysis ignores tips, as do all the other studies.
    That is one hell of a big caveat there. The entire idea of a tipping is stupid and should go die, but until that happens excluding it from your analysis in something like this basically means it is only tentatively connected to reality.


    More over it being a 10th-15th percentile job makes sense. What propped up the compensation rate for livery? One, the knowledge of being able to navigate around a given city efficiently. This was always more of a hope than a reality in my experience, but sure its a 'skill'. Smartphone GPS has made this completely obsolete, no matter how well you know traffic in general Waze knows it now. Two, a bunch of monopolies and predatory grifts. The monopolies and the schemes both have been stopped by Uber/lyft.

    Its a job that requires minimal skills, minimal physical exertion, that in the case of Uber/Lyft you can work truly "at will" with no required hours or schedule. Why would this be a high paying profession?

    Because everyone deserves a wage that allows them to live with dignity. Your argument is the one being dissected in this video:


    And it is an ugly one at its heart.

    Is $11+tips below dignity wages? Thats 140% the minimum wage, plus tips. I'd expect even a mediocre driver would clear the $15 hour people are campaigning for. I mean, if you want to argue minimum wage should be $17 or $20 or w/e, that is a side argument. But fundamentally, what about driving a standard car around a city following Google Maps, would lead you to see it as a job that isn't making near whatever that minimum permissible figure is.


    Also, I'm not watching some 20+ minute long youtube video. If you have a point to make, make it yourself.

    If you'd ever driven in Boston you wouldn't ask this question. The cabbies might be assholes, but they also drive in one of the most stressful settings possible. I loath having to drive in boston for 10 minutes let alone 8+ hours. The folks that do it all day every day cannot possibly be getting paid enough in my estimation.

    Gnome-Interruptusjmcdonald
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I think the argument was that suggesting that professional drivers in a fleet working for a major international corporation should be making poverty wages is scummy. That you feel comfortable sharing that you have some mental hierarchy that determines who gets to live a stable life with things like healthcare and a roof over there heads - most likely based on The Thing You Do sitting well above the poverty line - is also extremely distasteful.

    What makes them "professional". Years of specialized training or that they signed up on a website? That they work for a major corporation(that loses billions of dollars a quarter)?

    I mean either you are okay with market economies valuing the skilled over the unskilled or you aren't, but that is a far broader topic than "Uber". All Uber did was show everyone that the profession of livery driver was actually no longer all that skilled and was just propped up by a bunch of monopolistic business practices. E: Practices which disproportionately hurt the poor(and minorities for other not strictly economic reasons), as they are/were the bulk of taxi users.

    You're arguing that it's okay for drivers to be shit upon by Uber because, in your estimation, they are not "skilled". That is one of the core issues with Uber and the gig economy in general, even if the issue as a whole is one that broadly encompasses the labor market. It doesn't matter if drivers are "skilled" or not - they still merit dignity, and in turn fair and livable wages.

    No, this is a strawman. The argument is that Uber work has a low barrier to entry, aka is low skilled, and not limited in any particular way and thus it is not strange that it would fall toward the bottom of the wage scale. Where the bottom of the wage scale is vis a vis cost of living is not relevant to that point.

    Well, the fact that Uber is facing strikes and driver shortages shows that the cost of living is quite relevant to the drivers. The big lesson of Uber is that livery service isn’t actually a low wage market, which is why they and those who drive for them are hemorrhaging money.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I think the argument was that suggesting that professional drivers in a fleet working for a major international corporation should be making poverty wages is scummy. That you feel comfortable sharing that you have some mental hierarchy that determines who gets to live a stable life with things like healthcare and a roof over there heads - most likely based on The Thing You Do sitting well above the poverty line - is also extremely distasteful.

    What makes them "professional". Years of specialized training or that they signed up on a website? That they work for a major corporation(that loses billions of dollars a quarter)?

    I mean either you are okay with market economies valuing the skilled over the unskilled or you aren't, but that is a far broader topic than "Uber". All Uber did was show everyone that the profession of livery driver was actually no longer all that skilled and was just propped up by a bunch of monopolistic business practices. E: Practices which disproportionately hurt the poor(and minorities for other not strictly economic reasons), as they are/were the bulk of taxi users.

    You're arguing that it's okay for drivers to be shit upon by Uber because, in your estimation, they are not "skilled". That is one of the core issues with Uber and the gig economy in general, even if the issue as a whole is one that broadly encompasses the labor market. It doesn't matter if drivers are "skilled" or not - they still merit dignity, and in turn fair and livable wages.

    No, this is a strawman. The argument is that Uber work has a low barrier to entry, aka is low skilled, and not limited in any particular way and thus it is not strange that it would fall toward the bottom of the wage scale. Where the bottom of the wage scale is vis a vis cost of living is not relevant to that point.

    Well, the fact that Uber is facing strikes and driver shortages shows that the cost of living is quite relevant to the drivers. The big lesson of Uber is that livery service isn’t actually a low wage market, which is why they and those who drive for them are hemorrhaging money.

    If they need they need to raise wages to attract more workers that's how the market is supposed to work.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    tinwhiskersMrMisterCauldElvenshaeNSDFRandLanlaornMoridin889LostNinja
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited June 18
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    One thing that also isn’t being discussed with regards to working for Uber is schedule flexibility. You work when you want, with no oversight, period. So when comparing to other low income jobs you have to account for that perk. And I will try and look it up later, but my recollection is that studies have shown people will take a not insignificant pay decrease in return for better flexibility.

    It's not discussed because it doesn't actually exist. The reality of the gig economy is that you work when the work is available, which means that no, you don't actually have flexibility as you are bound to the flow of the job.

    This is just fundamentally not true. An Uber driver can just not work on a random Tuesday. Doesn't need to take off, doesn't need to find someone to take their shift, etc. Can just not work it. Kid sick, got tickets to something, just would rather not? All acceptable. Basically no other field has this. A doctor can't just not show up for their shifts whenever they feel like it.

    What your bemoaning is true of all service sector jobs, they schedule shifts around the ebb and flow of the customers. More over its also true of many non-service jobs. A factory worker can't just come in cause they want to on a Saturday. "Ohh I worked from 8 to 11 Saturday , 3 hours pay please"

    The idea that temporary contingent contract labor is some massive anomaly is just weird to me. What you are saying can apply to any independent contractor or service provider who doesn't work a shift job. That doesn't mean that they can survive on lower wages or have unlimited freedom, just that they have more flexibility on when they deliver their products than shift laborers.

    This has nothing to do with professionalism or pay. A freelance programmer working a remote contract job for a bank may have the same flexibility, so does that mean they also only deserve $10 an hour?

    You seem to be operating under a different framwork than I am. I am making no claims on what someone deserves. I am simply pointing out that flexibility in a job is a perk that people are willing to take less pay for.

    I am going to make up numbers, but imagine two jobs, one that pays say $12/hr on a regular 8 to 5, and a second where you make $10/hr but can choose to not work whenever for any reason, and have options of different shifts to work throughout the day. Lots of people will choose option two even though the pay is less.

    All of which is just to say, I don’t agree with the statement that Uber drivers would be better off with any job that pays a similar rate ($11/hr?). Because the perks of flexibility are worth something.

    I also never claimed this was unique to Uber. Just that I hear it a lot from Uber drivers as a reason why they chose to go that route, and I never hear it at all from people arguing no one should drive for Uber.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    MrMisterElvenshae
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I think the argument was that suggesting that professional drivers in a fleet working for a major international corporation should be making poverty wages is scummy. That you feel comfortable sharing that you have some mental hierarchy that determines who gets to live a stable life with things like healthcare and a roof over there heads - most likely based on The Thing You Do sitting well above the poverty line - is also extremely distasteful.

    What makes them "professional". Years of specialized training or that they signed up on a website? That they work for a major corporation(that loses billions of dollars a quarter)?

    I mean either you are okay with market economies valuing the skilled over the unskilled or you aren't, but that is a far broader topic than "Uber". All Uber did was show everyone that the profession of livery driver was actually no longer all that skilled and was just propped up by a bunch of monopolistic business practices. E: Practices which disproportionately hurt the poor(and minorities for other not strictly economic reasons), as they are/were the bulk of taxi users.

    You're arguing that it's okay for drivers to be shit upon by Uber because, in your estimation, they are not "skilled". That is one of the core issues with Uber and the gig economy in general, even if the issue as a whole is one that broadly encompasses the labor market. It doesn't matter if drivers are "skilled" or not - they still merit dignity, and in turn fair and livable wages.

    No, this is a strawman. The argument is that Uber work has a low barrier to entry, aka is low skilled, and not limited in any particular way and thus it is not strange that it would fall toward the bottom of the wage scale. Where the bottom of the wage scale is vis a vis cost of living is not relevant to that point.

    Well, the fact that Uber is facing strikes and driver shortages shows that the cost of living is quite relevant to the drivers. The big lesson of Uber is that livery service isn’t actually a low wage market, which is why they and those who drive for them are hemorrhaging money.

    If they need they need to raise wages to attract more workers that's how the market is supposed to work.

    If my options are live in my car and drive uber to cover the insurance/payments and get food, or just fuckin die. You can see why id take any fuckin scraps offered. Just because I can get people to work for shit wages doesn't mean that wage is at all justifiable nor is the existence of my company.

    KetarNyysjanAngelHedgieFencingsaxPolaritiejmcdonaldshryke
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited June 18
    Sleep wrote: »
    Darkewolfe wrote: »

    Edit: so 10.87 an hour with no benefits whatsoever. Close to the absolute lowest tier of compensation of any type of labor in the US. This is AFTER all surge pricing and bonuses for completion and stuff.

    BUT
    This analysis ignores tips, as do all the other studies.
    That is one hell of a big caveat there. The entire idea of a tipping is stupid and should go die, but until that happens excluding it from your analysis in something like this basically means it is only tentatively connected to reality.


    More over it being a 10th-15th percentile job makes sense. What propped up the compensation rate for livery? One, the knowledge of being able to navigate around a given city efficiently. This was always more of a hope than a reality in my experience, but sure its a 'skill'. Smartphone GPS has made this completely obsolete, no matter how well you know traffic in general Waze knows it now. Two, a bunch of monopolies and predatory grifts. The monopolies and the schemes both have been stopped by Uber/lyft.

    Its a job that requires minimal skills, minimal physical exertion, that in the case of Uber/Lyft you can work truly "at will" with no required hours or schedule. Why would this be a high paying profession?

    Because everyone deserves a wage that allows them to live with dignity. Your argument is the one being dissected in this video:


    And it is an ugly one at its heart.

    Is $11+tips below dignity wages? Thats 140% the minimum wage, plus tips. I'd expect even a mediocre driver would clear the $15 hour people are campaigning for. I mean, if you want to argue minimum wage should be $17 or $20 or w/e, that is a side argument. But fundamentally, what about driving a standard car around a city following Google Maps, would lead you to see it as a job that isn't making near whatever that minimum permissible figure is.


    Also, I'm not watching some 20+ minute long youtube video. If you have a point to make, make it yourself.

    If you'd ever driven in Boston you wouldn't ask this question. The cabbies might be assholes, but they also drive in one of the most stressful settings possible. I loath having to drive in boston for 10 minutes let alone 8+ hours. The folks that do it all day every day cannot possibly be getting paid enough in my estimation.

    I spent a week in Boston working, Last day I drove a E250 work van(no windows on the side panels) from down by Braintree to a hotel by Logan, and then out of state via 90 on a Thursday during rush hour. It was no worse than the bullshit Chicago traffic I was used to.


    Although this brings up another great point in favor of lyft/uber. I've never had a driver from either of them drive like a raging wannabe Italian Job stunt driver. My taxi experience, much more

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    The argument that "well people are willing to do it" seems utterly weird to me.
    People are "willing" to do stupid, self destructive, harmful (to them and others) all the time for any number of reasons.
    Desperation, ignorance, pride...

    SleepKetarOrcashryke
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    One thing that also isn’t being discussed with regards to working for Uber is schedule flexibility. You work when you want, with no oversight, period. So when comparing to other low income jobs you have to account for that perk. And I will try and look it up later, but my recollection is that studies have shown people will take a not insignificant pay decrease in return for better flexibility.

    It's not discussed because it doesn't actually exist. The reality of the gig economy is that you work when the work is available, which means that no, you don't actually have flexibility as you are bound to the flow of the job.

    This is just fundamentally not true. An Uber driver can just not work on a random Tuesday. Doesn't need to take off, doesn't need to find someone to take their shift, etc. Can just not work it. Kid sick, got tickets to something, just would rather not? All acceptable. Basically no other field has this. A doctor can't just not show up for their shifts whenever they feel like it.

    What your bemoaning is true of all service sector jobs, they schedule shifts around the ebb and flow of the customers. More over its also true of many non-service jobs. A factory worker can't just come in cause they want to on a Saturday. "Ohh I worked from 8 to 11 Saturday , 3 hours pay please"

    The idea that temporary contingent contract labor is some massive anomaly is just weird to me. What you are saying can apply to any independent contractor or service provider who doesn't work a shift job. That doesn't mean that they can survive on lower wages or have unlimited freedom, just that they have more flexibility on when they deliver their products than shift laborers.

    This has nothing to do with professionalism or pay. A freelance programmer working a remote contract job for a bank may have the same flexibility, so does that mean they also only deserve $10 an hour?

    You seem to be operating under a different framwork than I am. I am making no claims on what someone deserves. I am simply pointing out that flexibility in a job is a perk that people are willing to take less pay for.

    I am going to make up numbers, but imagine two jobs, one that pays say $12/hr on a regular 8 to 5, and a second where you make $10/hr but can choose to not work whenever for any reason, and have options of different shifts to work throughout the day. Lots of people will choose option two even though the pay is less.

    All of which is just to say, I don’t agree with the statement that Uber drivers would be better off with any job that pays a similar rate ($11/hr?). Because the perks of flexibility are worth something.

    I also never claimed this was unique to Uber. Just that I hear it a lot from Uber drivers as a reason why they chose to go that route, and I never hear it at all from people arguing no one should drive for Uber.

    Again, because it's illusory in practice. Yes, you can, in theory, pick and choose your hours - but in reality you can't, because if you actually want to make money, you have to work when the work is available. Which means that you effectively have to work during prime hours.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    JuliusSleepkimejmcdonaldmcdermottGnizmoOrcashryke
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Darkewolfe wrote: »

    Edit: so 10.87 an hour with no benefits whatsoever. Close to the absolute lowest tier of compensation of any type of labor in the US. This is AFTER all surge pricing and bonuses for completion and stuff.

    BUT
    This analysis ignores tips, as do all the other studies.
    That is one hell of a big caveat there. The entire idea of a tipping is stupid and should go die, but until that happens excluding it from your analysis in something like this basically means it is only tentatively connected to reality.


    More over it being a 10th-15th percentile job makes sense. What propped up the compensation rate for livery? One, the knowledge of being able to navigate around a given city efficiently. This was always more of a hope than a reality in my experience, but sure its a 'skill'. Smartphone GPS has made this completely obsolete, no matter how well you know traffic in general Waze knows it now. Two, a bunch of monopolies and predatory grifts. The monopolies and the schemes both have been stopped by Uber/lyft.

    Its a job that requires minimal skills, minimal physical exertion, that in the case of Uber/Lyft you can work truly "at will" with no required hours or schedule. Why would this be a high paying profession?

    It's still low paying work where you're using up your own capital. Even if in your weird skill hierarchy their compensation makes sense, in reality they are making significantly less.

    That's the problem. The lowest "minimum permissible" tier in the US is already pretty terrible, but the nature of Uber puts compensation likely below that tier without people realizing it.

    SleepPhillisherejmcdonaldOrcaGnome-Interruptus
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited June 18
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    The argument that "well people are willing to do it" seems utterly weird to me.
    People are "willing" to do stupid, self destructive, harmful (to them and others) all the time for any number of reasons.
    Desperation, ignorance, pride...

    I don’t think anyone is saying the job market should be completely unregulated. But I wonder what the best way to ensure good outcomes for social wellbeing are.

    I think it’s unfair to single out one company in an entire economy for having low paying unskilled labor. Nor does it really make sense to me to put the onus on a company (who’s priority will always be to maximize profit) to be the ones making sure all workers have a liveable wage.

    It also doesn’t make sense to me to kill off companies that provide a useful product simply because their margins are not good enough to pay workers a high wage.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    MrMister
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    The argument that "well people are willing to do it" seems utterly weird to me.
    People are "willing" to do stupid, self destructive, harmful (to them and others) all the time for any number of reasons.
    Desperation, ignorance, pride...

    I don’t think anyone is saying the job market should be completely unregulated. But I wonder what the best way to ensure good outcomes for social wellbeing are.

    I think it’s unfair to single out one company in an entire economy for having low paying unskilled labor. Nor does it really make sense to me to put the onus on a company (who’s priority will always be to maximize profit) to be the ones making sure all workers have a liveable wage.

    It also doesn’t make sense to me to kill off companies that provide a useful product simply because their margins are not good enough to pay workers a high wage.

    If a company cannot pay its workers a living wage, it shouldn't exist.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    PolaritieGnizmoFencingsaxNobodyGnome-InterruptusNyysjanHefflingshrykeJulius
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    The argument that "well people are willing to do it" seems utterly weird to me.
    People are "willing" to do stupid, self destructive, harmful (to them and others) all the time for any number of reasons.
    Desperation, ignorance, pride...

    I don’t think anyone is saying the job market should be completely unregulated. But I wonder what the best way to ensure good outcomes for social wellbeing are.

    I think it’s unfair to single out one company in an entire economy for having low paying unskilled labor. Nor does it really make sense to me to put the onus on a company (who’s priority will always be to maximize profit) to be the ones making sure all workers have a liveable wage.

    It also doesn’t make sense to me to kill off companies that provide a useful product simply because their margins are not good enough to pay workers a high wage.

    If a company cannot pay its workers a living wage, it shouldn't exist.

    Why not?

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    One thing that also isn’t being discussed with regards to working for Uber is schedule flexibility. You work when you want, with no oversight, period. So when comparing to other low income jobs you have to account for that perk. And I will try and look it up later, but my recollection is that studies have shown people will take a not insignificant pay decrease in return for better flexibility.

    It's not discussed because it doesn't actually exist. The reality of the gig economy is that you work when the work is available, which means that no, you don't actually have flexibility as you are bound to the flow of the job.

    This is just fundamentally not true. An Uber driver can just not work on a random Tuesday. Doesn't need to take off, doesn't need to find someone to take their shift, etc. Can just not work it. Kid sick, got tickets to something, just would rather not? All acceptable. Basically no other field has this. A doctor can't just not show up for their shifts whenever they feel like it.

    What your bemoaning is true of all service sector jobs, they schedule shifts around the ebb and flow of the customers. More over its also true of many non-service jobs. A factory worker can't just come in cause they want to on a Saturday. "Ohh I worked from 8 to 11 Saturday , 3 hours pay please"

    The idea that temporary contingent contract labor is some massive anomaly is just weird to me. What you are saying can apply to any independent contractor or service provider who doesn't work a shift job. That doesn't mean that they can survive on lower wages or have unlimited freedom, just that they have more flexibility on when they deliver their products than shift laborers.

    This has nothing to do with professionalism or pay. A freelance programmer working a remote contract job for a bank may have the same flexibility, so does that mean they also only deserve $10 an hour?

    You seem to be operating under a different framwork than I am. I am making no claims on what someone deserves. I am simply pointing out that flexibility in a job is a perk that people are willing to take less pay for.

    I am going to make up numbers, but imagine two jobs, one that pays say $12/hr on a regular 8 to 5, and a second where you make $10/hr but can choose to not work whenever for any reason, and have options of different shifts to work throughout the day. Lots of people will choose option two even though the pay is less.

    All of which is just to say, I don’t agree with the statement that Uber drivers would be better off with any job that pays a similar rate ($11/hr?). Because the perks of flexibility are worth something.

    I also never claimed this was unique to Uber. Just that I hear it a lot from Uber drivers as a reason why they chose to go that route, and I never hear it at all from people arguing no one should drive for Uber.

    Again, because it's illusory in practice. Yes, you can, in theory, pick and choose your hours - but in reality you can't, because if you actually want to make money, you have to work when the work is available. Which means that you effectively have to work during prime hours.

    I didn’t say they could work whenever they wanted. I said they had options. Which is true if Uber. There isn’t a single 4 hr window where you can make money. There are options.

    And also ignores that you can not work without penalty at any time for any reason, which you keep ignoring. There are benefits here. Even if you think they are minor compared to the low wage.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    MrMisterElvenshae
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Our society has a lot of problems that fall back toward wages not keeping up with productivity, and automation making a 40 hour work week largely an unnecessary holdover from an analog manufacturing heavy economy.

    The initial pitch was "it's an easy to pick up side gig" to work a couple extra hours after work making a bit of money, maybe even on your way home depending on the commute. I know that's not what it's morphed into but I've definitely met a lot of drivers that still use it like that. The "it's kind of become my hobby because otherwise I'd just be sitting around watching tv and drinking beer" or "I'm doing this to help fund my wedding" type stories.

    Analogies to freelance mostly don't work. I can't open an app and get a design gig with a set hourly rate, even if it is 10/hr.
    I can go to fivver and beg people to let me get harrassed while they want highly skilled work for far less than that though.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Torchlight | Steam | ART
    MrMisterFencingsax
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    The argument that "well people are willing to do it" seems utterly weird to me.
    People are "willing" to do stupid, self destructive, harmful (to them and others) all the time for any number of reasons.
    Desperation, ignorance, pride...

    I don’t think anyone is saying the job market should be completely unregulated. But I wonder what the best way to ensure good outcomes for social wellbeing are.

    I think it’s unfair to single out one company in an entire economy for having low paying unskilled labor. Nor does it really make sense to me to put the onus on a company (who’s priority will always be to maximize profit) to be the ones making sure all workers have a liveable wage.

    It also doesn’t make sense to me to kill off companies that provide a useful product simply because their margins are not good enough to pay workers a high wage.

    If a company cannot pay its workers a living wage, it shouldn't exist.

    Why not?

    Because companies do not exist in a vacuum. They are part of society, and if they cannot behave appropriately by properly compensating their workers, then they are failing in their obligations.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    kimeGnizmoFencingsaxNobodyGnome-Interruptusshryke
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    The argument that "well people are willing to do it" seems utterly weird to me.
    People are "willing" to do stupid, self destructive, harmful (to them and others) all the time for any number of reasons.
    Desperation, ignorance, pride...

    I don’t think anyone is saying the job market should be completely unregulated. But I wonder what the best way to ensure good outcomes for social wellbeing are.

    I think it’s unfair to single out one company in an entire economy for having low paying unskilled labor. Nor does it really make sense to me to put the onus on a company (who’s priority will always be to maximize profit) to be the ones making sure all workers have a liveable wage.

    It also doesn’t make sense to me to kill off companies that provide a useful product simply because their margins are not good enough to pay workers a high wage.

    If a company cannot pay its workers a living wage, it shouldn't exist.

    Why not?

    Because it's not actually good for the people that make it money.

    If you can only exist by exploiting the labor of others then you shouldn't exist your business model is garbage and you're actually acting as an overall drain on resources.

    DoodmannAngelHedgieQuidkimejmcdonaldGnizmoFencingsaxGnome-InterruptusNyysjanHefflingshrykeAegis
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited June 18
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    The argument that "well people are willing to do it" seems utterly weird to me.
    People are "willing" to do stupid, self destructive, harmful (to them and others) all the time for any number of reasons.
    Desperation, ignorance, pride...

    I don’t think anyone is saying the job market should be completely unregulated. But I wonder what the best way to ensure good outcomes for social wellbeing are.

    I think it’s unfair to single out one company in an entire economy for having low paying unskilled labor. Nor does it really make sense to me to put the onus on a company (who’s priority will always be to maximize profit) to be the ones making sure all workers have a liveable wage.

    It also doesn’t make sense to me to kill off companies that provide a useful product simply because their margins are not good enough to pay workers a high wage.

    If a company cannot pay its workers a living wage, it shouldn't exist.

    Why not?

    Because companies do not exist in a vacuum. They are part of society, and if they cannot behave appropriately by properly compensating their workers, then they are failing in their obligations.

    Why in the world would it be a companies obligation to make sure everyone has a living wage? That seems like a terrible place to try and help low skilled workers. Wouldn’t it be much easier to simply have a better social safety net that makes even the lowest paying jobs livable?

    Edit - hey poor person, let me help you out by cutting millions of jobs you could have gotten, because the don’t help you enough.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    MrMister
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    The argument that "well people are willing to do it" seems utterly weird to me.
    People are "willing" to do stupid, self destructive, harmful (to them and others) all the time for any number of reasons.
    Desperation, ignorance, pride...

    I don’t think anyone is saying the job market should be completely unregulated. But I wonder what the best way to ensure good outcomes for social wellbeing are.

    I think it’s unfair to single out one company in an entire economy for having low paying unskilled labor. Nor does it really make sense to me to put the onus on a company (who’s priority will always be to maximize profit) to be the ones making sure all workers have a liveable wage.

    It also doesn’t make sense to me to kill off companies that provide a useful product simply because their margins are not good enough to pay workers a high wage.

    If a company cannot pay its workers a living wage, it shouldn't exist.

    Why not?

    Because companies do not exist in a vacuum. They are part of society, and if they cannot behave appropriately by properly compensating their workers, then they are failing in their obligations.

    Why in the world would it be a companies obligation to make sure everyone has a living wage? That seems like a terrible place to try and help low skilled workers. Wouldn’t it be much easier to simply have a better social safety net that makes even the lowest paying jobs livable?

    Edit - hey poor person, let me help you out by cutting millions of jobs you could have gotten, because the don’t help you enough.

    Low skilled is a totally bullshit metric

    There's no obligation by society to be highly skilled, nor does anyone hold the monopoly on determining what is and isn't a skill.

    As a dude that's almost died behind the wheel of a car multiple times, i consider driving a highly skilled field.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    One thing that also isn’t being discussed with regards to working for Uber is schedule flexibility. You work when you want, with no oversight, period. So when comparing to other low income jobs you have to account for that perk. And I will try and look it up later, but my recollection is that studies have shown people will take a not insignificant pay decrease in return for better flexibility.

    It's not discussed because it doesn't actually exist. The reality of the gig economy is that you work when the work is available, which means that no, you don't actually have flexibility as you are bound to the flow of the job.

    This is just fundamentally not true. An Uber driver can just not work on a random Tuesday. Doesn't need to take off, doesn't need to find someone to take their shift, etc. Can just not work it. Kid sick, got tickets to something, just would rather not? All acceptable. Basically no other field has this. A doctor can't just not show up for their shifts whenever they feel like it.

    What your bemoaning is true of all service sector jobs, they schedule shifts around the ebb and flow of the customers. More over its also true of many non-service jobs. A factory worker can't just come in cause they want to on a Saturday. "Ohh I worked from 8 to 11 Saturday , 3 hours pay please"

    The idea that temporary contingent contract labor is some massive anomaly is just weird to me. What you are saying can apply to any independent contractor or service provider who doesn't work a shift job. That doesn't mean that they can survive on lower wages or have unlimited freedom, just that they have more flexibility on when they deliver their products than shift laborers.

    This has nothing to do with professionalism or pay. A freelance programmer working a remote contract job for a bank may have the same flexibility, so does that mean they also only deserve $10 an hour?

    You seem to be operating under a different framwork than I am. I am making no claims on what someone deserves. I am simply pointing out that flexibility in a job is a perk that people are willing to take less pay for.

    I am going to make up numbers, but imagine two jobs, one that pays say $12/hr on a regular 8 to 5, and a second where you make $10/hr but can choose to not work whenever for any reason, and have options of different shifts to work throughout the day. Lots of people will choose option two even though the pay is less.

    All of which is just to say, I don’t agree with the statement that Uber drivers would be better off with any job that pays a similar rate ($11/hr?). Because the perks of flexibility are worth something.

    I also never claimed this was unique to Uber. Just that I hear it a lot from Uber drivers as a reason why they chose to go that route, and I never hear it at all from people arguing no one should drive for Uber.

    Again, because it's illusory in practice. Yes, you can, in theory, pick and choose your hours - but in reality you can't, because if you actually want to make money, you have to work when the work is available. Which means that you effectively have to work during prime hours.

    I didn’t say they could work whenever they wanted. I said they had options. Which is true if Uber. There isn’t a single 4 hr window where you can make money. There are options.

    And also ignores that you can not work without penalty at any time for any reason, which you keep ignoring. There are benefits here. Even if you think they are minor compared to the low wage.

    It's a "benefit" in the same way as "unlimited" leave is. And much like "unlimited" leave creates the illusion of flexibility while actually reducing it, Uber's "flexibility" does the same. If you want to actually be profitable, you have to work when utilization rates are in your favor, and yes, there are windows for that. So in effect, you don't have flexibility because you have to work when the work is available.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    PhillishereFencingsaxHeffling
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    The argument that "well people are willing to do it" seems utterly weird to me.
    People are "willing" to do stupid, self destructive, harmful (to them and others) all the time for any number of reasons.
    Desperation, ignorance, pride...

    I don’t think anyone is saying the job market should be completely unregulated. But I wonder what the best way to ensure good outcomes for social wellbeing are.

    I think it’s unfair to single out one company in an entire economy for having low paying unskilled labor. Nor does it really make sense to me to put the onus on a company (who’s priority will always be to maximize profit) to be the ones making sure all workers have a liveable wage.

    It also doesn’t make sense to me to kill off companies that provide a useful product simply because their margins are not good enough to pay workers a high wage.

    If a company cannot pay its workers a living wage, it shouldn't exist.

    Why not?

    Because companies do not exist in a vacuum. They are part of society, and if they cannot behave appropriately by properly compensating their workers, then they are failing in their obligations.

    Why in the world would it be a companies obligation to make sure everyone has a living wage? That seems like a terrible place to try and help low skilled workers. Wouldn’t it be much easier to simply have a better social safety net that makes even the lowest paying jobs livable?

    Edit - hey poor person, let me help you out by cutting millions of jobs you could have gotten, because the don’t help you enough.

    Low skilled is a totally bullshit metric

    There's no obligation by society to be highly skilled, nor does anyone hold the monopoly on determining what is and isn't a skill.

    As a dude that's almost died behind the wheel of a car multiple times, i consider driving a highly skilled field.

    The overall irony of all of this is that Uber and Lyft were absolutely planning to be post-workforce by now. The trouble is, it turns out being a driver is actually really a complex skillset, and you can't just homebrew an AI to totally take over for the stupid meatsacks.

    DoodmannAngelHedgieSleepKetarjmcdonaldGnome-InterruptusNyysjanLoisLaneKayne Red RobeHefflingshryke
  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    The argument that "well people are willing to do it" seems utterly weird to me.
    People are "willing" to do stupid, self destructive, harmful (to them and others) all the time for any number of reasons.
    Desperation, ignorance, pride...

    I don’t think anyone is saying the job market should be completely unregulated. But I wonder what the best way to ensure good outcomes for social wellbeing are.

    I think it’s unfair to single out one company in an entire economy for having low paying unskilled labor. Nor does it really make sense to me to put the onus on a company (who’s priority will always be to maximize profit) to be the ones making sure all workers have a liveable wage.

    It also doesn’t make sense to me to kill off companies that provide a useful product simply because their margins are not good enough to pay workers a high wage.

    If a company cannot pay its workers a living wage, it shouldn't exist.

    Why not?

    Because companies do not exist in a vacuum. They are part of society, and if they cannot behave appropriately by properly compensating their workers, then they are failing in their obligations.

    Why in the world would it be a companies obligation to make sure everyone has a living wage? That seems like a terrible place to try and help low skilled workers. Wouldn’t it be much easier to simply have a better social safety net that makes even the lowest paying jobs livable?

    Edit - hey poor person, let me help you out by cutting millions of jobs you could have gotten, because the don’t help you enough.

    I'm all for a social saftey net, make it big enough that people don't need to work to live.

    Then set a decent minimum wage so that companies don't use that social program to subsidize their terrible business model.

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
    DoodmannKetarAngelHedgieSleepkimeGnome-InterruptusNyysjanLoisLaneEtiowsaKayne Red RobeHefflingshryke
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    One thing that also isn’t being discussed with regards to working for Uber is schedule flexibility. You work when you want, with no oversight, period. So when comparing to other low income jobs you have to account for that perk. And I will try and look it up later, but my recollection is that studies have shown people will take a not insignificant pay decrease in return for better flexibility.

    It's not discussed because it doesn't actually exist. The reality of the gig economy is that you work when the work is available, which means that no, you don't actually have flexibility as you are bound to the flow of the job.

    This is just fundamentally not true. An Uber driver can just not work on a random Tuesday. Doesn't need to take off, doesn't need to find someone to take their shift, etc. Can just not work it. Kid sick, got tickets to something, just would rather not? All acceptable. Basically no other field has this. A doctor can't just not show up for their shifts whenever they feel like it.

    What your bemoaning is true of all service sector jobs, they schedule shifts around the ebb and flow of the customers. More over its also true of many non-service jobs. A factory worker can't just come in cause they want to on a Saturday. "Ohh I worked from 8 to 11 Saturday , 3 hours pay please"

    The idea that temporary contingent contract labor is some massive anomaly is just weird to me. What you are saying can apply to any independent contractor or service provider who doesn't work a shift job. That doesn't mean that they can survive on lower wages or have unlimited freedom, just that they have more flexibility on when they deliver their products than shift laborers.

    This has nothing to do with professionalism or pay. A freelance programmer working a remote contract job for a bank may have the same flexibility, so does that mean they also only deserve $10 an hour?

    You seem to be operating under a different framwork than I am. I am making no claims on what someone deserves. I am simply pointing out that flexibility in a job is a perk that people are willing to take less pay for.

    I am going to make up numbers, but imagine two jobs, one that pays say $12/hr on a regular 8 to 5, and a second where you make $10/hr but can choose to not work whenever for any reason, and have options of different shifts to work throughout the day. Lots of people will choose option two even though the pay is less.

    All of which is just to say, I don’t agree with the statement that Uber drivers would be better off with any job that pays a similar rate ($11/hr?). Because the perks of flexibility are worth something.

    I also never claimed this was unique to Uber. Just that I hear it a lot from Uber drivers as a reason why they chose to go that route, and I never hear it at all from people arguing no one should drive for Uber.

    People will theoretically take a pay cut for more flexibility, but only if they can actually be sure of a similar amount of work. If I can do 40 hours whenever that is an obvious perk*, but if I can only get that 40 hours by working a large part of regular working hours it becomes less of a perk.


    *Note that the reason is because most people incur costs when working regular hours. The main one is day care, but you also have care for family/friends and the extra costs for maintenance service (like plumbers) outside of regular hours. Most people wouldn't take a pretty big pay cut just because they don't like getting up early in the morning.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Well, I'll continue to tip when I ride with Uber

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    edited June 18
    The point of calling something “low skilled” isn’t to make a value judgment about it or about the people who do it. It’s pointing out a fact about he work relevant to how it will be compensated in a market economy. If Uber paid a real wage double what retail does, why would anyone work in retail? Low skilled labor competes with itself across sectors and its unsurprising that a low skilled field’s compensation will be broadly in line with other low skilled fields.

    Maybe we should have high minimum wages! Maybe we should have aggressive social support! But getting mad at someone for saying “this compensation is broadly expected in a market economy” is... being mad at facts? Sky-yelling? Idk

    MrMister on
    tinwhiskersJebus314HamHamJCauldElvenshaeNSDFRandLanlaornSmrtnikLostNinjaMadpoetForar
  • evilmrhenryevilmrhenry Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    The argument that "well people are willing to do it" seems utterly weird to me.
    People are "willing" to do stupid, self destructive, harmful (to them and others) all the time for any number of reasons.
    Desperation, ignorance, pride...

    I don’t think anyone is saying the job market should be completely unregulated. But I wonder what the best way to ensure good outcomes for social wellbeing are.

    I think it’s unfair to single out one company in an entire economy for having low paying unskilled labor. Nor does it really make sense to me to put the onus on a company (who’s priority will always be to maximize profit) to be the ones making sure all workers have a liveable wage.

    It also doesn’t make sense to me to kill off companies that provide a useful product simply because their margins are not good enough to pay workers a high wage.

    If a company cannot pay its workers a living wage, it shouldn't exist.

    Why not?

    Because companies do not exist in a vacuum. They are part of society, and if they cannot behave appropriately by properly compensating their workers, then they are failing in their obligations.

    Why in the world would it be a companies obligation to make sure everyone has a living wage? That seems like a terrible place to try and help low skilled workers. Wouldn’t it be much easier to simply have a better social safety net that makes even the lowest paying jobs livable?

    Edit - hey poor person, let me help you out by cutting millions of jobs you could have gotten, because the don’t help you enough.

    It is completely appropriate to have a setup where everyone is paid a citizen's wage, and there exist very low paying jobs; those jobs do not need to pay a living wage because that's already provided by a citizen's wage, and merely need to increase quality of life. This is not the current situation in the US. (Though I welcome any steps towards this situation.)

    It is also appropriate for the government to subsidize some work by providing part of a worker's wages because it sees societal value in the work, and raw capitalism is unable to fund the work appropriately. I do not feel that Uber is a good candidate for this setup, and any potential money would be better spent getting a better mass transit system.


    In general, increases to minimum wage (or other moves to a living wage) do not have much of an effect on employment. While businesses have to spend more money on workers, workers have more money to spend, and so businesses can afford to raise prices to cover the extra costs. There's probably a point where that stops happening, but it's not here.

    Gnome-InterruptusSmrtnik
  • khainkhain Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    The argument that "well people are willing to do it" seems utterly weird to me.
    People are "willing" to do stupid, self destructive, harmful (to them and others) all the time for any number of reasons.
    Desperation, ignorance, pride...

    I don’t think anyone is saying the job market should be completely unregulated. But I wonder what the best way to ensure good outcomes for social wellbeing are.

    I think it’s unfair to single out one company in an entire economy for having low paying unskilled labor. Nor does it really make sense to me to put the onus on a company (who’s priority will always be to maximize profit) to be the ones making sure all workers have a liveable wage.

    It also doesn’t make sense to me to kill off companies that provide a useful product simply because their margins are not good enough to pay workers a high wage.

    If a company cannot pay its workers a living wage, it shouldn't exist.

    Why not?

    Because companies do not exist in a vacuum. They are part of society, and if they cannot behave appropriately by properly compensating their workers, then they are failing in their obligations.

    Why in the world would it be a companies obligation to make sure everyone has a living wage? That seems like a terrible place to try and help low skilled workers. Wouldn’t it be much easier to simply have a better social safety net that makes even the lowest paying jobs livable?

    Edit - hey poor person, let me help you out by cutting millions of jobs you could have gotten, because the don’t help you enough.

    Indirectly subsidizing companies through the social safety net is a wealth transfer to the rich in most cases. Walmart is a prime example of this.

    Gnome-InterruptusKayne Red RobeshrykeJulius
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    The argument that "well people are willing to do it" seems utterly weird to me.
    People are "willing" to do stupid, self destructive, harmful (to them and others) all the time for any number of reasons.
    Desperation, ignorance, pride...

    I don’t think anyone is saying the job market should be completely unregulated. But I wonder what the best way to ensure good outcomes for social wellbeing are.

    I think it’s unfair to single out one company in an entire economy for having low paying unskilled labor. Nor does it really make sense to me to put the onus on a company (who’s priority will always be to maximize profit) to be the ones making sure all workers have a liveable wage.

    It also doesn’t make sense to me to kill off companies that provide a useful product simply because their margins are not good enough to pay workers a high wage.

    If a company cannot pay its workers a living wage, it shouldn't exist.

    Why not?

    Because companies do not exist in a vacuum. They are part of society, and if they cannot behave appropriately by properly compensating their workers, then they are failing in their obligations.

    Why in the world would it be a companies obligation to make sure everyone has a living wage? That seems like a terrible place to try and help low skilled workers. Wouldn’t it be much easier to simply have a better social safety net that makes even the lowest paying jobs livable?

    Edit - hey poor person, let me help you out by cutting millions of jobs you could have gotten, because the don’t help you enough.

    Low skilled is a totally bullshit metric

    There's no obligation by society to be highly skilled, nor does anyone hold the monopoly on determining what is and isn't a skill.

    As a dude that's almost died behind the wheel of a car multiple times, i consider driving a highly skilled field.

    It's "low skill" in the sense that basically everybody is technically qualified to do it - 87% of the driving age population is licensed - and the barrier to entry is "have a not super old car and phone"

    If you could make $30/hr with uber, everybody making minimum wage would try to do it, but that's unsustainable since the demand for rides doesn't scale like that, there's a largely fixed pool of available revenue, so either effective wages fall as more drivers share the same number of rides, or uber hard-caps their driver count and probably institutes shifts/seniority-based allocation of work at which point you can't just sign up on the app and start doing stuff

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    MrMisterElvenshaeNSDFRandSmrtnik
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    The argument that "well people are willing to do it" seems utterly weird to me.
    People are "willing" to do stupid, self destructive, harmful (to them and others) all the time for any number of reasons.
    Desperation, ignorance, pride...

    I don’t think anyone is saying the job market should be completely unregulated. But I wonder what the best way to ensure good outcomes for social wellbeing are.

    I think it’s unfair to single out one company in an entire economy for having low paying unskilled labor. Nor does it really make sense to me to put the onus on a company (who’s priority will always be to maximize profit) to be the ones making sure all workers have a liveable wage.

    It also doesn’t make sense to me to kill off companies that provide a useful product simply because their margins are not good enough to pay workers a high wage.

    If a company cannot pay its workers a living wage, it shouldn't exist.

    Why not?

    Because companies do not exist in a vacuum. They are part of society, and if they cannot behave appropriately by properly compensating their workers, then they are failing in their obligations.

    Why in the world would it be a companies obligation to make sure everyone has a living wage? That seems like a terrible place to try and help low skilled workers. Wouldn’t it be much easier to simply have a better social safety net that makes even the lowest paying jobs livable?

    Edit - hey poor person, let me help you out by cutting millions of jobs you could have gotten, because the don’t help you enough.

    Low skilled is a totally bullshit metric

    There's no obligation by society to be highly skilled, nor does anyone hold the monopoly on determining what is and isn't a skill.

    As a dude that's almost died behind the wheel of a car multiple times, i consider driving a highly skilled field.

    I might be terrified of lawn mowers. That doesn't make the 14 year old I paid to mow my lawn while I was gone a highly skilled professional, any more than your issues with driving make Jake your Uber driver Fernando Alonso.

    Out of 330 million people in the US, less 63 million people under 14(easier number to find), there are 210 million licensed drivers in the US. When something like 80% of the population has all the relevant qualifications, its not a highly skilled field.

    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
    ElvenshaeNSDFRandLanlaornSmrtnik
Sign In or Register to comment.