Hacker News Reader

Comment by ythn | Hacker News Reader

It doesn't even have to be intentionally exploitative. People will exploit themselves.

If I wanted to help clean up local communities, I could make an app that allows you to post trash bounties on your neighborhood, to be collected by people that accept the bounty and go clean it up.

Soon: "CleanCommunities is an evil company! They maximally exploit professional trash bounty hunters with below minimum wage and no benefits, no protective equipment, etc!!!"

Like, geez, I wasn't trying to exploit people, I just saw a litter problem in my community and tried to fix it... I didn't even intend for people to turn this into a full time job, more like a "volunteer service with benefits" type deal...

View on HN

So let met get this straight - you're telling me that people are staking their livelihoods entirely on Uber, and none of this is Uber's fault, it's just the people who are idiots?

Why are they idiots? If it’s their best opportunity then they would be idiots to not take it.

I don’t think people doing the Uber bashing here understand what it’s like to be poor and that service like Uber are actually a good thing.

What if it's their only opportunity? A lot of people aren't doing this because they think it's a fantastic opportunity, they're doing it because it's one of very few ways they can make a living.

You're telling me that with a phone, a car, and the ability to speak english, that driving cars around is the only opportunity possible?

I don't know, I was requesting clarification for the line "people will exploit themselves".

No, we're bashing Uber for exploiting that relationship.

It depends. If Uber was truly marketing itself as something you should stake your livelihood on (i.e. a viable career), then it's understandable that people would do that.

People are only idiots if they take something that is only obviously meant for non-sustainable income, try to turn it into their livelihood, and then act surprised/outraged when it isn't sustainable. I kind of got this vibe from ride sharing - I never thought it would be sustainable as a full-time job, I thought it was more for just some fun side income.

Uber has tens of thousands of people who depend on it for a livelihood. They made $2.5 billion in profits last quarter.

We're not talking about a lemonade stand..

It is far past the tipping-point where Uber has a social obligation to those workers.

And, sure, if the capitalist class got behind high higher taxes on capital income to pay for a UBI and/or otherwise much stronger social safety net, i’d be happy to consider weakening some employer obligations: there's a good argument that many are quasi-feudal and reduce mobility within and out of the proletariat by creating greater dependence on employers, and leave the chronically unemployed it in the cold and make it harder for them to move out of that state.

But the idea that Uber is done kind of community service that doesn't center business around reducing wages in an existing area, and that the low wages are instead an example of people exploiting themselves in a way Uber in no way intended and intended to profit from is farcical.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com