Hacker News Reader

Comment by mbesto | Hacker News Reader

> People freely working is not exploitation.

Just because someone freely accepts work, doesn't mean its automatically free of exploitation. Exploitation just means one party is taking advantage of another parties weakness.

Rideshare specifically - I don't think this exploitation is unilateral, but it does exist.

Example - UAE commercial builders freely attracting Pakistan/India laborers and then holding their passports hostage when they realize it's not worth it. https://www.rt.com/news/353432-uae-migrant-workers-slavery/

EDIT: I should clarify - there are degrees of exploitation, the UAE example is an extreme (but used as an example because its so clear cut). My overall point has more to do with people "freely choosing to work" as an idea that people can't be exploited as a result.

View on HN

You're comparing this to poor laborers held hostage?

Drivers are not forced into anything. They apply and can quit anytime. Earnings and fares are completely transparent. Their schedule is determined by them. Where's the exploitation?

Have you ever driven for Uber? I find it odd that so many people claim to know better for others without any experience of the situation.

GP isn't comparing anything. They're pointing out how laughable a maxim like "People freely working is not exploitation." is.

It's laughable to think that having your passport taken is considered "freely" working.

You should explain exactly how these drivers are not free before arguing to take their freedom of work away.

Your central error is in assuming that people work because they want to ("freely"), rather than because they have to.

If you can't understand why people have to work, I don't think I can help explain that.

That’s so vague as to be meaninglessness. Everyone has to work to provide for themselves.

Laborers in India/Pakistan were not forced to fly to UAE to take the job, but they did anyway.

> Have you ever driven for Uber? I find it odd that so many people claim to know better for others without any experience of the situation.

I have not, but calculating the economics is pretty damn simple, and their earnings are shit (most drivers dont take into account taxes, car costs, gas, car depreciation, etc.).

I think the problem is that you have to bifurcate those who want a full-time-like salary with those who drive to earn a few bucks, otherwise the discussion breaks down.

Again, having your wages and passport stolen is not "freely" working and completely incomparable to ridesharing.

Earnings vary wildy by person. Some people do great, others don't. There's no universal calculation. Ridesharing has always been about flexibility, not full-time employment, even though some people work full-time hours.

There are numerous other driving jobs if you wanted employment instead of being independent. Perhaps suggesting that instead of changing the law for everyone else would be the better option.

> Again, having your wages and passport stolen is not "freely" working and completely incomparable to ridesharing.

See my edit - I clarified this.

> Ridesharing has always been about flexibility, not full-time employment, even though some people work full-time hours.

Have you ever driven for Uber? This is not correct. Why would drivers sue Uber/Lyft if that wasn't the case?

> Earnings vary wildy by person. Some people do great, others don't. There's no universal calculation.

And some earnings don't even give people enough money to live. Do you understand why most modern societies have minimum wage?

Your example does not match the Uber/Lyft situation. They are free to stop driving at any time and are not stranded in a foreign land without vital identification.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com