I don't understand the parallel between working for uber and indentured servitude?
Once that observation is made, it becomes clear that the argument is actually: This class of people is unfit for better work, and without our poverty wages they would die. In my opinion that's very similar to the idea that the "negro" was inferior to the white man and therefore it was by his grace that the "negro" was allowed to exist.
No? They can all be the same. But without individual incentives to take risks and innovate, the whole doesn’t progress. The meritocratic model works fine among equals.
Emphasis on natural inherence. Meritocracies work if everyone is statistically identical. They even work when everyone is perfectly identical. They don't if every action is independent and identically distributed, but it's not; being lucky in the past can make one more capable in the present even in an unbiased system.
We should keep that randomness in mind to avoid being cruel. But systems that ignore this path dependence, or worse, try to stamp it out, underperform those that acknowledge it.
You don't have to believe the "luck begets luck", and there is certainly injustice in the way wealth lands around society, but not allowing people to become rich by taking socially-positive risks removes the marginal incentive to do so. That is, I believe, GP means by "the whole doesn't progress".
I don't buy this at all. There can be no difference between me and a billionaire who inherited their wealth, but I feel under no obligation to call that unfair. They were just lucky, and that's fine.
Would you consider it immoral if a thousand people of equal economic status chose to participate in a lottery where they each paid in 1% of their money, and then one person, selected at random, won all of it?
Does your answer change if it's a chess tournament instead of a lottery?
"People get into these agreements on their own choice" some will say, but these are often people without other good choices.
And who is in the best position to decide? The person making the choice to drive for Uber, you or I, politicians?
I go back and forth about this on a high level, but don’t necessarily support outright bans on gig work. Maybe just a bit more sensible regulation to help people understand potential earnings vs. all their costs (ex. car payment, insurance, repairs, etc.) and maybe some way to allow them to accrue sick pay based on hours worked. Just to put a slight hand on the scale to help people deciding on gig work. But we’d have the problem of who would pay for any such benefits; Uber may pass the cost along to end users. Maybe funded by taxes somehow
I knew of someone who made it his full time occupation to drive for Uber (and still does today) despite the hurdles of being involved in that structure. I also know of another who drove to supplement his existing income stream (during covid19) to make his ends meet.
Everyone on earth has asymmetric power in one context or another. Men and women, kings and peons alike. There is no universality, despite some of the narratives out there
Edit: seeing this comment have wide swings from upvotes and downvotes, wish the “most controversial” sorting was a thing
I’m not making a normative statement. It’s objective.
As easily as what you said, one could say (and US allies like Saudi do say) “women’s rights are mostly fine, but there are places where they go too far and a husband must step in”
I don't really know what relevance this has to the previous conversation. But I would say that laws are much more likely to get things right than to let every powered individual make their own rules.
The government itself has a bunch of jobs that require similar skills.
Are you sure you're not talking about gig workers as well? For instance, uber says[1] that they need a valid drivers license and conducts background checks (which apparent check for previous driving infractions as well as criminal history).
And as a response to your perceived "gotcha", no, they do not need to be illegal. Even a refugee with a medical degree in their home can arrive here and can fall through the cracks in our system just because they aren't able to master a second language fast enough. Not every immigrant is illegal, no matter the pearl clutching.
I'm referring to people whom are given the same legal benefits of being able to work besides me when they haven't gone through the proper channels of legalities nor sought to do so. I remember my parents immigrating to the US and not have to cross a river at night with just the clothes on their back or pay off a "coyote" to do so.
You'll notice this pattern lots of places. Look around in employment ads for construction gigs in lots of cities and they'll be looking for 'contract' teams which we all know likely means some illegals who setup a genuine LLC or get a TIN or whatever; there's no requirement to verify legal employment when paying out a contract AFAIK.
For example, GigWalk.
The logical fallacy is that just because one option is better than the alternatives, it does not follow that the option in question is good. The villain from Saw may let you choose how you will be murdered, but your having chosen to be stabbed instead of drowned doesn't absolve the killer of their culpability in your death.
Except that the victims in saw were unwittingly put in those situations. What's happening with gig workers is closer to something like the squid game, where the participants gave informed consent, and even had an opportunity to bail out later.