People can quit Uber/Lyft whenever. Indentured servitude cannot be quit.
There's a difference in "creating an opportunity for people" and "forcing them to work for you"
> this is the same argument that was used in favor of slavery.
Nope. There's a difference in creating a new choice for people and taking all choice away from them.
same thing really if you have no other option to earn rent and food.
And them using it as opportunity to pay low (after you include car deprecation/fuel/repairs might be even at/below minimal wage level) means you can't just do your 40 hours/week to support yourself.
> I'd like to see the argument that those people who chose and choose to work at uber have worse outcomes than they otherwise would
The reply:
> this is the same argument that was used in favor of slavery.
To which you replied
> Nope. There's a difference in creating a new choice for people and taking all choice away from them.
The commenter is not saying that gig work is the same as slavery here, they are saying that slave holders argued, often correctly, that slaves, as capital, enjoyed a higher standard of living than did wage workers, who could be worked to death and thrown away, and that this justified the institution.
This implies they have viable alternate choices (setting aside the obvious other option, unemployment or being houseless). It may be that Uber/Lyft are the only employers they have access to, or they may otherwise have a sufficient amount of bills / debt that they have no personal time / cash to explore employment alternatives adequately.
Conservative (and by and large its ally, libertarian) politics lean on this often obfuscated nuance to sell this idea that the poor always have the choice to simply leave exploitative employers. It is not so simple.