Ride share driver's aren't slaves. They chose to drive for ride share companies above the other options. If it was a bad deal then Uber and Lyft would be having trouble finding drivers. How is strictly fewer options a good thing?
And slaves aren't slaves either, they chose to remain slaves above other options (rebel and be beaten or killed). If it was a bad deal, the slaveholders would be having trouble getting their slaves to work, and would just be killing or beating them all the time.
I find type of argument irksome. It basically ignores whatever the actual situation is with a blind assumption whatever the market does is the best (or at least better) thing and is therefore fine.
If you give a person terrible choices, and they pick the best of a bad lot, that choice doesn't excuse the situation. All Minneapolis did was mandate one those choices had to be better. The rest is up to Uber and Lyft, who chose to play hardball to keep exploiting their workers to the degree they've become accustomed.
> How is strictly fewer options a good thing?
Exploitative options aren't a acceptable.
Coercion is when you cannot reasonably refuse. If one faces torture and execution for refusal, then they cannot reasonably refuse.
Will Uber and Lyft tie up drivers and whip them if they choose to take a job at Starbucks? Whill Uber and Lyft kill drivers? Come on, you call my argument irksome then you compare these drivers to actual chattel slavery.
What's so clever about it is the threat is indirect and systemic (instead of direct and personal), which is all some people seem to need to deny it's there.
It also brings to mind the ancient Roman fire brigades, which were more of an extortion racket than anything else.
I didn't say it wasn't. But don't you realize the different social dynamic here from being a hunter gatherer? Uber and Lyft were exploiting that for their own gain, and ran away from the corrective action because they think they have the power to bully it away to maintain their gain at the level of which they've become accustomed.
> At this point, the definition of coercion has been expanded such that humanity's very existence is inherently coercive.
Only if you miss the point.
Whatever your response is, they had the opportunity to work that job before and made the deliberate decision to drive for Uber and Lyft instead. My point, that you're missing, is that there was no coercion in this decision between driving for ride share versus the alternative. And you're somehow trying to argue that depriving these drivers of the choice to work for Uber and Lyft and forcing them into the alternative that they previously judged an inferior opportunity is somehow a good thing.
Your point about people working to avoid starvation applies just as much to whatever job these ex-drivers are going to be working instead. These drivers judged that these jobs were worse than driving for ride share, but apparently you think you know better than them despite having zero knowledge about their priorities and life situation.
You edited your comment after my response:
> Uber and Lyft were exploiting that for their own gain, and ran away from the corrective action because they think they have the power to bully it away to maintain their gain at the level of which they've become accustomed.
How were Uber and Lyft bullying drivers? Again, you seem to be claiming that drivers were somehow coerced into driving for ride share apps instead of seeking alternative employment. But you've yet to explain how this bullying was perpetrated. What was Lyft and Uber doing to keep drivers from working at Starbucks or some other job?
The problem is (it appears) you're looking at this solely from the framework of free market dogma. The operation of market is assumed to be optimal, the Uber drivers had a nominal choice when they took a job with Uber, and that nominal choice cures any issue anyone could have with the terms of their employment, etc.
While seductive, that framework is oversimple, and misses much.
> My point, that you're missing, is that there was no coercion in this decision between driving for ride share versus the alternative.
I am not missing that point at all. In fact, I find that point exceedingly tiresome due to how often it's repeated. At it's core, it's an apologia for fully taking advantage of a man's desperation (which I reject), and then twists that into some kind of good deed, so someone can pat themselves on the back for it afterwards (which just adds insult to injury).
> How were Uber and Lyft bullying drivers?
What I was referring to is their attempt to bully the Minneapolis city government and other governments that may take action to give drivers a better deal.
> The operation of market is assumed to be optimal, the Uber drivers had a nominal choice when they took a job with Uber, and that nominal choice cures any issue anyone could have with the terms of their employment, etc.
> While seductive, that framework is oversimple, and misses much.
Except... it does? You're insisting that this misses the point, but you don't actually explain what is misses.
Again, what will these drivers be doing to make ends meet when Uber and Lyft leave Minneapolis? Guess what, they already had that choice before and decided that ride share was better. Maybe it was the flexibility, maybe it was the independence, who knows. But they all made the decision that other available employment was worse than driving.
True, these drivers were working to put food on the table. But they're still going to be working to put food on the table in whatever job they do after ride share apps shut down in Minneapolis. It's no less "taking advantage of man's desperation".
They're weaseling around minimum wage laws. In Minneapolis, the minimum wage is $15.57/hr (and tips don't count towards it, https://minimumwage.minneapolismn.gov/). Uber and Lyft are mad Minneapolis is going to make them pay drivers something close to that.
https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-uber-and-lyft-drivers-...:
> Uber and Lyft drivers in Minneapolis and St. Paul and greater Minnesota often are paid well below the equivalent of the minimum wage after expenses are deducted, a state-commissioned study has found.
> ...
> It largely validated the narrative of many drivers, who are considered independent contractors: After taking into account wear and tear on their cars, time spent driving to and from rides, and the cost of gas and other expenses, drivers across the state earn well below the minimum wage they would likely receive if they were employees, not including tips.
> However, before expenses, drivers are paid well above the minimum wage while working.
https://www.startribune.com/uber-lyft-msp-minneapolis-airpor...:
> Minnesota Uber, Lyft drivers say it's getting harder and harder to make a living...
> "It's not fair. What Uber pays us just covers our expenses but no profit at all," said Egal, who used to be a taxi cab driver for 15 years before Uber and Lyft disrupted the marketplace and his business.
> Again, what will these drivers be doing to make ends meet when Uber and Lyft leave Minneapolis? Guess what, they already had that choice before and decided that ride share was better. Maybe it was the flexibility, maybe it was the independence, who knows. But they all made the decision that other available employment was worse than driving.
It's a market right? It will adjust to find a new, better equilibrium.
A big assumption you seem to have is that these Uber/Lyft drivers are perfect examples of homo economicus, making fully informed rational decisions about all this, so think you can infer the choice is a good one for them because they made it. However that doesn't seem to be true. If those companies offer a misleading value proposition, they can sustain themselves for some time by with a revolving door of naive and ignorant people who don't understand the misleading economics of the exchange. The competition from that flow of ignorant people (especially if they're more casual) helps keep overall wages low.
I wouldn't be surprised of Uber and Lyft have implemented some gambling dynamics for their drivers. It would make sense to offer drivers occasional jackpot days to keep them hooked, while the house wins big as always.
Homo economicus is an oversimple fiction; Homo sapiens is real. Understanding the difference goes a long way towards grasping the problems with free market dogma (but certainly not the whole way).
Aren’t you a bit presumptuous? Do you consider yourself as knowing better than them what is best for them? Do you think that you know how to run their life better? Why?
Do you think there are people out there knowing how to run your life better than you? Would you like if they came and took control over your life?
I'm not 100% certain, but I think this is a workaround for Uber/Lyft's workaround that lets them violate employment laws, namely, that they claim their employees are contractors, not employees. Since the contractor agreement specifies payment per mile, that's what the council's ordinance applies to. If Uber/Lyft were honest about their employees being employees, then they would have the minimum wage law applied, like any other business.
Like it or not, Uber and Lyft drivers are indeed contractors. They set their own hours, and are free to work for competing ride share apps. There's nothing dishonest about this, people are just salty that the "Ride share driver are actually employees" meme is not true.
When the options are narrowed into precarious work such as most (or even all) of the "gig economy" bullshit, have more options of precarious work is not good overall for a society. It erodes the standard employment relationship, it's cheaper for employers so companies not relying on precarious work are in disadvantage which pushes more people into precarious work, creating a death spiral to proper secure employment in more sectors of society over time.
This is exactly the kind of misguided take that leads people deprive people less privileged then themselves of employment opportunities. You wouldn't want to drive for Uber, it'd be a bad choose in your situation. And you're applying the same thinking to people who don't have the same employment prospects.
What will Uber and Lyft drivers do now that price controls have made ride sharing too expensive for most of the market? Work at fast food joints? In retail? All of those choice were present when drivers chose to drive for ride share companies, and the drivers concluded they were inferior to working for Uber and Lyft. Now, were forcing them to go to one of those inferior choices and patting ourselves on the back for doing a supposedly good thing.
But they can be some desperate people, who are willing to put up with inhumane working conditions just to survive. We, as a developed society, should have a floor on the working conditions. Otherwise, businesses will take advantage of the weakest members of the society to bring back practices like 9-9-6, peeing in the bottle at the warehouses, child labor and what not.
Regulations are the best defense against a race to the bottom.
I'm afraid most humans are not "choosing", at least not in the way many people on hackernews get to choose between various extremely-cushy white collars job.
Work = Survival We'll "choose" the best option available to use, and as the overall temperature of the market changes, so do our "choices"..
Not challenging you, but do you have evidence?
I remember in California drivers being famously against reform.
[1] https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/05/25/walz-vetoes-bill-ad...
Again, legislators don't care if it's popular among the impacted party. They just care if it's popular among voters. Which are overwhelmingly not Uber and Lyft drivers.
I feel comfortable that this legislation is unpopular among Uber and Lyft drivers because they chose on their own accord to drive for these apps, and now they are deprived of that choice.
Check out what drivers are saying on the Minneapolis and Minnesota subreddits: https://www.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/1bfjyej/lyft_a...