Even Google which is very hesitant to enter businesses that require lots of labor employs hundreds of thousands of contractors.
Even Google which is very hesitant to enter businesses that require lots of labor employs hundreds of thousands of contractors.
You can't just look at revenues without looking at expenses.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-...
If a poor person has two income sources, either source is less essential than if he had just one of the sources. The less essential the pay from the Uber gig, the less Uber can squeeze the worker.
Without the work requirement, you're actually helping people.
The reason we have it partly that welfare recipients literally don't like getting welfare without strings attached because they think it's embarrassing (or that the other people getting it don't deserve it), and part that states are hoping to save money by kicking people off for doing the paperwork wrong.
EITC is a way to do "work requirements" without the downsides.
In this way welfare is actually subsidizing Uber employment. Assuming of course, that welfare is also insufficient to survive.
You're actually arguing that welfare is bad - if giving people welfare allowed Uber to lower their wages that means people would be better off without it.
How many have Uber destroyed?
For Amazon the claim is more obvious - picking up the "killing local business" and "killing US suppliers" torches from Walmart before them - but I would be a bit suprised if there were any cities where there were fewer transportation drivers now than pre-Uber in the US. Taxis in the vast majority of the country were pretty few and far-between.
They are very different types of tech company; not as completely different as something like SaaS with no cost of physical goods at all, but Uber (while hardly an example of a good citizen company) is not really the sort of "some people in one city have jobs and nobody else does as a result" tech company as some others.