Hacker News Reader

Comment by comrade1 | Hacker News Reader

I know my opinion won't be popular on HN, but looking at uber, especially, and similar companies from the outside (American living in Europe the last 6 years), the u.s. appears to be in a race to the bottom, with people competing to lower their own wages.

I like uber but I think they f*cked themselves over and deserve every bit of scrutiny they are getting. There are markets where they don't screw over the drivers, for example where I live in Zurich uber is the same price as a cab but it's more convenient because of the app.

If uber was truly beneficial to their drivers in the u.s. They wouldn't be under this scrutiny. They deserve whatever pain they receive and hopefully someone more responsible will take over the market.

Good luck fighting the political class. Uber will lose this fight.

View on HN

> I like uber but I think they f*cked themselves over and deserve every bit of scrutiny they are getting.

I guess I don't get the vitriol here. If the Uber drivers had any better alternative, wouldn't they do that instead? Isn't the worst part for workers rights that they don't have a better alternative? But I don't see how that's Uber's fault, they're clearly providing what many people feel is a useful source of money (they reportedly have over 1 million drivers).

> the u.s. appears to be in a race to the bottom, with people competing to lower their own wages.

It sounds like you're blaming Uber for a poor US job market. That seems unfair. Wouldn't it be better to point the blame at literally every other company who is not providing as good of opportunities? Why point the finger at what appears to be one of the best options for lots of people? I'm sure they could improve the situation, but I'm not sure I understand why they'd be singled out (given what I've seen they'd be one of the last I'd point at). We can lament the fact that there aren't lots of opportunities for lots of people, but I guess I just don't see how it's Uber's fault that they happen to provide one of the most compelling options.

> They wouldn't be under this scrutiny

They're getting the scrutiny because of lobbying & taxi cartels, not because of poor mistreated drivers.

Uber will fight the laws for at least a couple of years and by then be half way through replacing the entire labor force with autonomous cars. This is a political tactic designed to get Hillary points in the media. She's smart enough to know it'll have little to no long term impact.

Frankly I'm surprised she picked uber as a target as uber has a very strong, large, and sophisticated political lobbying organization. Granted, they focus on local politics more than national, so maybe this is a sign of Hillary being out of touch with the local level.

I don't think we'll have autonomous cars in 2 years.

"A couple of years" is not even close to halfway to the time when autonomous cars will be available, convenient, and able to handle the traffic situations that Uber drivers do.

As a rider, Uber has improved my life substantially. A lot of startups claim to better peoples' lives, but how many actually do it? If Uber is destroyed to feed the schadenfreude and ideology of some groups that indicts the political system.

> If uber was truly beneficial to their drivers in the u.s. They wouldn't be under this scrutiny.

Isn't this the wrong question?

I should think the relevant question is, "is Uber beneficial to society as a whole?" It's entirely possible that drivers would be better off without Uber but that society is better off with Uber.

Do you really think taxi drivers prefer to work with Uber because of lower profit? Like masochists?

Actually, your opinion is unfortunately very popular on HN.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com