Political Correctness

[jpx7]

This is what drives me crazy about the left... it's a service that allows people to earn money that many of them weren't able to earn before... but because it's not enough to meet their insane standards of "fair," then it is a sweatshop

Though I think there are areas for common ground to be found amongst libertarians and the true left—mostly where civil liberties are concerned—this is what drives me crazy about libertarians—who I otherwise tend to find, if not more sensible, at least more intellectually-consistent than most other elements of the right: they act as if workers—whose labor actually generates the bulk of whatever value a company, corporation, or industry offers—should just be supplicatingly thankful for the mere opportunity to hawk their labor, even if for a tuppence, and otherwise pipe-down about how fair or commensurable their compensation ends up being.

[sturg33]

Though I think there are areas for common ground to be found amongst libertarians and the true left—mostly where civil liberties are concerned—this is what drives me crazy about libertarians—who I otherwise tend to find, if not more sensible, at least more intellectually-consistent than most other elements of the right: they act as if workers—whose labor actually generates the bulk of whatever value a company, corporation, or industry offers—should just be supplicatingly thankful for the mere opportunity to hawk their labor, even if for a tuppence, and otherwise pipe-down about how fair or commensurable their compensation ends up being.

I assure you... with 100% certainty, that if the drivers felt the compensation was too low to justify driving, then Uber would raise their pay.

[The Chosen One]

I assure you... with 100% certainty, that if the drivers felt the compensation was too low to justify driving, then Uber would raise their pay.

Which government regulation is suppressing their pay?

I mean most people are doing it for some extra cash. It does a lot of work to your car. Everyone I know that does it is strictly side money and their compensation is better than nothing.

[sturg33]

Which government regulation is suppressing their pay?

I mean most people are doing it for some extra cash. It does a lot of work to your car. Everyone I know that does it is strictly side money and their compensation is better than nothing.

I'm not sure what you are or who your arguing against here... JPX is upset that Uber drivers aren't compensated enough... I'm explaining that that they have voluntarily accepted the wage offered to them... and if they didn't, then Uber would raise the wage

[jpx7]

I assure you... with 100% certainty, that if the drivers felt the compensation was too low to justify driving, then Uber would raise their pay.

I have absolutely no such faith—especially since the labor-pool of Uber et al is not sufficiently organized to even make such a cogent demand to the corporation for which they "independently contract", even if drivers independently developed the complaint. This is why unions are so important.

Honestly, as a libertarian, I'd think you'd be in favor of organized labor, and against so-called "right-to-work" laws. The former represents an entirely non-government regulatory check on the capital-side of industry—the market working to self-correct, as it were—while the latter is an example of governmental intrusion and imposition on the free workings of the market: in this case, burdensome regulation on the labor component, analogous to those burdens on the capital component you always pillory.

Which government regulation is suppressing their pay?

I mean most people are doing it for some extra cash. It does a lot of work to your car. Everyone I know that does it is strictly side money and their compensation is better than nothing.

The government has nothing to do with "suppressing their pay", except insofar as the misdesignation as "independent contractors" creates a lot of regulatory, benefits, and taxation loopholes for these companies employing-but-totally-not-employing those drivers.

Now, if the driver is "doing it for some extra cash" or is working to earn "strictly side money"—as a "side hustle", as Uber has taken to advertising—the effects of these loopholes and pitfalls are less dramatic, more mitigated by the fact of the driver's primary means of employment. However, while precise numbers as hard to come by, a good many rideshare drivers do depend on driving for Uber or Lyft (and often both) as their sole or primary source of income and employment. When these companies take a large cut of fares, unilaterally set (read: drop) fares for their drivers, and (in the case of Uber) discourage gratuities, margins are thin and hours are long or unsustainable. And then there's the lack of benefits and worker protections. And then there's the added tax burden of being 1099 instead of W-2.

But look: what Uber did in New York City—which is what began this line of discussion—is totally legal, and totally expected: capitalism, with few or no fetters, encourages maximum profits and discourages solidarity with fellow workers (or one's fellow man). And so, opportunistically advantaging their company during the NYTWA's airport strike is not only their right, under our current system, it's logically consistent. But it's also within a concerned consumer's rights to make a political statement through deleting their apps; and it's likewise logically consistent for me* or anyone else who supports organized labor to boycott strike-breakers.

*(I actually already never used Uber, for the reasons outlined; everyone else is late to the bandwagon.)

[sturg33]

I have absolutely no such faith—especially since the labor-pool of Uber et al is not sufficiently organized to even make such a cogent demand to the corporation for which they "independently contract", even if drivers independently developed the complaint. This is why unions are so important.

If Uber paid $1 an hour... nobody would agree to drive for that.

They have found a compensation model that drivers have voluntarily agreed on.

[jpx7]

If Uber paid $1 an hour... nobody would agree to drive for that.

They have found a compensation model that drivers have voluntarily agreed on.

It's not volitional if you have no other employment or income options. What's necessary is often not voluntary.

And I guarantee you that, in the absence of any other employment options, plenty of nobodies would drive for the lowest compensation that still represented a net-positive; and if they could, Uber—or almost any other corporation, without outside impositions like governmental regulation—would pay their workers the bare minimum that still kept them staffed. Because the market doesn't demand mercy, it demands margins. Capitalism is a system of concentrating welfare, not sharing it.

[sturg33]

It's not volitional if you have no other employment or income options. What's necessary is often not voluntary.

And I guarantee you that, in the absence of any other employment options, plenty of nobodies would drive for the lowest compensation that still represented a net-positive; and if they could, Uber—or almost any other corporation, without outside impositions like governmental regulation—would pay their workers the bare minimum that still kept them staffed. Because the market doesn't demand mercy, it demands margins. Capitalism is a system of concentrating welfare, not sharing it.

But without Uber, those people make $0 an hour.

How is this not a net benefit?

[jpx7]

If Uber paid $1 an hour... nobody would agree to drive for that.

They have found a compensation model that drivers have voluntarily agreed on.

I'm making this a separate post, because it's a separate and more general issue—but I notice you conspicuously responded to the rideshare-specific comments I made (which was only the first sentence), and not the the bulk of my post to you:

This is why unions are so important.

Honestly, as a libertarian, I'd think you'd be in favor of organized labor, and against so-called "right-to-work" laws. The former represents an entirely non-government regulatory check on the capital-side of industry—the market working to self-correct, as it were—while the latter is an example of governmental intrusion and imposition on the free workings of the market: in this case, burdensome regulation on the labor component, analogous to those burdens on the capital component you always pillory.

I'm actually much more interested in your thoughts on that topic.