- is Uber too capitalistic (not in my opinion, the only unethical thing quoted in the article are their actions against Lyft)
- are the current economic practice sustainable in a worker less society (in my opinion, no, but that doesn't mean we throw the current system away, there is still a need for workers, it is changing at an accelerating pace, we need to adapt and ease into a new system)
But thats not the discussion thats worth having I think, cause the real issue is whether that's even possible anymore.
I don't know if anything can be too capitalistic, but since uber is trying to get around normal legislation (taking the best from defining their drivers as freelancers and treating them as employers)
Not what I meant, but it is a much bigger discussion than Uber and ethics that involves concepts of basic income, which work can and cannot be automated, rewarding work that's not interesting, rewarding innovation, etc...
The article here confuse capitalism with ethics, and tries to defend one form of capitalism vs another (debate about medaillons).
At least that's how it read to me.
This is something that is going to affect most people over the next 10-20 years no matter what industry they work in and so we need to discuss it in a different way.
What is it that technology and capitalism does to our society, how do we ensure that the millions of people who don't have the skills to participate in the work force are going to be able to participate in society and so on.
The authors mistake is that he introduces morals into this. But even if we take that out we are left with a real problem for society IMO.