Your argument for why Uber's workers should be able to sign themselves up as independent contractors can be used to show that children should be able to work in mines, fast food workers should be able to work for minimum wage, and generally that employees should be able to sign off on giving up any and all employment rights.

The point is that either you need a new argument, or you actually believe all of those things.

Keep in mind that I have not actually taken sides on the issue at hand; I'm just claiming that your particular argument is a bit flawed.

It's nothing close to that.

My argument is that as a legal adult you should have the ability to make your own decisions. Children in mines do not apply. Kids working for McDonald's at 16 do not apply.

Grown adults should ABSOLUTELY be able to sign off on giving up any and all employment rights if they so choose, as long as they are free from duress when making that decision.

If you can agree to volunteer at a company you should be able to agree to any level of compensation above "volunteer". It is simply, your choice. Nobody is forcing you to do it.

Signing a contract under duress is voidable.

It wasn't my arguement. Care to clarify which argument you're attributing to me?

>The point is that either you need a new argument, or you actually believe all of those things.

No. I can't find one arguement in the thread above that requires 'believing all these things'

-children being able to work in mines(appeal to emotion) is tangentially related we aren't even discussing child labor here.

-fast food workers should absolutely be able to work for minimum wage, I did. Should it be raised? I think so, but again this is a tangentially related appeal to emotion.(seriously what did you mean with this one other than 'feel bad for poor people'? How is minimum wage relevant in this context?)

-Employees should be able to sign off on all employment rights?

Look a relevant point, and generally I agree they shouldn't be able to.

Can you please clarify exactly how this arguement of mine can be used to show the three things you've outlined?

Edit: The funny thing is I don't even disagree with you or the grandparent on the underlying issue here, I just find this constant strawman bullshit so grating.

Apologies for confusing you with brightball; I didn't notice that you jumped in after the back-and-forth.

The entire argument put forth was that the government can't annul a contract agreed upon by both parties (even if it is illegal under current law). Which is how pretty much all labor laws. It is a completely generic argument. Once we admit that there are exceptions (oh, but children can't form a contract!), the generic argument has been thrown away.

I guess you're easily offended.

Society reached consensus a long time ago about what an employee is and isn't. Companies have been nipping at the edges of this for years to push more risks on "independent" contractors, which in reality means pushing business risk to society at large.

...Which I think would be fine - employment liquidity seems good just like monetary liquidity - except that we do a shit job of providing benefits (like health insurance, and maternity/paternity leave) via the government.

Making them employees of Uber isn't an answer. Making a Union isn't an answer (I don't think; again, too much overhead, and the point isn't negotiating power anyway). Government probably isn't an answer (regardless of "should", look at effeciveness). Maybe needs a rethink from first principles?

> employment liquidity seems good just like monetary liquidity

Right, but such liquidity is formed either on the basis that individuals don't have to work to survive, or on the basis that employees are so scare and desirable that mobility becomes a non-issue.

I don't disagree that we could address some of these problems by starting over from first principles, but that kind of change takes lifetimes to implement -- we still have to do something about the current people.