Hey, I am no fan of uber practices either, they usually are on a grey legal area. But if people do not realize this it is not good for them why the state should help them out. This is not a complex financial product or a dangerous chemical that most people do not understand. This is Uber pays A, fooodora pays B. If B > A which company are you going to stay with ?

I'll put it the other way around if Uber does not attract enough bikers who is going to deliver their food ? It is basic supply and demand. Is there is a market but no suppliers, prices go up. If there is plenty of suppliers (bikers), prices go down. If the middleman (uber) is too greedy and screws the buyer or the supplier they are going to go with another middleman.

If that dynamic worked, why isn't McDonald's (or so) the only restaurant left?

Because they are regulated. A job at McDonalds is an actual hourly wage job regulated by the government.

Did you know that the US is not the only country in the world?

I'm not from the US, never been there. But I thought the context here was obvious. Even still, it's regulated in almost all countries.

I was thinking about Singapore, which pays as little as 2.50 SGD/h at McDonald's, yet has a thriving food scene. (And, yes, they have plenty of regulations eg about food safety. But no minimum wage.)

In any case, perhaps a faulty analogy. But your claim "[...] when Uber undercuts competitors by a large margin using inhumane practices, the competitors tend to vanish over time. In the end, guess who is your only choice." doesn't hold up at all.

Whoa there, grandpa. Don't box me in. I can't be weighed down with health insurance much less a stable income that I can plan around. Pfft, next thing you know I'll be able to retire when I'm old.

How is Uber able to undercut their competitors without the necessary labour?