Well if you were offering, for instance, $40,000 loans for lemonade stands, and imposing a number of employee-like restrictions on where, when, how, and for what price they could sell the lemonade, I'd start to wonder whether you weren't actually employing those people too.

Is Uber actually giving out car loans? People are getting those on their own.

It would be like if someone leased a lemonade factory from a 3rd party in order to use my app.

> Is Uber actually giving out car loans?

They were, but spun it off. https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/30/uber-sells-its-xchange-lea...

>It's basically impossible to have nice things because people will always try to any [sic] little thing into a career and the complain when it isn't viable.

Can you blame people for trying to make a career out of it when that's how Uber and Lyft marketed themselves when they first started to grow?

> Can you blame people for trying to make a career out of it when that's how Uber and Lyft marketed themselves when they first started to grow?

If Uber/Lyft really marketed it as a viable career option, then yeah, they definitely hold some responsibility there. The vibe I got was that ride sharing was something you could do on the side for fun, or maybe to/from a long commute or something for some bonus (but not sustainable) side income.

No, they definitely marketed it as a lifestyle, i.e. having no boss, working whenever you want and wherever you want, etc. etc. Go watch some of their earlier (or even current) commercials.

> It's basically impossible to have nice things

If by “nice things” you mean “maximally exploitative capitalist businesses”, sure.

It doesn't even have to be intentionally exploitative. People will exploit themselves.

If I wanted to help clean up local communities, I could make an app that allows you to post trash bounties on your neighborhood, to be collected by people that accept the bounty and go clean it up.

Soon: "CleanCommunities is an evil company! They maximally exploit professional trash bounty hunters with below minimum wage and no benefits, no protective equipment, etc!!!"

Like, geez, I wasn't trying to exploit people, I just saw a litter problem in my community and tried to fix it... I didn't even intend for people to turn this into a full time job, more like a "volunteer service with benefits" type deal...

So let met get this straight - you're telling me that people are staking their livelihoods entirely on Uber, and none of this is Uber's fault, it's just the people who are idiots?

Why are they idiots? If it’s their best opportunity then they would be idiots to not take it.

I don’t think people doing the Uber bashing here understand what it’s like to be poor and that service like Uber are actually a good thing.

What if it's their only opportunity? A lot of people aren't doing this because they think it's a fantastic opportunity, they're doing it because it's one of very few ways they can make a living.

You're telling me that with a phone, a car, and the ability to speak english, that driving cars around is the only opportunity possible?

I don't know, I was requesting clarification for the line "people will exploit themselves".

No, we're bashing Uber for exploiting that relationship.

It depends. If Uber was truly marketing itself as something you should stake your livelihood on (i.e. a viable career), then it's understandable that people would do that.

People are only idiots if they take something that is only obviously meant for non-sustainable income, try to turn it into their livelihood, and then act surprised/outraged when it isn't sustainable. I kind of got this vibe from ride sharing - I never thought it would be sustainable as a full-time job, I thought it was more for just some fun side income.

Uber has tens of thousands of people who depend on it for a livelihood. They made $2.5 billion in profits last quarter.

We're not talking about a lemonade stand..

It is far past the tipping-point where Uber has a social obligation to those workers.

And, sure, if the capitalist class got behind high higher taxes on capital income to pay for a UBI and/or otherwise much stronger social safety net, i’d be happy to consider weakening some employer obligations: there's a good argument that many are quasi-feudal and reduce mobility within and out of the proletariat by creating greater dependence on employers, and leave the chronically unemployed it in the cold and make it harder for them to move out of that state.

But the idea that Uber is done kind of community service that doesn't center business around reducing wages in an existing area, and that the low wages are instead an example of people exploiting themselves in a way Uber in no way intended and intended to profit from is farcical.