>In the end it will mean ... higher costs for people taking advantage of the service.

As an occasional user of such services, I am OK with paying an increased rate if it means that the drivers are able to get unemployment.

Good for you. Though, there will still be fewer customers and fewer drivers.

A minute after you made this post, you posted this comment in response to someone else:

>But these days anyone who qualifies to drive for Uber could easily find another job making the same wage or more wages.

Some people might stop riding because of the increase, which leads to some drivers going elsewhere for other jobs that you say should be easy to find. I'm not quite sure where you're going with this.

>People choose to work where they work, right?

I chose to work as CEO of Amazon, but Amazon had other ideas.

A choice does not need to be completely unrestrained by logic or reality to be a free choice.

The fact that you cannot choose to be the author of _War and Peace_ does not diminish the freedom you have in choosing to author non sequiturs on the internet.

"People choose to work where they work, right?"

People who have the ability to choose get to choose where they work. Many people do not have this freedom of choice. Otherwise people wouldn't continue to work for places that steal tips or sexually harass employees.

"Also, last I knew, Uber wasn't driving around forcing people to work for their service."

This is not, and never has been an excuse or defense. It has literally no bearing on anything.

>People choose to work where they work, right? Why should you or someone else get to define the conditions they think are mutually acceptable?

The agreement between an employer and an employee is not "mutual" because of the massive power differential. Your premise is flawed.

It depends on personal circumstances and the local economy.

But these days anyone who qualifies to drive for Uber could easily find another job making the same wage or more wages.

You are 100% correct, it’s just not a popular opinion around here.

I take Uber a lot and not once has a driver had anything bad to say about the “gig economy”. Most are thankful to make a couple extra bucks during their free time.

Their ability to make that money is under constant attack by those who supposedly “know better” than they do about how they should be earning a living.

>I take Uber a lot and not once has a driver had anything bad to say about the “gig economy”. Most are thankful to make a couple extra bucks during their free time.

Playing devil's advocate here, doesn't the need to provide quality customer service come into play? I'm not arguing that you can't provide good customer service while also communicating a negative opinion about the company you're driving for, but I've got to imagine that at least a portion of drivers feel like it might be uncouth to discuss something like that and opt to not complain.

They complain about all kinds of stuff, but generally like Uber (unless they complain about the app itself being buggy). I’ve honestly had some pretty unprofessional rides, but never heard them bash the opportunity to drive.

Fair.

> I've got to imagine that at least a portion of drivers feel like it might be uncouth to discuss something like that and opt to not complain.

That doesn't stop other service workers in similar "gig economy" relationships from complaining (including drivers for other ride-hailing apps complaining about the app I've used to hail them).

No one is suggesting that Uber should go away. Uber should simply pay at or above minimum wage, and offer unemployment protection and such.

Literally nobody is attacking their ability to drive and make money with Uber. If Uber cuts them off out of spite for regulations, that's entirely on Uber, and Uber alone.