There's an argument to be made that Uber is tricking people into making bad decisions; by easy upfront money, gamification and what not.

Some studies have shown that after taxes, gas, wear on cars etc. many drivers are really losing money: https://www.fastcompany.com/40538647/nearly-a-third-of-uber-...

Perhaps. However, this is a problem with Uber’s dark practices, not the service economy in general. I have a friend who is a successful full-time Uber driver, bringing home about $5000 each month (this is Switzerland, so it is not a huge salary, but about what a non-immigrant retail worker makes here — and such jobs becoming increasingly rare here).

With the same thinking, you should also praise sweat shops in developing countries - better to earn $0.10/hour than no income at all, right?

If nobody forces people to go there and artificially limit their options and competition, yes, these are better than the alternative (dying from starvation). Is there anything wrong with the logic there?

"no job at all" means welfare, which may give you the time and training opportunity to get a better job

There are many people who are not allowed or don’t have the opportunity to get welfare (immigrants, people who lose the competition for welfare — it is not a straightforward process, etc.) Not to mention that welfare is not limitless and usually quite low compared to working income, even from driving Uber.

I vehemently disagree with this.

It was maybe true in the beginning when payouts were subsidized by VC, but the most recent rounds of driver payout cuts have led to a situation where a lot of drivers are recent immigrants who “lease” cars on a daily basis (at a rate around 75% of what they make a day). Many speak next to zero English; but that’s ok because Google Maps is localized in their native tongue. I’d say most of the drivers on the east coast fall into this category.

Does that sound familiar? Because it’s exactly how the legacy taxi industry worked. People would bring their relatives over, have them drive a taxi they owned, and collect nearly all of their earnings from providing a room to sleep in and a car to drive. It’s exploitative, yet it’s often one of the only jobs available to these communities. And Uber has zero disincentive to just pretend this old business model hasn’t just carried over into the new world where there’s no government regulation to address it.

Yes, and yet people still do that voluntarily. Because it beats staying in their home countries. It provides them with the means to adapt to the new place of living, and then move to a better job. Without this step on the ladder, they would live much more miserable lives.

So that means we should encourage low-wage slavery?

I am an immigrant, from Russia to Switzerland. I don’t have any right to Swiss social security and welfare (despite paying taxes here). I am happy that I have at least something by default if I won’t be able to work in my profession for any reason anymore. Uber is my safety net — if I still can drive a car, I can sustain my living. It works the same for other immigrants.

And yes, I much prefer driving an Uber here to living and working in Russia.

Can't you also say that being a slave assigned to cotton-picking is better than being destitute, in the middle of nowhere, with no food? Or being whipped to death, which is what the master is "forced" to do in cases of extreme disobedience? You can defend literally anything saying they give a choice that gives the victim a better option.

I love how it's Uber that is giving drivers a rational option instead of the drivers giving Uber a rational option. It could go the other way, and be people giving Uber a "choice" of paying better and halting self-driving research or go out of business.

Nobody whips Uber drivers or forces them to drive Uber.