That's true, but yet people still want to drive for Uber/Lyft. Perhaps people are just stupid and don't understand what they are getting into (though, that's a _lot_ of people)... or maybe they truly don't mind/don't care about the wages. I'm sure there are 3rd and 4th options, but regardless--you can piss on people's business models all you want, but they don't force anyone to work for them.

The issue behind Uber and Lyft is not compulsory work. The problem is that the depreciation, injury risk, and opportunity cost of the job is misunderstood and people are being taken advantage of. In your argument, no one is forcing them to be taken advantage of and our society should eat the cost.

You could use your same argument to say that businesses don’t need to legally pay minimum wage since someone is willing to take less.

These conditions are bad for everybody and create a depressing effect on earnings for workers.

Couldn't you simply require Uberlyft to run potential drivers through a quick course on depreciation, injury risk, opportunity cost?

That's really not a bad idea generally. Give them full information and then treat them like adults.

Why would they tell the truth?

https://thinkprogress.org/mcdonalds-tells-workers-to-budget-...

>McDonalds has partnered with Visa to launch a website to help its low-wage workers making an average $8.25 an hour to budget. But while the site is clearly meant to illustrate that McDonalds workers should be able to live on their meager wages, it actually underscores exactly how hard it is for a low-paid fast food worker to get by.

>The site includes a sample “budget journal” for McDonalds’ employees that offers a laughably inaccurate view of what it’s like to budget on a minimum wage job. Not only does the budget leave a spot open for “second job,” it also gives wholly unreasonable estimates for employees’ costs: $20 a month for health care, $0 for heating, and $600 a month for rent. It does not include any budgeted money for food or clothing.

Well, they maybe aren't forced to work for Uber/Lyft specifically, but they are forced to work for someone. I guess for most Uber/Lyft is preferable to other options, but that doesn't mean that Uber/Lyft aren't bad, it's just that other jobs are worse.

But I'm sure there's many who really only have Uber/Lyft as an option. They are forced to work for them. They need a 2nd job, and they need a job that provides the flexibility in schedule that Uber/Lyft does. There's really not any other options if that's what is needed.

This discussion is only orthogonal to the point about nobody being forced to work for Uber/Lyft/whatever else. Nobody is contending that people are being forced - therefore the discussion focuses around other questions, i.e. the core tenets of liberal egalitarianism, the nature of consent (also a metaphysical question), domination and subsumption under capital.

For example, this book review was posted on HN a few weeks ago: https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/private-government-how-employers-ru...

>That's true, but yet people still want to drive for Uber/Lyft.

Well if you leave people out in the desert with nothing but a bottle of urine, they will drink it...that doesn't mean they want to drink urine.

There is a reason we have safety standard, minimum wages and child labor laws. From the sound of it you seem to argue those regulations are to protect workers from themselves, after all no one forced children to work for penny's a day in dangerous environments...but the reality is corporations make the markets not workers and so regulations are to curb those in power whose base instinct is to exploit others for their gains.

The extremely low barrier to entry for their workforce is a part of their business model, and what by extension forces those of no other choice to subject themselves to it.

Some of the drivers that I’ve spoken with have shared that they have no other choice of job.

Though I’m rather annoyed at all this anecdotal data. If the bill is seriously being considered then surely there will be data to clarify what the reality is for the drivers.

Walmart is a very profitable company, and its wages are not high. Any new company must hire people who aren't working or hire them away from other jobs, by offering a job that is more attractive than other options.

The American taxpayer subsidizes Walmart to an incredible degree by outsourcing security to local police departments and by relying on welfare programs to make up for unlivable wages:

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-walmart-crime/

>There’s nothing inevitable about the level of crime at Walmart. It’s the direct, if unintended, result of corporate policy. Beginning as far back as 2000, when former CEO Lee Scott took over, an aggressive cost-cutting crusade led many stores to deteriorate. The famed greeters were removed, taking away a deterrent to theft at the porous entrances and exits. Self-checkout scanners replaced many cashiers. Walmart added stores faster than it hired employees. The company has one worker for every 524 square feet of retail space, a 19 percent increase in space per employee from a decade ago.

http://www.citypages.com/news/twin-cities-legislators-say-wa...

>Rather than hiring their own security to deal with petty crimes, they say, Walmart is forcing taxpayers to subsidize security for its stores.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-...

>"It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers."

Walmart has profit margins in the low single digits. Not what I would call a very profitable company.

https://ycharts.com/companies/WMT/profit_margin

I don't understand why profit margin is being conflated with profits?

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/walmarts-4t...

Indicates Walmart $3.69 billion, or $1.27 per share in the 4th quarter. By comparison Apple made 11.5 Bil in the 2nd quarter last year.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/31/technology/apple-q3-earning...

That doesn't seem like a non-profitable company

Profit margin, or profit per employee, indicates how much room the company has to pay more to its employees if they wanted. User minikites commented that business models that have to pay poverty wages aren't good business models, to which Bostonian responded that "Walmart is a very profitable company, and its wages are not high."

I inferred Bostonian to mean that because Walmart is very profitable, and it has low wages, then it shows that minikites' comment of "business models having to pay poverty wages are not good business models" to be wrong.

To which I am responding that because Walmart's profit margins are tiny, implying that they have to pay poverty wages in order to stay in business, which in my opinion is not a good business model as it doesn't leave much slack or moat.

Of course, "good business model" is subjective, and some could consider Walmart's efficiency to be a good business model, but I am looking at it from the perspective of an equity owner looking for returns.

That's a pretty disingenuous presentation of Walmart's profit. The margin matters little when referring to them as a very profitable company. They reported $3.6 billion in their most recent quarter[0]. I'm unsure of what kind of world we're living in when $3.6 billion in profit is not very profitable. The prior quarter was $3.8 billion in profit. And another $3.7 billion in Q1 2019.

So ... $11.1 billion in profit so far this year. Sounds very profitable to me.

[0]: https://ycharts.com/companies/WMT/net_income

If you get rich from doing so, it seems to be a great business model. Maybe our society shouldn't judge solely based on wealth, but for now that is near enough how success and even good and bad are determined.

Uber and Lyft were never purported to be fulltime jobs to make a living off of. They were always meant to be supplemental income for people who had a car at low utilization and free time.

Uber and Lyft could not feasibly maintain the scale of operations if everyone driving for Uber worked only for supplemental income.

That is in fact the only way they could maintain it. They are used burstily and have very little use for a standing fleet doing nothing for most of the day.

That would only work if supply and demand spiked at the same time, and I doubt that would be the case.

I suppose surge pricing and whatnot address that to a point, but if every Uber driver is scheduling their day around Uber demand, then that's hardly a sidegig.

Uber and Lyft purport themselves to be "ride sharing" and "supplemental income", but that isn't what they are. They're underregulated taxi companies who's employees need to work nearly full time to meet ends meet.

These companies know what they're doing. Their words, like the words of so many corporations in America, are lies and deceit. Their image is a facade meant to deceive.

> but that isn't what they are

They very clearly are just that.

> employees need to work nearly full time to meet ends meet

Which is exactly why they're supplemental income and not full-time jobs.

Uber and Lyft tell you exactly what you're going to make before you start driving for them. If you willingly work full-time hours for them, that's your problem, not theirs.

Maybe we should tip to make up the difference

hah!