Sure, I agree that's a good thing to aim for.
> We shouldn't lobby companies to improve working conditions or look after the environment - we should put laws in place to force them to.
I disagree with this though. Law is slow moving and imprecise, we absolutely should expect companies to behave like decent human beings and honest actors in society, rather than rapacious sharks, probing for legal weaknesses to exploit in the name of the holy profit.
The 'innovation' at Uber was really a willingness to push at the edges of employment law, and by doing so dodge costs that other companies who thought they were already on an even playing field had to cover. I think it's perfectly valid to call them out for crappy behaviour and hope the law gets clarified.
What the Uber CEO is asking for here is the creation of a new category of worker that legitimises their bad practices, and he's dressing it up as some sort of virtue while also stating he's not going to do anything about it. It's moral posturing, not ethical behaviour.
That wasn't the innovation. Uber was able to create a fleet from rented capital and made billions because they did it so well, but it wasn't just the business model. On the consumer side, Uber made hailing a ride-share much cheaper, easier and safer than ever before, and it got rid of the old practice of taxi cabs refusing fares from certain neighborhoods. Uber also broke the taxi monopolies that had taken over municipal policies and hindered public transport.
There was no monopoly in many of the markets they entered.
I'm curious if the salary for an Uber driver was significantly (or even at all) below the salary of a cab driver. It isn't like cabbies were rolling in the cash if they were employed by the cab company.
Also, is the salary significantly different if you compare it to independent cabbies (who owned a medalion).
Quick googling shows that the salaries are comparable: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/11/28/fare-d...
>by dodging taxes
Hold on a second here. Let's not play fast and loose with words. Minimizing taxes is not illegal and everyone does it..
>for their disguised employees.
Employment has certain characteristics. It is much easier to make a case that Uber drivers are not employees rather than they are.
But in their case may not have been, as in some places (California?) it's looking like employment rules, and therefore related taxes, should probably have been in place from the beginning.
It's a very grey area here, and a part of how they were able to undercut. The other part being VC subsidy of course.
It's not a grey area. The default position is not regulation and government permission. If it's not illegal, it's not illegal. If I'm starting a business, and that business does not violate existing regulations, why do I need to wait for government permission?
No. WE as people should hesitate to put laws in place. Every law and regulation has a intrinsic cost (to implement, follow and enforce) that takes away from economic growth and opportunity ... and when all is said and done, government laws do not create prosperity. Economic prosperity only comes from the market.
Laws and regulations are necessary but WE should be judicious with what WE choose to regulate.
>We shouldn't lobby companies to improve working conditions or look after the environment - we should put laws in place to force them to.
This is a very naive view of laws and regulations. If it was so easy to do things with policy, the most corrupt nations could simply pass laws to make corruption illegal and be done with it. Poor nations could simply legislate economic prosperity!! Why doesn't that work?
He is in fact arguing for reducing economic opportunity of few and/or corporations explicitly to the benefit of society on a number of non-monetary axes like environment, workers wellbeing, etc.
This is intentional, not a naive attempt to have cake and eat it too but rather to assert what should be a balance between market forces and the good of society.
Not a strawman, just a qualification. Their statement was ambiguous and could be compatible with what I argued.
>He is in fact arguing for reducing economic opportunity of few
I don't disagree with that. Every law and regulation reduces economic opportunity and increases costs, but that's not an argument to not have any laws and regulations. It's an argument to be careful and measured when you do and understand that there is a cost to those policies even if they are necessary for societal well-being. That was my argument (or qualification) in response to OP, who was suggesting we should liberally apply laws and regulations. That I certainly disagreed with.
To be clear, I'm not advocating for anarcho-capitalist economy. I think a mixed economy with a free market foundation, reasonable regulations and taxation and reasonable welfare policies is the best we can expect. One of the things I'm really worried about from the modern left is that there is little to no acknowledgement of the necessity of having an market-based economy.
>This is intentional, not a naive attempt to have cake and eat it too but rather to assert what should be a balance between market forces and the good of society.
Full agreement.
I 100% support this... Laws are what keeps business an even playing field. We as people shouldn't hesitate to put laws in place to get what we want. We also shouldn't hesitate to get rid of laws when their purpose becomes less clear.
We shouldn't lobby companies to improve working conditions or look after the environment - we should put laws in place to force them to.