Hard to do for people living paycheck to paycheck. Then they should refuse the job you say? Yeah right then they don't even have that little paycheck anymore.

There is a power imbalance here, and that's the root issue. The employee and the employer are not on the same level in terms of negotiating power. Hard for tech people like the HN crowd to realize, but in most areas outside overpaid overdemanded software engineering that's reality.

The first industrial revolution showed this pretty dramatically. The solution was workers rights, unions etc. Those things that others here call bureaucrats with a those-people-just-want-to-destroy-the-free-market negative subtone.

It's called a buyer's market. It's normal that there's an oversupply of unskilled labor, so the buyers of that labor have more power.

However, don't forget that it's usually the same for a business and its customers: Ride-hailing itself is a buyer's market. Lyft and Uber are unprofitable. The only way for them to stay "in business" is to constantly burn money.

Supply and demand is not a free market ideal, it's a law of nature. Worker's rights or unions can't raise market prices above demand by fiat, all they can do is limit supply so that prices naturally rise. That means more people are out of a job, but those that are in the job might make a little bit more, if the overhead of running the union doesn't eat up the difference.

You can make the argument that limiting supply is justified, just like forcing people into pension or health care systems may be justified because people are fundamentally irrational. You just have to be able to phrase it that way and acknowledge the trade-off, otherwise you're just fooling yourself.

> Supply and demand is not a free market ideal, it's a law of nature.

In which nature? Not this one...

That makes sense when the fat cats are making huge profits and paying a pittance to their workers. But Uber is losing billions every year. Where is the money going to come from?

Well, I know where it's coming from: a massive number of unemployed drivers, as rates are raised, reducing trips to the few that are profitable enough to pay for that (therefore also excluding lower-income users).

Maybe that's an acceptable trade-off, but we should be clear about it, not pretend we can just pump money from an empty well.

== But Uber is losing billions every year. Where is the money going to come from?==

Maybe it’s not a viable business model.

So people without enough savings to tide them over to the next job (about 70% of the US [0]) should be destitute if they are laid off? And in cases of national disaster, we want vast numbers of destitute people?

Preventing people from becoming destitute is a public good. People not having money to provide for their basic needs leads to increases in crime, which is bad for everyone. It leads to increases in disease, which is bad for everyone. It leads to decreases in economic activity, which is bad for everyone.

Arguing against the basic social safety net is just plain foolish and short sighted.

[0]: https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/12/18/the-percentage-of...

Solution found not to work.

Cost of living found to render savings unrealistic for many. Single accident, equipment failure, medical emergency or other such unforseeable found to wipe out meagre savings without warning. Precarious nature of employment market and inadequacy of social protections found to eradicate savings at horrific rate upon losing job, such that they become a countdown to destitution rather than a bridge.

Solution rejected; cannot be broadly implemented without other changes to the system. What else you got?