Thats pretty dismissive to the problem at hand. Uber could run an operation with full time employees and benefits. The downside is that they would have to hire less people, those people would have to work set hours, and there would be a good chance they pull out of rural markets.

For many Uber drivers, the flexibility is the selling point. You could work 60 hours, or you could work 3. You can work only during the weekends or during the summer and still maintain your regular job.

Like many things in life, this problem is more nuanced. I'm curious where it will go.

There's a lot of nuance at play here. To what degree are the drivers being "exploited"? There's no doubt that there exist some that rely almost entirely on app-based gig work for their livelihood, but is that true for the majority of them?

Finally, if an ideology can be quoted in a single pithy quote, maybe it isn't sophisticated enough to stand up to scrutiny.

While that's true, where does that leave the workers? If we consider the benefits of the drivers, does Uber and Lyft going out of business help them? Seems like what they (or at least the driver in the article) wants is for Uber to keep paying him, but just pay more.

We could say the same thing about unprofitable startups that aren’t forced to worry about profits.

If a healthcare system is based on you having to get benefits through your job, maybe we need a better health care system.