I agree with your point: Some are choosing to drive for Uber/Lift because they don't have any better alternative. Where I disagree is the solution.

If you raise the price of cigarettes, people buy fewer cigarettes. If you raise the price of gasoline, people buy less gasoline. If you raise the price of labor, people (both companies and individuals) buy less labor. If the price of Uber/Lyft increases, the number of rides will decrease. That means that drivers will be forced to work fewer hours or to find another job. But if (as you say) this is the only alternative they have to homelessness, then they'll become homeless.

another alternative is that Uber reduces compensation for some other parts of the company and budges and raises driver compensation and sucks it up.

It's not like there's reason to believe that the ride-sharing market is extremely competitive, in many regions it's mostly Uber + Lyft.

> If you raise the price of labor, people (both companies and individuals) buy less labor.

If people are making more money, they are spending more money

So you imagine that Uber and Lyft drivers will spend their extra money on Uber and Lyft rides so the number of rides won't go down and it will be a perpetual motion machine?

This is the same reason companies used Groupon with their terrible economics or people take cash advances on their credit cards: you need the money today even if it is incredibly expensive and sub optimal. Does the GP also think we don't need laws for CC companies because the high levels of consumer debt show people obviously want 20%+ interest rates?

Your assumption that Uber/Lyft is the only choice (i.e. hardly a choice) is not true. There tons of other jobs you can do beside Uber/Lyft.

Have you seen the unemployment rate lately? We are in one of the worst recessions in living memory. It's not like those Uber drivers can just quit and go work somewhere else.

Yes, it's terrible, which is why interfering with people and businesses who have come to a voluntary agreement to work together is especially harmful now.

It's actually your line of thinking which leads to a dead end - the dead end of unemployment.

I imagine the same argument was made by coal barons who were forced to stop paying in company scrip.

And the industrialists who were forced to stop employing children in their factories.

And the owners who were forced to grant weekends and 8 hour workdays.

We have a long history of protecting workers from exploitation in this country. The weekend, prohibitions on child labor, OSHA standards, PPE, minimum wages, payment in US dollars, anti-discrimination laws, coverage for accidents on site, leaves for illness, etc. etc. etc.

If you think poor workers should make more money, then the government should give it to them. The last thing we should do is make it harder for them to retain a job, or penalize those that have provided the best job they have on offer. Preventing the low skilled from working stunts their career permanently.

It’s due to voters wanting to help people without paying for it.

Goal: help people by increasing the amount of money they have

Politician A: I’m going to help people by increasing taxes and increasing cash given to people

Politician B: I’m going to help people by forcing business to increase pay and therefore keep taxes low.

Voters will choose politician B.

Same thing with higher education:

Politician A: I will help students by funding universities and keeping tuition low, but have to raise taxes.

Politician B: I will help students by increasing the amount of debt they can load up on and I will cut taxes by reducing funding for universities.

Politician B gets elected again.