If you consider a job as exploitation, in the free world you can find another job, right? That is what I do: I will not work in what I think it is bad.

But in my case at least that job should be very bad by all measures, bc there is no worst thing for me than getting social benefits just because a job was "too bad", "too exploited" or "too hard".

All in all, I do not think driving taxis has something to do with exploitation.

Because measuring how people feel on a day to day is considered too subjective and probably will always be superfluous metric in the algorithm. In other words, we don’t care (clearly ironic, while discussing empathy).

That’s why we have one of the most bullshit metrics to define happiness, customer and boss satisfaction. You as a worker better find a way to extract your own happiness from those two branches of “success”.

Mass scale misery is the thing that’s not being pumped into the function, it’s simply not a variable we account for.

Is it so hard to believe that the necessity to constantly incentivize and constantly measure via profit is actually contributing to misery? That, we as humans can no longer naturally do something?

The boss is another role. You can be a boss. Why not?

Ah, it entails risks also: paying bills, managing, taking decisions, risk of going bankrupt... so when most people talk about expoitation they do not talk about the other side of things so that their complaints look legit.

Also, working in an already setup environment usually multiplies your productivity. But if it is not the case, then the natural consequence is that copying the business model and starting to compete should be an easy alternative. If people complain and do not do it, there are more reasons they are not talking about.

For sure there will be bad bosses, and bad employees, do not misunderstand this.

But if it is so bad and exploited you have other options: become the boss, switch job. If you do not want either of those, you should wonder why, not starting to insult people who give you the possibility to improve your life conditions or survive. Out of mutual interest, of course. Not bc they are saints.

It is very funny when I see people talking about how they are exploited by others and instead of finding an alternative, like taking the risk to invest their accumulated wealth, they just come with this discourse.

Remember that if you are an employee you can just switch jobs also, you can do something else, you can try to build something your own. What you cannot do is go with that discourse assuming the other part does not pay any cost: for example, when there is an investment, you have to spend a bunch of money for something that is likely (most business do) to fail, putting your money in advance. The people who work just work, leave and find something else.

Think of it. You are at home. Jump to the bed, do nothing. You die. Poor is the natural condition of the man. That is obvious.

Now think: if you must be provided something, and you do not work for it (I assume in conditions working by mutual agreement) you are just reversing things: the one who won't work is the one demanding and exploiting others' work in fact to live from them. There is no such thing as an exploiting salary. There is just someone offering something and you can either take it or leave it. Bc if they pay u what u demand (did u ever see someone complain saying "my salary is too high?") probably the business cannot exist bc pol dnt use it for a higher cost. And if u work for them it is bc it is ur best alternative at the time.

So saying that not being payed enough is exploiting is totally absurd in free conditions. First, because you can find alternatives and second, because if I pay you something for your work (bc I give u support for getting customers, for example, with trchnology) you can leave it, take it, or build an alterbative. What you cannot do is to insult them just bc you want a bigger part and that generates a frustration feeling for you bc of your feeling of unjust. But if some people do it it is clearly bc it is their best alternative. I do not want to steal the food of those ppl. Whwn they find something better they will move on and customers have a service.

Something is done voluntary doesn't automatically means it is legal or ethical.

Isn't that good for the driver?

As a rule, isn't that beneficial for drivers? Why are you talking like if it is inherently bad? Is there something that doesn't fit my description?