Pros and Cons of "Sharing Economy"

This article tells how the “sharing economy” has turned San Francisco into a dystopia for the working class.
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/apploitation-city-instaserfs

I understand the rough concept behind this type of economy, but I feel it's more like renting economy. Sharing has different meaning.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not quite sure why this person thinks the "Sharing" economy is any different than any other economic activity... aka: The Working Class. So what if they use an App? Other people use word of mouth. Or the Newspaper. Regardless, if a voluntary trade takes place, then they get paid no different from the person making your coffee does. Or the artist who draws concept art for a video game company. Or etc....

I used to walk door to door when I was a kid offering to shovel driveways after a snow for $25. I can tell you right now, my life would have been immensely improved had I had an app. Better for me. Better for the person who wanted their drive shoveled (say an old retired woman for example). More efficient. It's win-win. Which is why it's called win-win. And, get this, if there were a better option, they'd take it. No one WANTS to deliver the art work for $15 an hour when they can BE the artist for $30 an hour. But, if they don't have the skills, no one is going to pay them $30. In this way, they are able to make some money, and with that money they can (if they so choose) better themselves by either improving the service they're engaged in, or learning new skills.

It seems to me like the author has no idea how economic activity occurs in society. They have an antiquated notion of "Class" society, which doesn't exist in the USA, and some preconceived notion that using an App changes a person from being in a category called "Working Class" to something else? San Francisco is an expensive city, some people can ONLY afford to live there if they rent their spare room out once or twice a week. That IS work.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How much would you be willing to pay to do your job? in other words how much of your employers expenses would you be willing to cover to do your job?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sounds like rent-a-servant, only with nobody responsible for the welfare of the servants.
Ninja...? I don't think ninjas deliver laundry.

 

What are you talking about?

(A) If you don't want to drive for Uber - then don't. You can go work for the owner of a Taxi Medallion paying off their Medallion. You know, where you drive 12 hours a day while they watch TV. See, that's the nice thing about State Regulated Taxi Medallions. The rent-seekers who own them get to use Regulatory Capture to ensure no one can freely offer taxi services. Well, that is, until Uber. See, Uber is SHARING. Uber is no different than me meeting a friend at the airport and giving him a bit of cash for helping me home with my luggage. Only, I met this friend over social media - in this case, the Uber app. See how it works? You DO agree people should legally be allowed to pick up their friends from the airport? You DO agree that friends can give them some money in return? Good. Because the Sharing Economy IS the economy. And it's going to expand - out of necessity.

No one is forced to drive for Uber. People do so because they want to. I'll give you an example, anecdotal but true nonetheless. A friend of mine from Africa bought a house, is married and worked as an accountant for an energy company. He worked with accounts around half a billion. Not a lot, but not peanuts either. So, after having a falling out, he was let go. Then he started teaching part time at a University. But, was never given full time work (thank you Baby's, this market is also broken). Anyway, 6 years role by. He used to talk about how he couldn't kill himself, but, he'd thought about it. He lost his house. His wife was always 6 months away from not getting a contract renewed for her full time job. She's been paying the bills. They started subletting rooms in their apartment to backpackers to make ends meet.

While I don't know if this is true, he told me he applied for EVERY job in the entire city center. Everything from stocking shelves to selling iPhones. Everyone. He simply never got hired. It started doing his head in. Part of it most certainly was because he was African. And, maybe over qualified for some jobs and under for others? Whatever, he was hitting bottom. He didn't get a job offer other than a couple waiter jobs which he didn't last long in. You know, where you're called in for a shift and if it's not busy home you go to wait. They're not even worth the gas. You could call that hitting bottom.

I told him: Why don't you try Uber? He has such bad credit he had to borrow a car from a friend. But, he decided he'd give it a go. This Uber job is probably saving his life. After 6 years he's finally making enough money to maybe get back on his feet.

No one HAS to drive for Uber. They choose to do so freely because it's better than not doing so. Oh, and when he get's the occational part time contract to teach at University, he teaches International Finance. He speaks 3 African languages, English, German and French - all fluently. We've discussed Uber just the other day. While he may not agree with me on why we should end Central Banking (he thinks I'm giving them much more credit then they deserve in terms of how much they influence the economy - I respectfully disagree) he certainly agrees that Uber and other sharing apps are just free market jobs like any other. It is no different than making coffee. People want your coffee. They pay you, you serve them. Only in this case it's sharing a ride. It IS just like any other job. Because, at the end of the day, whether selling labor-hours, or selling a good or a service, it's just making a trade. If it wasn't for Uber he'd have NO job. So, Uber is fantastic for him at this time in his life.

There's nothing magical about the Sharing Economy, just because it goes through an app instead across a counter. So what? Who are YOU to stand between him and his job? What gives YOU a right to do that? Their transaction has nothing to do with you, so you should butt out. That's where the phase "Mind YOUR own business" comes from. Which used to mean something in the USA.

(B) Employers generally do not buy labor-hours unless they can make a profit. Some of that profit will be used to 'cover the employees expenses'. Whether that's airconditioning or paying 20% to Uber to access their App, it's going to be something that BOTH people agree to, or else the trade simply doesn't happen. Uber has to make a profit, or it goes bust. It also has competition, if Uber isn't so great to drive for, then pick the competition or find a different job - IF you can. Or make your own App. It's a free world (for now) on the internet.

In the case of Uber, they take 20%. But suppose you worked for a company that took 90%. Yet, they still paid you 10,000 dollars a week. Would you work for them? Or would you prefer to work for someone who only took 10% and paid you 150 dollars a week? Either way, if you're free to choose, and they're free to choose - which ever you choose is the moral choice. That's how freedom works. Whether you like it or not.


Lastly, thanks to all these regulations we don't HAVE enough jobs to go around. AND, the few that were around for the bottom rung are being rapidly replaced by automation and robotics. Soon cars and trucks will drive themselves, unload themselves, delivery will be made mostly by themselves. THEN WHAT? Maybe you don't get it, but in this economy, Sharing may be the ONLY job that is available to some people. Particularly given regulatory capture has removed the option for most people to start a business (example: Taxi Medallions).

Speaking of which, one thing you'll notice in Japan, is there are a LOT of houses converted into very small businesses. Everything from tiny restaurants (it's not unusual to eat in a place that seats 5) to other services. HOW is this any different? Someone needs to eat. Someone needs some money to pay for heat. An exchange is made. It's happening right now in Japan. All over Japan. Would it really be THAT different if an app were used to find this small restaurant? Would it really matter if it was actually someone's kitchen? No. No it wouldn't. It would just be aesthetically slightly different. Other than that it's the same. See? You don't really get what 'economy' IS. You think it's something you learned about in a book. That's probably far from the truth.


Hope that answered your question this time.

 

Um, come again? Just WHO exactly is supposed to be responsible for a grown adult man or woman's welfare? The employer?! So, on top of taking on all the risk and responsibility of owning a businesses, meeting stingy, fickle, sometimes nefarious, customers' needs - they have to make all their bank repayments, insurance payments, business regulations met, then they take care of their family and their children's needs AND THEY ALSO have to take care of the person they buy labor-hours from?!?

What planet do you live on?

Do YOU feel YOU should be responsible for the welfare of each and every person YOU purchased goods and services from today? So, when you bought your coffee, that automatically gave you an additional responsibility for this person's welfare? Their life is now YOUR responsibility. Don't you think THEY maybe need to look after THEIR welfare... oh, I don't know, themselves?

Only an idiot would bother opening a business in the USA. What, with the safe-spaces and being triggered by man-spreading, it's simply not worth the hassle. Go deal with adults in some other country, preferably in the East where adults actually act as such. I think if I mentioned safe-space and triggering to a Japanese they'd laugh their arses off. Well, they'd be too polite, but if they saw it happen, they'd think it ridiculous that a grown adult would act and think like that. I couldn't agree more. What a sad state of affairs the Nanny State has turned the average Western adult in to.

 

Back in the day when WE had SERVANTS, yes, we were responsible for their welfare. Yes, EMPLOYERS are supposed to be responsible for the working conditions, health and safety of the environment in which their EMPLOYEES must operate. And yes, to power and privilege, some obligation ought to accrue.

Have you ever noticed that the most righteous conservatives have a particular affinity for capitals. All that shouting must be bad for one's blood-pressure.

 

something you don't have much familarity with the truth and reality. the sharing economy essentially moves a businesses expenses on to it employees. so again i ask since your such a fan of it how much of your employers expenses are you willing to shoulder to work there?

No it didn't. you delibrately ignored to go on one of your infamously childish ideological rants. at no point did you even show the slightest bit of understanding of the question nor the reasoning behind it.

since trusting your intellect always fails either do to your gross incompetence or dishonesty i'll spell it out for you.

a normal company has expenses for operating. lets use a taxi company for example. they have to pay to maintain the cars, pay for gas, make sure every thing in that is in working order and safe. for that they pay a driver to drive for them.
a sharing company like uber yes brings in a fraction of the income per transaction. it also offloads the vast majority of the expenses on to its employees. which for a lot of them actually makes it a net loss. lets look at uber for example. the gas, maintaince, and general upkeep are on the employees. ie. the company is making money off of its employees expenses rather than other way around. I was trying to show you what the "sharing" economy would look in your job. you lacked the intellect to grasp it.

and spare me your anecdotal evidence, your a pathological liar would can't be bother to tell the truth on the simplest of things. nothing you say is credible.

 

LOL

Here, let me give you a simple to understand example. Suppose I own a Cafe'. I don't work at it. I just own it. I hire a manager, a cleaner and a barista. Now, supposing I'm making pretty good business, just WHO is it, do you suppose, that is 'shouldering' my expenses? You know, like my rent? My electricity? My accountant? I'll give you a clue, it's the people WORKING in the business. That's WHY they are paid by the owner OF the business.

Just because it's an App instead of a coffee cart, makes ZERO difference.

 

Yes, and the taxi driver MUST make enough money to pay for the gas, the car maintenance, the safety checks AND pay the OWNER of the Taxi Medallion enough to make it profitable to hire them. As a matter of fact, the ONLY reason, and I mean ONLY reason, anyone hires a Taxi Driver, is that AFTER all of the expenses are paid, they make a profit.

An Uber driver must make enough money to pay for the gas, the car maintenance, the safety checks AND pay 20% to Uber. Which, depending on the market, can be much MORE than a Taxi Driver. Given they don't have to pay off someone's Taxi Medallion.


And, you DO understand that people can lease cars and drive those cars for Uber?
YOU do understand that don't you? Uber drivers can lease cars. And get this *GASP* the rental agreement can include servicing. My gawds! To think!


You have a very very distorted view of the way businesses actually work. The fact is, no one is FORCED to drive for Uber. They freely choose to do so because the alternative of not driving for Uber and doing something different is not as appealing as driving for Uber. They could, for example, try and drive for a Taxi. But why do that when you'd PREFER to drive for Uber?

You are insane. No one would make a NET LOSS and volunteer to drive for Uber. They'd simply quit. Sure, in some cities it may not be profitable to drive for Uber - then don't do it. In some cities it's not profitable to open up a high-end cake shop. Some people open up shops, and then lose their life savings, and close.
That's life.
As a matter of fact, this is WHY we NEED free-markets. For you see, no can know in advance if driving for Uber is or is not profitable. You just have to do it. So, you do. If you make $25 an hour, like the freedom of choosing your time and how many hours you want to drive, then it's a win-win for you. If you make lose $25 an hour, then quit doing that (or you'll run out of money and be forced to quit). If you make $25 an hours, don't like the freedom of choosing your own hours, don't like the hassle of leasing a car, then it's a win-lose for you. SO don't do it. But also, don't tell other people what they may or may not want to do because YOU don't like it.



It's called freedom, deal with it. Because the fact is, we're getting much more sharing economy. It's going to happen. Particularly as low-skilled workers and drivers are replaced with robots, automation and machines and cars that can do things relatively independently. The Government will be forced to cut back regulations, because if it doesn't, it won't have the tax money to run itself. To pay for it's own services / pensions and benefits it promised to it's Civil "Servants". $80,000 a year pensions with full benefit (not that ObamaCare nonsense) are expensive. Thus, it will deregulate and open up more free-markets just to survive.

Which is exactly what China did with it's 'Free-Trade' Zones. Even Australia once proposed making the Northern Territory into a Free-Trade Zone. Why do you think they wanted to do that? Oh, that's right, because it would have unleashed capitalism and free-markets would have made that poor area of Australia, richer. It didn't happen because the other States said that wasn't 'fair' to them - why should the NT get deregulated and all the benefits therein? No one proposes to make a "Hyper-Regulated-Trade' Zone and expect it to succeed. That never happens. Over regulation just comes about as the State slowly encroaches on the free-trade already occurring.

 

What are you talking about? Living in a King's Castle? Do you know how FEW people lived in the Castle or on an Estate?

Jesus, most people were Peons and lived and died tied to the land. They were forced to produce enough food for the King and then try and make some extra to feed themselves. And if you think subsistence farming is so great, there's plenty of 3rd World Nations who'd be more than happy to put you to work. Maybe then you'd come to appreciate how free-markets actually provide you with a standard of living only dreamed of BY THE KINGS you claim 'cared' for the welfare of their Peons.

My suggestion is stop watching fantasy series on TV. In the real world life was brutal and short for most people, for most of history.

 

In competition for labor, then laborers sell their labor-hours to the Employers who offer them the best deal. That may be better working conditions, or not. It really depends on. Making coffee isn't the same as gutting a cow. In general, employers want healthy happy employees because this is more productive relative to unhappy pissed off unhealthy employees. Free-markets ensure that those companies that are the most productive, are rewarded with profits.

Do you buy sustainable coffee? Do you make sure your coco and chocolate is supporting a farmer? Or do you just buy whatever is on sale of the cheapest? The market IS society. If society is composed of people who couldn't give two craps, then guess what? They elect people who reflect their mindset and don't give two craps. They have schools that graduate functional illiterates at a rate of 20%, because no one gives two craps. Regulations or wanting someone to care for your well being is not going to change that. That's the responsibility of your parents. They actually are morally obligated to ensure you are cared for as a child. Not your employer. Your employer is morally and legally obligated to ensure that the contract you signed is upheld with them. This may or may not include working environment. Thus, the best way to ensure the most wellfare is to have a deregulated market where there's lots of people opening businesses and high demand for labor-hours. In short, free-markets, law, capitalism and private property rights.

 

Castles and estates were part of it; the middle class, both professional and trades, also routinely had servants in their homes; even clerks and minor officials had at least a maid or a nanny. This was not in the middle ages, but well into the 20th century, all over Europe, as well as North America. If you looked around at all, you would find quite a few housekeepers, au pairs, maid and chauffeurs, even today in the highly paid professional and executive classes, and many, many weekly or bi-weekly cleaners. These people are employees, with a salary, pre-agreed days off and vacation, income tax deduction and health insurance. Or that's what it should be.

Turning employment into a contract position means unloading the risk and overhead onto the employees. It's a wide-spread practice now - and it's still crappy.

 

Have you ever had a servant? Do you know of anyone that has grown up served by a household servant? You seem to be overly romanticizing this role. A servant is a servant. They are not family. One of the principle ways in which young aristocrats (yes, even today) are trained in commanding other people is their servants. They treat them like servants - NOT like family. Different. This is how the children of aristocrats become comfortable with telling adults, in many cases their intellectual superiors, what to do and where to do it. It's part of the training process. Learning to command others. Yes, the family may treat them kindly. But make no mistake - they are servants. Many will never have a family or house of their own. And if they do, many will not be the one home raising their own kids. They'll instead live in their small servants quarters or room and instead raise their employers children.

Imagine an 8 year demanding their servant do this or that. I find it disgusting behavior.

I've seen it many times. I've known many kids and adult professionals who have had servants live in their house. It's still quite common in Asia (although never in Japan in my experience).

In my personal opinion, I don't like it. I think it teaches children to view others in a distorted demeaning manner. Partly because the servant is sometimes both mother and servant. No one commands their mother. That is not normal behavior for a child. And it's revolting behavior for an adult.

Again, have you had a servant? Did you grow up around servants? Perhaps you think all of this is perfectly acceptable behavior - I didn't, and when I see it, I do not find it to be either correct thinking or behavior. The only thing I could imagine it would be good for it training children to grow up and become (a) aristocrats and (b) their political equivalent.

It would be much better if the child themselves learned to clean and do chores. There's no NEED for a servant. And there's no NEED for an estate. Most people don't live on farming plantations any longer and most farm-hand jobs have been replaced by machines, most household duties can be done by machines (laundry machines, dishwasher machines, vacuum cleaners, etc...).

That aside, sure, if a person would like to be a family servant - go for it.


I'm not sure what that has to do with an employer being 'responsible' for their employees welfare.

Talk about patronizing. It sounds like you want your employer to become your mother. The only people who are 'responsible' for your welfare are you parents, when you were a child. As an adult, you become responsible for your own welfare. It doesn't mean you cannot care for others in society. I'll use Japan as an example again. In Japan, most Japanese, they maybe have (MAYBE) 2 friends. Many have none. Why? Because friendship in Japan comes with familiar responsibility. Does this mean Japan is a cold uncaring environment where employers don't care for the welfare of their employees? No. Many do, but that's not the same as being 'responsible' for their welfare.


Which do you think is better, an employer that values her employees labor or an employer who feels responsible for her employees welfare?

Let me give you an example. Suppose an employee is paid 50 an hour. This is how much the employer 'values' that person's labor. Suppose they have a purely professional relationship. Now, also suppose, the employer is only making about 25 an hour profit. So, they actually make less than their employee. BUT, this is okay because they want to run this particular business and that's the hourly rate for a needed employee AND they make enough to pay themselves 25 an hour and the employee 50. Does this employer have the 'responsibility' to their employees 'welfare'? Or, is it the other way around? Is the employee responsible for the welfare of their employer?

Suppose one of them (but you don't know which) has bought a house, a big house - one they cannot afford? And they decked it out with all the nicest things in life, and went on vacation. Is the other now responsible to help them make a payment that they cannot afford?

Suppose one of them (but you don't know which) came down with cancer. They never bothered to take out 700 dollar a year catastrophic healthcare insurance. Is the other responsible for paying this bill?

I think you get the picture. Not only is it patronizing, it's really not helpful for either the employee or employer to go beyond having a professional relationship. Just as, I am sure, if you bought a coffee, you suddenly wouldn't feel you had to pay on the student loan of the barista who blew 80K on a Political Science degree. You'd feel like you paid for your coffee, and that if some of that went towards paying on their loan - that would be the end of your 'responsibility'. You wouldn't 'owe' them / be responsible for any more than that transaction (which incidentally, is contractual even though you didn't sign any papers, it's a non-written verbal contract and legally binding). Does that make you a cold uncaring person? No. But you're also not responsible for other adults' welfare.


You may be interested in the concept of Pathological Empathy. I wonder if, maybe epigenetic changes in human gene expression may be leading to this disorder becoming much more prevalent in our caloric-rich societies. It would certainly explain a few things. But, who knows? Maybe that's a bit too post-hoc.

 

The difference is not between employee and family, but between employment - with rules, agreed-upon conditions, salary, rights and obligations - and exploitation. It doesn't matter how you obfuscate it. Rich assholes taking advantage of an economic hardship created by the same rich assholes is what it is: wrong.

 

So your argument is you want a rich asshole to care for you and your well-being rather than let the law and contract protect you FROM said rich asshole?

I do find your use of the word 'exploitation' interesting. When you bought your smartphone, did you 'exploit' a poor Chinese worker? Wouldn't that then make you the rich asshole? I mean, if we apply your own reasoning, yes, it'd have to. From their point of view, just you having access to the internet makes you a rich asshole profiting off their labor.

The sad thing is, Government protects rich assholes FROM free-markets.
It creates 'regulations' that prevent you from suing.
It creates 'regulations' that prevent you from competing.
It creates 'regulations' that prevent you from even attempting to purchase from alternative suppliers.

Further, it doesn't matter if the person is a 'rich' asshole or a really well-meaning little ole lady who just can't seem to manage her business - if you're not paid on time and lose your home. Steve Jobs, by many accounts, was rich and was also a total asshole. But guess what happens in a free-market. Rich assholes provide value or they starve. If they're really really good at providing value, they get really really rich. Many people became rich as Jobs got richer. Many people had their life improved by his ideas and products. Or even just his managing to ensure other people's ideas and products came to market. If you like Apple, you probably don't care if Jobs had a nice or bad bedside manner.

Not to mention, many times it's poor assholes that make life intolerable. How many poor assholes beat their kids? How many poor assholes cheat on their partners? How many poor assholes shop at Walmart buying the worst most unhealthy sludge / pink-slime which results in grocery markets stocked to the brim with the sort of shit poor assholes want to eat. Sorry to pop your bubble, but it most certainly wasn't rich assholes that caused GM to go bust. Americans didn't want to pay a kidney for a car that sucked. It wasn't rich assholes that talked Americans into buying 5 homes instead of one, you know, in the hopes of becoming a SlumLord and a rich asshole.

Rich assholes aren't causing the 20% functional illiteracy rate.
Rich assholes aren't causing the skyrocketing medical error rate.

Yes, the world has assholes in it, both rich and poor. Some of the rich ones have done some amazing and fantastic things. AND many poor ones have been the worse the humanity has puked up, child molesters, murders, etc...AND visa-versa.

This is why we NEED free-markets, laws that protect property and contract and sound money.

So that even if a person is an asshole, rich or poor, they only make a profit by creating value. This very simple concept appears to have completely vanished from American culture in as little as 50 years. It's almost amazing how bass-ass backwards Americans now view the economy, the government, wealth and power. Only in a totally demented society would the very same rich Banking assholes that you (and I) decry, get bailed-out.

Think about that for a moment.

Here was the chance for the richest, most greedy of the Banking assholes to lose their mega-billions and what did the Government do? It bailed them out.

In a FREE-MARKET that wouldn't have happened. In a free-market these rich assholes would be punished and they'd be the deadbeats on the street - valued at zero, where they belong. Begging for charity. Instead they're holidaying in the Mediterranean while poor working suckers (many of them assholes) pay for it with a reduced standard of living and/or no benefits and/or shitty working conditions and/or etc....

You can blame 110 years of the hyper-regulated markets for the fact we have mega-ultra-rich assholes. This is a fact. And while you don't get it, it's your way of thinking, of wanting someone to take care of you, that is causing this to happen. That sense of insecurity is being used against you. Which, in my personal opinion, has to do with parenting. One of the responsibilities of a parent is to instill a strong sense of self-worth and feeling of security. But, thanks to the State paying mothers to put their kids in childcare for 12 hours a day, we're seeing a total eroding of this important character trait in society. To the point of needing 'Safe Places' to be free from words one doesn't like.

Sticks and Stones AND Words hurt me....



Anyway, in this sense, it's good the Sharing-Economy is here.
Soon it will also exist in various currencies and in all sorts of different ways you'd never have imagined. Just in time too. And not coincidentally. Possibly one of the only bright spots many people have to make anything of value to others in our society.

 

Lastly, I've lived in 5 different countries. They ALL suffer from similar problems to some degree. And I can safely say, no, your employer is NOT going to be your nanny and take care of you. And you wouldn't want them to. That's perverse. Regardless, it simply isn't going to happen. In my experience, the only way "The Worker" makes out well is when there's competition for their labor-hours. I don't care if you have every regulation you can think of plus one. No one pays for labor-hours that doesn't return a profit that is worth their time and effort. That's just the way it works.

Free-Markets are best for providing businesses opportunity and demand for labor-hours go up. Of course, it can also happen due to an economic resource boom as well as due to a massive expansion of the population - neither of which is sustainable and often are horribly detrimental to society in the long run.

Therefor, if you truly want your well-being looked after, then what you want is a free-market, reduced regulations, lots of business activity, sound money and laws that protect your private property and uphold contract. That pretty much only exists on-line now-a-days. Which is why we see this so-called 'sharing' economy.

 

once again you prove yourself an idiot. do you not know the difference between an employee and an independent contractor? a taxi driver working for a company doesn't pay for those things unless they are working as an independent contractor which is what you want. seriously your making a very piss poor argument based on circliar reasoning.

you should quit reading puff pieces and actually get some real facts. if they were making more you'd expect taxi drivers leaving in droves to work for uber not complaining its suppressing their wages.

which is still costs on them. seriously how are you this pants shittingly ignorant.

which is why i've helped open a business and you work doing what exactly? lying about the medical industry i believe. i have a very good grasp on how business actually work because unlike you i have both a very good theoritcal knowledge backed by real word experience compared to you who learned everything you know from delusional idiots worshipping a whiny aristocrat.

quite frankly irrelevant to the debate at hand.

because its based on lies. Uber makes claims so people will sign on people find out its not the case and are stuck because they don't want to lose their sunk costs.

no that be you with your delusional world view. i assure i'm perfectly sane.

not with perfect knowledge, but thats the point uber is dishonest about the real earnings potentials of its drivers so people will sign up. people don't have that perfect knowledge.

not really now a days most businesses begin with the creation of a LLC

and we have those. what you want is an unregulated circus that harms people.

un true. there are several points that one can know ahead of time if they will be profitable. though that right there is your problem your concerned with merely if their making a profit. you do know the term has a meaning. that they are covering their expense. it is not indicitive of their true wages.

well most of the time. really this simple answers are just you avoiding the questions again and again. why can't you ever be honest?

why are you quoting numbers directly from uber? so much for rationality. first off very few are making that much. and again thats not an accurate reflection of the true wage. their profit. you need to find out what its costing them to do the job and subtract that to get the real picture.

you have a pretty fucked up definition for freedom because normally people don't call lying to people to entice them into making a bad financial decision freedom,

don't worry i intend to deal with your lies.

no it isn't. eventually someone like your self is going to be effected and than all the entitled assholes will cry about having to shoulder their employers expenses.

that has been a given for a while. but unlike you i see no reason to turn them into exploited wage slaves.

that's a fairly tale. and deregulation costs far more money than smart regulation. this is just a fairy tale based on your gross ignorance of economics. i'll just ignore your standard lies about public employees.

free trade favors those willing to win the race to the bottom.

and why do you think your talking about it in past tense?

no because it favors entitled assholes who have the power to make it happen. despite your childish whinying about how nothing is free you still don't get there are always costs.

you mean the other states didn't want to deal with the costs of it.

in your mind any regulation is over regulation. you favor a wasteland were criminals and fraudsters rule with the power of wealth.



and you still haven't answered my very simple question, how much of your employers expenses are you willing to pay. we both know your not going to answer it. we both know why because it will lay your entitlement and hypocrisy bare. you favor the "sharing"economy because it fucks over the less fortunate which your ok with. you feel like you'll never have to deal with it yourself so the costs involved so you don't care about people getting screwed by it. that doesn't make you a defender of freedom it just makes you an entitled asshole. I feel sorry for you that you cling to such a childish ideology and you honestly believe that it makes you better than others. maybe some day you'll actually support real freedom. so to end either answer the question or just shut the fuck up with your rants. also learn how to post and quit making 5 fucking posts in a row. it obnoxiously and pretencious.

 

That sounds about right. YOU should be responsible for your welfare, and you should decide whether you want to be a servant, a salesman, an engineer, a writer etc. Employment laws exist so that you are not defrauded by companies, forced to work in unsafe conditions or barred from changing your mind about employment. Do not mistake that for "the state is responsible for my welfare."

 

Apparently not quite what I expected under the label "sharing economy" (either I translated it wrong, or it's interpeted differently over here). Nevertheless, devastating.