Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Journal by khallow
One of the peculiarities of the debate over whether to regulate ride hailing more or not, is the assumption on the pro-regulation side that Uber drivers are chumps. For example, this screed by JoeMerchant:

And, the genius of Uber is:

- people enjoy driving, so it doesn't feel like work, so why not get "paid" even if it's barely break-even for the risk and actual expenses for doing something you enjoy?

- people are stupid about what they call "sunk costs" - your car is only a sunk cost if you are never going to replace it, tires wear by the mile, as do timing belts, alternators, water pumps, and all the other things that are going to need service before you send the car to the junk heap. Even the window seals and other things not normally serviced wear faster when exposed to driving as opposed to being parked, particularly if you park in a shelter.

What's missing from the above analysis is also "- people learn from experience" and "- people aren't going to get out of bed, if their cut of the action is too low."

Let's consider that first bullet point. People learn from experience. I doubt, for example, that JoeMerchant learned of the many costs of car ownership from a class or via hearsay. Similarly, how is one to learn the many niggling details of the cost of being their own employer (or an employer of others!), if they never experience it?

It's no secret that Uber has massive turnover, in part due to the heavy competition by drivers who are not fully clued in. So what? That's thousands of drivers who each year will learn what competition and costs mean at low cost to the rest of us (we get a lot of cheap rides out of this, remember?). And as bonus, they'll get a piece of JoeMerchant's hard-earned tax dollars and we get a quality bellyache from a guy who wouldn't have cared in the least otherwise, if Uber weren't somehow peripherally involved.

Let's consider another example which occasionally is seen in universal basic income (UBI) arguments. When people don't have to work, they'll instead pour their time into hobbies which somehow will be better for us than the work would be. We'll get like one or two orders of magnitude more awesome guitar solos. That surely more than compensates for having fewer people who actually know how to do stuff that keeps societies functioning, right?

That's also ignoring that most peoples' hobbies will be watching porn and other push media on the internet.

How does one learn to manage their time, or manage other people, if they never do it? The nuts and bolts of particular industries? How to help people? The huge thing missed is that all this work has created a huge population of people who know what they are doing. Take it away and you take away the competence as well.

 

Reply to: Re:Buried in there

    (Score: 0, Offtopic) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @03:30PM

    by khallow (3766) on Friday October 11 2019, @03:30PM (#905827)
    And somewhere in that post was something useful. Thank you for the compliment. Fuck you for the crap I had to read to get to it.

    it would be great if more employers hired people as investments instead of disposable tools.

    You need a more competitive employer market. I got ways to do that.

    Of course that requires regulation to keep wealth inequality down

    Because the more we discourage employment and treating employees as investments- which is what any regulation would do at this point of overkill, the less wealth inequality there will be? Sure.

    Also wealth inequality is one of the crappiest metrics out there. No consideration of future expected income and you get huge inequalities just between the people who try to build their wealth and the people who'd rather load up the credit card instead. Are you going to force people to save and invest money? Because otherwise you're not doing a thing about the majority of wealth inequality.

    so we don't have the constant race to the bottom with wages.

    What race to the bottom? The world doesn't work [soylentnews.org] that way.

    Anyway, let me trot out some counterexamples for your consideration. First, let's consider those living in extreme poverty. The fraction of people who live in such extreme poverty [ourworldindata.org] (here, using the metric of at most $1.90 per day in "international $", adjusted both for standard of living price changes between countries and inflation) has been declining ever since 1820, the start of the graph in the link (that's almost 200 years of such decline). The absolute number of people in such extreme poverty has been declining, despite population growth heavily biased towards the poorest of the world, since 1970! It currently is around 700 million after peaking at 2.2 billion. Over the same time period, the fraction of people living in extreme poverty dropped from just over 60% in 1970 to under 10% in 2015.

    Then there's my favorite example of reduction of global income equality. Over a twenty year period (1988-2008), two thirds [voxeu.org] of humanity (that's everyone in the world) saw at least a 30% increase in their income with the median increasing by over 60%. While the richest got richer, that still means a decline in overall wealth [income] inequality due to the nearing of developed world and developing world incomes.

    IT;DR - even by the very useless measures you choose to measure progress by, we're doing better. Why ignore that?

Post Comment

Edit Comment You are not logged in. You can log in now using the convenient form below, or Create an Account, or post as Anonymous Coward.

Public Terminal

Anonymous Coward [ Create an Account ]

Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs!


Logged-in users aren't forced to preview their comments. Create an Account!

Allowed HTML
<b|i|p|br|a|ol|ul|li|dl|dt|dd|em|strong|tt|blockquote|div|ecode|quote|sup|sub|abbr|sarc|sarcasm|user|spoiler|del>

URLs
<URL:http://example.com/> will auto-link a URL

Important Stuff

  • Please try to keep posts on topic.
  • Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
  • Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
  • Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
  • Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
  • If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

If you are having a problem with accounts or comment posting, please yell for help.