When the alternative to being a "wage slave" is being unemployed, then no this doesn't come off as problematic at all. Lyft and Uber drivers aren't slaves. They chose this line of work on their own volition. You might think that those jobs aren't good - and for someone with your skillset that's probably true. But what makes you think you're more qualified to make life decisions for people you don't know?
As the above poster wrote: ride share drivers that can get better jobs quit and take their jobs. It turns out, though, that there are a lot of people for which driving for a ride share company is their best opportunity for their skills and schedules.
No, the alternative to being a wage slave isn’t to be unemployed. The idea that all gig economy jobs will go away if labor costs rise and they pay more humanely ignores basic economics.
> The idea that all gig economy jobs will go away if labor costs rise and they pay more humanely ignores basic economics.
What? I really had to do a double take.
If the net cost of employing a driver rises while the revenue per employee stays the same, then the business could easily become non-profitable. If each driver is netting the company an average of $200 in profit per month, and the insurance they now have to buy costs $300 per employee then now the company is losing $100 per employee. And that's a conservative figure for healthcare, the average plan in California costs over $400 per employee [1].
I'd have to say the same thing back to you: claiming that jobs are secure even if authorities mandate a substantial per-employee expense ignores basic economics.
As the above poster wrote: ride share drivers that can get better jobs quit and take their jobs. It turns out, though, that there are a lot of people for which driving for a ride share company is their best opportunity for their skills and schedules.