> hard facts of social reality that "coerce" them to work, but then regulating Uber in particular seems unwarranted, because why is Uber singled out
I'd agree that this is a more effective path than attempting to regulate Uber, but also do not think it's mutually exclusive with the view that Uber has exploitative labor practices, even if they are not directly coercing drivers to work for them.
> I think that the desire of government and the society to micromanage other people's lives is too great to resist, and the "coercion" is just an excuse to get moral justification for meddling in the deals other people make.
This only seems like a relevant argument if the sole purpose of UBI is to create some kind of deregulated libertarian society. I don't view deregulation and UBI as being intrinsically linked -- indeed I would prefer to see UBI and more regulation.
> I'd agree that this is a more effective path than attempting to regulate Uber, but also do not think it's mutually exclusive with the view that Uber has exploitative labor practices, even if they are not directly coercing drivers to work for them.
Right, but my point is that it shows where the priorities are, that it's not about actually helping people.
> This only seems like a relevant argument if the sole purpose of UBI is to create some kind of deregulated libertarian society. I don't view deregulation and UBI as being intrinsically linked -- indeed I would prefer to see UBI and more regulation.
That's exactly my point: some people just have a strong desire to have a say in everything. It's perfectly natural thing for human to wish for, the power to control everything. What we actually want as a society from our superiors who rule us though is to control things for our benefit, not to allow them to satisfy their power urge.
When you say you want "more regulation", you most likely mean "more beneficial regulation", because I'm quite sure you can imagine all kinds of detrimental regulation that could be introduced (and if you're having trouble, just think of what kind of regulation your political opponents would introduce). To circle back to the Uber question, when you regulate the its relationship with its drivers, you need to ask yourself: who's benefiting? Who's losing? Is the regulation bringing surplus for everyone, or does it actually result in deadweight loss? If, for example, you require Uber drivers to be paid at least $200/hour, everybody loses, because hardly anybody is going to take the cab anymore, and we're all worse off.
If you don't do this analysis, then the regulation becomes pure exercise of power, of the ability to control the world as you please. That's not what the society signs up for in representative democracy, and I don't think you really want more of that.
When it comes to Uber, it's more difficult for me to consider because I'm less sure of the social utility provided by the application, particularly when we take the massive unsustainable subsidies out of the picture.
I think the entire question is distorted right now by the fact that they've been in massive growth mode for years so we don't actually know what the equilibrium of the gig economy looks like in many markets.
But the subsidies make it even less of a reason to regulate the employment relationship between Uber and the drivers. The extra money can only be used to artificially inflate the earnings of the drivers, not to depress them. What happens is great transfer of money from the pocket of investors to the pockets of drivers, and the regulation are trying to reduce it.
The subsidies only make it a less-worse bad idea. Particularly when you take into account things like predatory car leases many drivers take out.
Like, I think there are interesting broader questions here about regulation and the social safety net -- but I think we need to be clear that Uber is basically a payday loan on your car's title. People are bad at understanding depreciating assets.
Maybe if there were a stronger social safety net there would only be a labor market for drivers for whom Uber is actually a good fit? It's certainly possible.
I think we need to be clear that Uber is basically a payday loan on your car's title. People are bad at understanding depreciating assets.
This is simply untrue. Cars do depreciate, but not so much to make the whole business unprofitable.
A double digit percent of the Uber drivers (probably even close to half of all) drive in rented vehicles. Hertz for example has a program[1] where you pay $200-300/week for renting a practically new vehicle. This makes the depreciation costs explicit to the driver. I think Hertz has some pretty good experience with valuing vehicle depreciation. Assuming Uber drivers do 1000-2000 miles a week, Hertz rate translates to something like $.10-.20 per mile in vehicle depreciation & maintenance. A non insignificant cost, but hardly a deal-breaker.
Maybe if there were a stronger social safety net there would only be a labor market for drivers for whom Uber is actually a good fit?
Maybe now there are drivers for whom Uber is actually good fit? Have you talked to your drivers? In my experience, most of them are pretty happy about the arrangement in general, and the only complaint is low rates.
I'd agree that this is a more effective path than attempting to regulate Uber, but also do not think it's mutually exclusive with the view that Uber has exploitative labor practices, even if they are not directly coercing drivers to work for them.
> I think that the desire of government and the society to micromanage other people's lives is too great to resist, and the "coercion" is just an excuse to get moral justification for meddling in the deals other people make.
This only seems like a relevant argument if the sole purpose of UBI is to create some kind of deregulated libertarian society. I don't view deregulation and UBI as being intrinsically linked -- indeed I would prefer to see UBI and more regulation.