Time and time again, Uber has shown that undercutting their competitors in pricing is not done through smart technology or better business models, but by avoiding regulations and getting away with inhumane wages.
replies(6):
Which is that in some cases it is better to have some unemployed people and some (ideally a lot more) people earning a good wage, versus both groups earning a crappy wage. Combined with a welfare system.
There are, of course, paid professional conservative economists who will tell you whatever their bosses want them to in support of pro-billionaire economic policies.
Accusing the other side of bad motives without evidence is the refuge of people who divide the world up into "good" people who think like them and "evil" people who have different opinions that aren't worth studying.
It's intellectually lazy and kills intelligent discourse.
Consider the golden rule here. Are you a paid shill by unions? Are you an agent provocateur spreading socialist propaganda? Is this something the other side should accuse you of without evidence to dismiss your opinions wholecloth?
Should we all adopt this tactic and assume everyone else's motives are suspect unless they tow our preferred party line?
How would that ever produce useful conversations in any way?
If people adopt a certain position and you can't conceive of them adopting it without something sinister going on, then maybe you haven't sufficiently studied their perspective.