←back to thread

383 points imartin2k | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.425s | source
Show context
fastball ◴[] No.14330444[source]
I rode for UberEats for two weeks and made roughly £22 an hour.

To be fair, this was when they were just coming into London and offering crazy bonuses to steal market share from Deliveroo, but still, this isn't controversial - if someone pays you bad wages, don't work for them...

replies(2): >>14330546 #>>14330868 #
libeclipse ◴[] No.14330546[source]
That's some solid advice, but for some people, that's simply not an option.

If you can't find work elsewhere, you'd rather work for pennies than for nothing.

replies(4): >>14330575 #>>14330657 #>>14330939 #>>14331172 #
Murkin ◴[] No.14330657[source]
So its better that Uber didn't offer this job at all?
replies(5): >>14330666 #>>14330678 #>>14330774 #>>14332292 #>>14332681 #
jacobr ◴[] No.14330678[source]
It would be better if they offered the job with reasonable wages and conditions. If consumers are not willing to pay enough for Uber to be able to offer this, they have a poor business model or are in the wrong market.

You could say the same about any regulation, if you cannot manufacture something at a reasonable price without polluting more than allowed, you need to change your prices or adjust your business model.

replies(3): >>14330779 #>>14330986 #>>14334509 #
Chris2048 ◴[] No.14330779[source]
> It would be better if they offered the job with reasonable wages and condition

Out would be better if kfc rained from the sky, but that's not an option.

Why is their business model "poor"? If prices go up, so will what is considered a "reasonable" wage. What's a "reasonable" skillset that an employee must offer to get such a wage.

Difference with pollution, is that its fine to just not pollute. Just not employing makes the situation worse.

replies(2): >>14330869 #>>14331225 #
rocqua ◴[] No.14330869[source]
A business model that requires paying wages that you can't live on, it seems reasonable to call that business model a net loss for society.
replies(2): >>14330951 #>>14331648 #
Chris2048 ◴[] No.14330951[source]
So basically, its better that these workers be unemployed? Or you assume there will be an unlimited supply of alternate jobs available?
replies(3): >>14331605 #>>14331642 #>>14332210 #
1. TheOtherHobbes ◴[] No.14331605[source]
Wrong premise. It's better to design your economy in a way that doesn't privilege shareholder and investor "risk" over employee and citizen risk.

Why should be corporations be given a free hand to act in ways that increase costs, increase personal risk, and lower opportunity for all but a tiny subset of the population?

replies(1): >>14331636 #
2. Chris2048 ◴[] No.14331636[source]
What do you mean "wrong premise"? It might be better to design your mathematics so that 1 + 1 = 3, but the argument here is if that is possible.

At the level of an economy, the burden is on you to show that minimum wage results in lower risk/higher opportunity for employees.