Slashdot Mirror


Uber's Investigators Admit To Lying While Digging Up Dirt On Legal Foes (theverge.com)

Andrew J . Hawkins, writing for The Verge: Ergo, the secretive, CIA-linked firm that was paid by Uber to investigate the plaintiff in one of the ride-hail startup's many lawsuits, has now admitted to lying and illegally recording phone calls during its probe, according to Law360. Lawyers for Ergo owned up to the infractions in oral arguments in court Thursday, drawing a rebuke from the judge overseeing the case. Last December, Spencer Meyer filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, alleging a scheme to fix prices in violation of antitrust laws. The same day, Uber hired Ergo to investigate Meyer out of concern he posed a security risk to Kalanick. But Ergo also gathered information on Meyer's lawyer, a move that some critics say went too far. Ergo's lawyer argued that the firm was unaware the investigation was tied to a lawsuit, even while admitting Ergo's investigator "dissembled and used false pretenses in his duties," Law360 said.

57 comments

  1. Haven't we learned about Uber yet? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Laws mean nothing to them... Disruptive! $60 billion valuation! Disruptive!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  2. Omg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People lie? Never. That's a lie.

  3. honesty by jmcvetta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Honesty is for commoners. Law enforcers and similar running dogs of the oligarchy are expected and encouraged to lie whenever expedient.

    1. Re:honesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot used to be very pro-uber.

      What happened? Is this the result of the new owners? Are people's opinions so easily swayed? Is this a case of not thinking it through originally?

    2. Re:honesty by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slashdot used to be very pro-uber.

      What happened? Is this the result of the new owners? Are people's opinions so easily swayed? Is this a case of not thinking it through originally?

      Really? I've always liked Uber as a service and as a general concept. But I've long thought the execs were amoral scumbags. I'd imagine many people tend to change their minds about Uber after learning more about their executives. And from what I recall, Uber has been rather polarizing for quite a while here on /.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re: honesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure, I like the concept of ride sharing. But we all know that is not what Uber does. That driver was not going anywhere until the app prompted him/her to.

    4. Re: honesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We know you posted this. Now we're going to punish you even more!

    5. Re:honesty by Etcetera · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Slashdot used to be very pro-uber.

      What happened? Is this the result of the new owners? Are people's opinions so easily swayed? Is this a case of not thinking it through originally?

      Anyone who's been around here long enough remembers how we all felt about M$ back in the day, and the removal of shackles that Linux and OSS represented (both to that and to the traditional Unixes), and for a long time crowd-sourced [anything] was seen as an inherent good by analogy. Hell, it worked for everything else!

      Fetishizing data collection (knowledge!) and rapidity (disruption!) over philosophic understanding is bad, but that's basically all of the larger tech industry right now, *especially* those to dumb/stupid/oblivious/young to know their history and who haven't taken enough critical thinking and theory of knowledge courses.

      a) Uber intentionally breaks the law first and asks questions later
      b) Uber's success comes from the breaking of the laws relating to taxicab services and employment
      c) Uber's fucking evil. They spy on political enemies and journalists they don't like.

      We tried unregulated taxicabs in America. We decided to regulate them because of external factors (strange people; crime; discrimination; pricing). If the taxi companies were deregulated as well, then I suppose they could fight fairly, but Uber's winning only because of that, and then abusing its IC workforce in the courts. They're everything that's wrong with the "gig economy" that millennials are convincing themselves is somehow a good.

    6. Re:honesty by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      > b) Uber's success comes from the breaking of the laws relating to taxicab services and employment

      And to add to the latter half of that a little more, Uber had grandly proclaimed that their drivers would make good money, whereas the data now being seen would suggest working at McDs would be more lucrative.

    7. Re: honesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, millennials aren't necessarily in love with the gig economy. It's just one of several terrible options

    8. Re:honesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      those to dumb/stupid/oblivious/young to know their history and who haven't taken enough critical thinking and theory of knowledge courses.

      This is my thought. I wonder how far out it extends beyond uber.

    9. Re:honesty by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Slashdot used to be very pro-uber.

      What happened? Is this the result of the new owners? Are people's opinions so easily swayed? Is this a case of not thinking it through originally?

      I think the Uber CEO is an immature idiot, but that doesn't mean that I've changed my views about Uber or Lyft.

      I love both services. I kind of wish Lyft would win in the end. Lyft is far more ethical in my mind. But I would take Uber over any current taxi system out there.

    10. Re:honesty by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      We tried unregulated taxicabs in America. We decided to regulate them because of external factors (strange people; crime; discrimination; pricing).

      I think that many of the problems with taxicabs (using the term to mean hackney cab: those taxis that can be hailed) stem from the necessary regulation mutating into protectionism for the incumbents. The ridiculous cost for medallions in most cities translates into higher taxi ride prices and dirty vehicles.

      There will come a time when Uber will favor regulation because Uber will have figured out a way to make the regulation exclude competitors.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    11. Re:honesty by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      Slashdot used to be very pro-uber. What happened? Is this the result of the new owners? Are people's opinions so easily swayed? Is this a case of not thinking it through originally?

      Why is there a contradiction?

      Take Apple for instance, I can still love Apple (under Steve Jobs), but still think that Steve Jobs was a horrible human being for treating Steve Wozniak, his daughter, and some of his employees, the way that he did.

      And no, I don't mean to compliment the CEO of Uber by comparing him to Steve Jobs. Unlike Steve Jobs, the CEO of Uber is actually a big liability to his company.

    12. Re:honesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We tried unregulated taxicabs in America."

      It's a good thing sensible metro areas regulate services like Uber and Lyft. If your area fails to regulate "ridesharing" services, then you need to talk to your local politicians.

      Disentanglement from the Taxi Medallion system is something that's _obviously_ good for everyone but the Medallion holders. Here in San Francisco you can now summon a car to take you _anywhere_ you want to go in the metro area, and not only will it arrive in a timely manner, its driver neither refuse to take you to your destination, nor will he play games with the fare.

      If ridesharing _drivers_ are getting shafted, the local Department of Industrial Relations needs to be notified and start a thorough investigation. For folks who are looking to get a ride, "ridesharing" services are nothing but good news, and light-years ahead of the Taxi Medallion system when it comes to quality and reliability of service.

    13. Re:honesty by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      They only look corrupt because the regulations allow them to operate that way out of the shadows. Take away the regulations and you get companies like Uber. The positives are well worth the negatives in this case.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    14. Re:honesty by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Arsonists are good for builders and terrible for homeowners. Should we stop prosecuting them?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    15. Re:honesty by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Uber is a rickshaw company put in a first world context.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    16. Re: honesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it actually is sharing, since the drivers of the vehicle profit almost nothing other than a pleasant feeling from giving someone a lift. The cost of vehicle maintenance largely offsets most if any monetary profits.

    17. Re:honesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, NYC's taxi medallion system doesn't prevent discrimination. The system has been in place for decades. Were the '50s really free of discrimination? I remember Danny Glover complaining about taxis ignoring him because he was black.

    18. Re:honesty by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 2

      Maybe. I was in Ecuador a couple years ago, and they have a completely unregulated taxi/minibus industry (and very little public transport), and as a result it has a lot of problems. For example, the bus may show up at 6:30am everyday, or not. It may go the same route everyday, or not. The driver may decide to charge the same price today, or not. You may have already paid the driver to take you to a particular place, but they decide they don't want to go to that part of town today, and so kick you out miles away from where you paid to be dropped off.

      Because of the complete lack of regulation, you end up with a system where the exchange of money for service is not guaranteed. Capitalism only functions if the transactions are valid (i.e. I get what I pay for, and if not, I have a method of redress). Hence why you need regulation. However, like you said, it can go too far, when regulations become the means by which major players stifle competition.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    19. Re:honesty by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Really? I've always liked Uber as a service and as a general concept. But I've long thought the execs were amoral scumbags. I'd imagine many people tend to change their minds about Uber after learning more about their executives. And from what I recall, Uber has been rather polarizing for quite a while here on /.

      The problem is that the owners of the big Taxi services are also amoral scumbags. You can't root for them, either. Meanwhile, Uber provides a substantially superior service. So, what are you going to do? Take a Taxi owned by a shitbag as protest against Uber shitbags, and have an inferior experience in the bargain?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:honesty by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Try taking a taxi in Istanbul, where the taxis are poorly regulated. Get in and look like a tourist, the driver will happily quote you 10 times the normal rate, not bother turning on the meter, and then expect you to pay when you get there. In some cases, threatening violence if you don't. Much as I detest the medallion system, I'd much rather take a taxi in New York than Istanbul, though I'm even happier doing so somewhere like London where there is strong regulation without the crazy medallion system.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    21. Re:honesty by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      NYC is a horrendous example of regulatory capture by the taxi industry, so it's really a straw man in a discussion about Uber. If you want a better example, take a look at London. The black London taxis are regulated by an organisation that has a load of 'mystery shoppers' who will flag them down at random for trips. If they refuse to let the mystery shopper in (some of them look quite disreputable and they're drawn from various ethnic backgrounds) or doesn't take the most efficient route then the driver can lose their taxi license on the spot.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    22. Re:honesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like they need some kind of service where passengers can review the drivers, so people know not to take the bus where the driver changes his mind after you've paid.

    23. Re:honesty by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      And if they all do it? Even if 60% of them do it, ratings don't help.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    24. Re:honesty by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Slashdot used to be very pro-uber. What happened? Is this the result of the new owners? Are people's opinions so easily swayed? Is this a case of not thinking it through originally?

      Same thing that usually happens, you make this new and "flat" power structure then it turns out there's actually a few people/companies with a lot of power or making a lot of money anyway. Before artists had to deal with a few big labels, then they had to deal with a few big stores like iTunes now they have to deal with a few big streaming services like Spotify. Love Wikipedia, hate Jimmy Wales. Love Ubuntu, hate Mark Shuttleworth. Love Red Hat, hate Lennart Poettering. Break Microsoft's monopoly, get the Apple walled garden. Break Apple's walled garden, get Google's mass data mining.

      I think some of the idealism and naivety have gone out of the /. crowd, they're much quicker to see what the end game will be and people's true agenda. And it's hardly as selfless as to revolutionize a taxi service stuck in the whip and buggy days. And I think a lot of the tech optimism I remember from the dotcom days has passed, I'm so good I can negotiate my own way I don't need any organization with dead weight holding me back. And then they outsource the whole thing to India or hire in cheap H1-Bs to replace you.

      Not that regulation is all good, of course. But it's a bit more complicated than being all bad. Like the "here's a license that's practically a sale, without any of the benefits of ownership" or "here's a work contract that's practically employment, without any of the benefits of being an employee". Because companies have to problems sourcing labor where it's cheapest but sell you region-locked content so they can sell it expensive, they don't have any moral integrity. The social contract only works on small scales, on large scales with faceless mega-corporations answering to thousands of shareholders the only contract is the letter of the law.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  4. Important and surprising 'Uber Feature' !!!... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used my local Uber service recently, and it was a rather pleasant experience: polite driver, recent car model, but.. as i was leaving the vehicle at my destination, I handed a few bucks to the driver (Uber auto deducts via PayPal, but no tip is included). The driver then said this to me: " I rated you as '5-star' customer ( !!!! ) ... Thanks, I said ... then began thinking: Oh my! Rating customers??? What a convenient way of acting out all sorts of prejudices !! I mean, Uber drivers telling aLL OTHER Uber drives about my 'qualities' ... with NO paper trail to document a fact where Uber drivers, seeing one's 'Star rating' decide to avoid the potential customer! This is a very very bad idea!!! .. a form of 'long-distance prejudice ..No contact made .. so: no crime!

  5. It's not about honesty by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Uber can do terrible things and be Honest. Instead focus on how they break the perceived social contract between employee and employer. If you worked hard and played by the rules your employer would take care of you and let you have an OK life and die reasonably content. Whether this was true or not it's _suppose_ to be true. Uber breaks all that and so far nobody's noticed or cared.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's not about honesty by khallow · · Score: 2

      Instead focus on how they break the perceived social contract between employee and employer. If you worked hard and played by the rules your employer would take care of you and let you have an OK life and die reasonably content.

      There's several things to note here. First, I doubt Uber perceives things the same way. If they perceive the "perceived social contract" differently, then what's to say that your perception of it is better than theirs? I doubt most people involved with Uber think of it as a cradle to grave service and hence, don't perceive this alleged contract. Maybe you shouldn't either?

      Nor has this perceived contract existed for the entirety of humanity's existence. I feel this is just like claiming that Valentine's Day should be a second Christmas just because someone wants presents and Christmas is pretty far off in early February. It's an arbitrary changing of the rules to advantage some group at the expense of another.

      Third, I don't grant that most of the people involved with providing rides in Uber are employees and hence, subject to such a contract. For a key example, there's no obligation to provide Uber rides. That obligation to work is a key aspect of employment. Seriously, what real job allows you to just drop employment right now and then resume employment at doing the same thing eight months later without telling the employer at any point that you're doing that?

      Fourth, why do you think that Uber isn't following this "contract" well enough? Getting paid good money to provide rides sounds exactly like a bit of "take care of you". Maybe if these people want an OK life and to die content, then they should use the funds that they get in exchange for providing ridership services to do that themselves?

      Finally, the ultimate irrationality of this contract is evident in the assumption that providing such things is something that an employer would be competent at. You know, the same people who so often have trouble seeing past the next quarter? I'm just not feeling it.

    2. Re:It's not about honesty by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Instead focus on how they break the perceived social contract between employee and employer.

      Uber didn't do this. It was already broken.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:It's not about honesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were the cab companies doing this? I'm pretty sure all the stories I've heard were about scumbag companies trading a small number of high-value medallions and charging exorbitant rents for their use against drivers where are otherwise independent small businesses paid out of the fares they collect.

  6. Is it me or is this the Uber norm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't followed Uber closely (or ever used such a service), but I seem to recall many stories where Uber is lying to someone, sabotaging someone else, threatening someone else, "surge"-gouging others etc. Are they sort of a modern Mafia or something? If so, is anyone doing something about it?

    1. Re:Is it me or is this the Uber norm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they sort of a modern Mafia or something?

      Since they're turning back time to before regulated taxi services, it makes sense that they act like pre-regulated taxi services. They were, after all, a hugely profitable racket.

      When people talk about Uber v. the taxi cartel, as if it was the good little guy against evil, they've got things the wrong way round: taxi drivers are employed or self-employed via tens of thousands of companies across the globe; Uber is one company with more money than all of them, trying to fuck them all over.

    2. Re:Is it me or is this the Uber norm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If so, is anyone doing something about it?

      Not the EU, since Uber bought the former EU commissioner for competition Neelie Kroes - even if she promised that she would not sell out when she joined the EU commission (video interview in Dutch where she gets angry when being asked about that, sorry could not find an English version).

  7. You're just not thinking of it in those terms by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    but the effect is the same. The phrase you're looking for is "Job Creators". That's what the 1% call the social contract. It's a different slant on the narrative (a right wing one as opposed to a left wing one) but it's effectively the same base narrative. To wit: If you work hard and play by the rules you'll do good.

    And when did I mention human history? If you wanna go back further life was nasty, brutish and short. We had 1200 years of dark ages when there was literally no human progress so that a lucky few could maintain their opulent status quo. As I think I implied this social contract is largely bullshit. It's a narrative to keep you from questioning why you struggle for existence so that the ruling class can have private jets and castles.

    Again, did I even bring up how Uber's model functions? The point is that it's a "new" model different than employment that purports to achieve the same thing. My point is it's all smoke and mirrors. A ruse to take away what few gains Unions won in the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s.

    That they're not following the contract is readily demonstrable. Again, this has nothing to do with reality. This is a narrative. Uber pays about $12/hr with no benefits after accounting for the cost of a vehicle. Less if you're city's median income is lower. You can't buy a house, pay for a child's college or save for retirement with that. You can google the statistics to prove that. I can't be arsed right now.

    The point is we're being fed a load of old bull. We're being tricked. The gains the working class made (and fought and died for) are being taken away and we're gradually slipping into a new dark age. Thanks a lot.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You're just not thinking of it in those terms by khallow · · Score: 1

      The phrase you're looking for is "Job Creators". That's what the 1% call the social contract. It's a different slant on the narrative (a right wing one as opposed to a left wing one) but it's effectively the same base narrative. To wit: If you work hard and play by the rules you'll do good.

      Sorry, you're the only one here spinning tales. I merely pointed out that your "narrative" was deeply broken. I don't care who you plan to blame for it.

      That they're not following the contract is readily demonstrable. Again, this has nothing to do with reality. This is a narrative. Uber pays about $12/hr with no benefits after accounting for the cost of a vehicle. Less if you're city's median income is lower. You can't buy a house, pay for a child's college or save for retirement with that. You can google the statistics to prove that. I can't be arsed right now.

      Uber doesn't follow an imaginary contract by imaginary villains in an imaginary narrative? Do tell!

      As to your other claim, money is still fungible, even if it comes from Uber. You can indeed buy a house, pay for a child's education, or save for retirement with that money just like any other money you happen to earn.

      The point is we're being fed a load of old bull. We're being tricked. The gains the working class made (and fought and died for) are being taken away and we're gradually slipping into a new dark age. Thanks a lot.

      A "dark age" which, let us note, involves virtually the entire world becoming wealthier and more educated as a result.

  8. Re:ERGO FUCK YOURSELF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -1 gets a lot of attention on slashdot these days

  9. Re:Important and surprising 'Uber Feature' !!!... by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

    Uber like airbnb provides an easy mechanism for all manner of discrimination, from race to LGBT to disabled. Personally I think one of the reasons so many people (white) like uber is they get white drivers instead of immigrants.

  10. Fuck Uber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Travis is a dirtbag. Nothing new here.

  11. Re: Important and surprising 'Uber Feature' !!!... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe you are correct. At my airport it's mostly -gasp- immigrants from Africa driving Ubers. And the experience is...like a regular taxi cab!

    And it's time for all those white Uber drivers to say what they really are - cab drivers.

  12. Private investigators using false pretenses!?!? by raymorris · · Score: 1

    But OMG this is a -private investigator- using false pretenses on the phone! I've -never- heard of a PI who is calling confirm employment history ever saying "this is Ray from National Finance", or "friending" the subject on Facebook while listing the subject's high school as their own, as though they went to the same high school. I certainly never did any of that when I was a PI, or heard of any other PI using false pretenses.

    Except of course for most the cases we worked. That's what PIs do.

    1. Re:Private investigators using false pretenses!?!? by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking. Why would a judge rebuke anyone for this? This is pretty much the entirety of investigative work. Not just private investigators either. Police will lie to get the information they are looking for, whether in promising to go to bat with the D.A. or in claiming to be a prostitute during a sting operation.

      I must be missing something, because that's the norm in investigative work. Skip tracers routinely use "social engineering" to track down debtors. You don't call up mom and say "Hi, this is detective Wilson from the NYPD. Your son is wanted as a suspect for armed robbery. Please let me know where we can pick him up." At least, not if you want to actually catch your guy.

    2. Re:Private investigators using false pretenses!?!? by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      Depends. My mom would turn me in.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    3. Re:Private investigators using false pretenses!?!? by tri44id · · Score: 1

      It depends on who you're doing the pretexting to. If you're lying while digging up dirt on journalists, heaven help you!

      Several CEOs and complete turnovers of HP's board of directors back, their Chairman hired PI's to investigate leaks of acquisition rumors to the press. Those PI's lied to the phone company to find out who was making the calls to journalists. One thing led to another and the Chairman lost her job, the CEO was hauled in front of a Congressional hearing, the company's bigshot Silicon Valley external legal counsel testified that "I'm not responsible, I just give advice", and the stock price tanked.

      Uber, on the other hand, can do no wrong.

      --
      Taxation without representation is tyranny! Statehood for DC, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands & Pacific Territories!
    4. Re:Private investigators using false pretenses!?!? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking. Why would a judge rebuke anyone for this?

      The judge was most likely rebuking him for the illegally-recorded phone calls. Possibly other things as well, but definitely that.

      Lying is not generally illegal, but in certain situations it may violate the law or professional ethics. Trying to violate attorney-client privilege may not be illegal (not a lawyer), but a judge isn't going to look kindly on the endeavor.

      I doubt anyone expects a PI to get results without dissembling.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
  13. Re:Important and surprising 'Uber Feature' !!!... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    EVERY comment I have heard that lists the state of taxis makes some comment about the nationality of the driver. Every single one.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  14. Whenever Uber hits the news, by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

    Whenever Uber hits the news, it disgusts me more. Not that i'm against the core notion; I think it's great, but Uber's top management are scumbags and I have never used them, and don't plan to. I'll happily use some other similar company, just not Uber.

    --
    Don't step on the baby.
  15. Re:Important and surprising 'Uber Feature' !!!... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    EVERY comment I have heard that lists the state of taxis makes some comment about the nationality of the driver. Every single one.

    It's quite relevant in many cases. I want someone who understands my language, and who I can understand.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. Thanks for agreeing with me by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    you're right the narrative is deeply broken. That's true as well. Employers don't really take care of employees and they cheerfully throw them to the wolves first chance they get. That's not the point. The point is we as a society let them get away with murder in service to that narrative.

    Again, the claim isn't debatable. Any honest economist will tell you $12/hr isn't enough for those things. Take note of what I choose to list. It's all things that relate to long term economic security. Again, go do some googling. Read the fark politics tab for a few weeks. It'll do you some good to find out how awful the world really is for 90% of the human race.

    Um.... wow. You really missed the whole point on the dark age. I didn't say we _were_ in a new dark age, I said we were heading for one. What caused the Dark Ages was the 1% of the time preventing any advancement in human civilization to prevent them from being ousted from power by widespread societal changes. This was largely accomplished by wealth inequality coupled with violence and the use of religious propaganda. Basically rampant conservativism. We're not there yet. We're heading there. I would like very much for us to stop. You're actions and belief systems are getting us there. Please stop. Really. Please. Stop.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Thanks for agreeing with me by khallow · · Score: 1

      The point is we as a society let them get away with murder in service to that narrative.

      If it's actual murder rather than imaginary murder, then there are laws for that. You have to have some sort of intent to kill and of course, the actual killing of a person to go with that. OTOH, if you just want to kill rich people without regard for due diligence or law, then that is murder.

      Again, the claim isn't debatable. Any honest economist will tell you $12/hr isn't enough for those things. Take note of what I choose to list. It's all things that relate to long term economic security. Again, go do some googling. Read the fark politics tab for a few weeks. It'll do you some good to find out how awful the world really is for 90% of the human race.

      There are several flaws with your argument. First, $12 per hour is quite a bit of money especially when coupled with other income. At full time, that's $24k per year which is plenty for the various "long term economic security" things you claim to care about.

      Second, you ignore that the items you claimed to care about are artificially inflated in price. Is it Uber's job to fix that? Is Uber supposed to pay whatever cost the bleeding hearts of our societies inflate a "long term economic security" thing to?

      And read fark in order to learn anything? You are retarded.

      Finally, as to the 90% of humanity which you claim to care about, I note once again that their lot is improving and at a rapid rate. Better is better, right?

      Um.... wow. You really missed the whole point on the dark age. I didn't say we _were_ in a new dark age, I said we were heading for one. What caused the Dark Ages was the 1% of the time preventing any advancement in human civilization to prevent them from being ousted from power by widespread societal changes.

      What caused the Dark Ages was the collapse of the Roman Empire (the similar collapse of the Han empire in China didn't help), destruction of its infrastructure, and the end of the continental trade networks. That's completely at odds with what the real world is doing. We're building vast infrastructure on a global scale, there is no part of the world that doesn't benefit from global trade in some way, and everyone's life is improving. Yet why this talk of imaginary dark ages?

      Basically rampant conservativism.

      Your ideological blindness is showing.

      Please stop. Really. Please. Stop.

      Please heed your own advice. I think there are few as need of listening to themselves as you.

  17. You're just being silly now by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    It was completely clear from context I was speaking metaphorically. You're building a straw man to dodge issues.

    Again, $12/hr is not quite a bit of money. Spend some time on google looking at prices across the country. Ask yourself what it costs to raise a child (something most of society agrees anyone should be able to do). Look up what even an 800 sq/ft home costs, let alone a 1200 sq/ft home.

    What _preceeded_ the Dark Ages was the collapse of Rome. What _caused_ them was conservativism used to prevent the working class from taking the wealth and privilage of the ruling class. When someone says "Dark Ages" they're referring to almost 1200 years of human history with little or no progress. Shit, Rome just collapsed again. Did we start another Dark Age? No, because a few libtards managed to put the breaks on "Austerity" and the madness and lies it represents.

    I'll tell you the same thing I tell everybody else: Go Read "A people's history of the United States". Read some Gore Vidal too while you're at it. Listen to what Bill Nye tells adults when the kids aren't around. You and people like you are dragging us all down. If that's you're goal (e.g. if you're a shill for the 1%) Bravo Sir, you're doing a fine job. But if you have the slightest bit of human decency in you stop being foolish.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You're just being silly now by khallow · · Score: 1

      It was completely clear from context I was speaking metaphorically.

      And it's clear from context, that I thought your metaphor was overblown puffery with no place in a rational discussion by looking at it logically rather than with touchie feelie metaphor.

      Again, $12/hr is not quite a bit of money.

      It doesn't have to be a lot of money. The expenses you mention shouldn't be that expensive in the first place. It's not Uber's place to fix that either.

      And finally, what's the point of this observation? Even if we were to accept that these items need to be as expensive as they are, it still doesn't change that your labor is not that valuable to the people looking to get a ride. Someone has to pay for that stuff, and if it's not your passengers, then who? Uber doesn't have massive revenue coming from somewhere else other than ridership that they can cover their would-be employees with.

      My take here is that every single one of the expenses you mention has outpaced GDP for decades (retirement through health care expenses). That's not sustainable even if we chose to throw the wealth of the world at the problems. Instead, we should be looking at the institutional flaws that create that huge level of inflation in important human wants.

      What _preceeded_ the Dark Ages was the collapse of Rome. What _caused_ them was conservativism used to prevent the working class from taking the wealth and privilage of the ruling class.

      Funny, that's not the definition of conservatism.

      Commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation:

      or

      The holding of political views that favor free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas:

      Maybe we have better things to do with our time than redefine the English language just to win arguments on the internets, kay?

      No, because a few libtards managed to put the breaks on "Austerity" and the madness and lies it represents.

      Funny how Norway or Sweden don't have to do "austerity" despite practicing fiscal restraint for generations.

    2. Re:You're just being silly now by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'll tell you the same thing I tell everybody else: Go Read "A people's history of the United States". Read some Gore Vidal too while you're at it. Listen to what Bill Nye tells adults when the kids aren't around. You and people like you are dragging us all down. If that's you're goal (e.g. if you're a shill for the 1%) Bravo Sir, you're doing a fine job. But if you have the slightest bit of human decency in you stop being foolish.

      And in rebuttal, I direct you to this link. Some aspects of humanity's enormous progress in the recent past can't be hidden by naked propaganda and fools. Here, the lighting of the night is one of the most noticeable human activities from space. And it depends on growing human wealth. You can't have light without the technology to make light, the considerable infrastructure to manufacture and support those light sources, and the people wealthy enough to have such outdoor light sources.