Slashdot Mirror


When Their Shifts End, Uber Drivers Set Up Camp in Parking Lots Across the US (bloomberg.com)

A feature report on Bloomberg today illustrates the lives of several Uber drivers, who find shelter in car parking at nights when it's too pricey and tiring to go home. An excerpt from the story: In Chicago, Walter Laquian Howard sleeps most nights at the "Uber Terminal." "I left my job thinking this would work, and it's getting harder and harder," Howard said. "They have to understand that some of us have decided to make this a full-time career." Howard has been parking and sleeping at the 7-Eleven four to five nights a week since March 2015, when he began leasing a car from Uber and needed to work more hours to make his minimum payments. Now that it's gotten cold, he wakes up every three hours to turn on the heater. He's rarely alone. Most nights, two to three other ride-hailing drivers sleep in cars parked next to his. It's safe, he said, and the employees let the drivers use the restroom. Howard has gotten to know the convenience store's staff -- Daddy-O and Uncle Mike -- over the past two years while driving for this global ride-hailing gargantuan, valued at $69 billion. "These guys have become my extended family," said Howard, 53. "It's my second home. We have this joke that I'm the resident. I keep asking them: 'Hey, did my mail come in yet?'"

460 of 726 comments (clear)

  1. America! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    America! Fuck yeah!

    1. Re:America! by stooo · · Score: 1

      1) Slash salaries
      2) Profit !
      3) Scale Up
      4) Profit !!!!!!

      --
      aaaaaaa
    2. Re:America! by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, to be fair...not every job out there is meant to be a full time, "real" job that you earn your full living from....

      I mean, uber is just a side money job, that's it. I mean, should I pay a living wage to the kid down he block to mow my lawn or rake leaves...or baby site my kid, and throw in full blown benefits too?

      I know I"m moving closer and closer to the "get off my lawn" crowd, but please tell me, I missed it..when did things change an EVERY job available became one where you were supposed to make a living from and have a career?

      I mean, when did burger flipping become a "real job" instead of something teens did in high school?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:America! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I mean, when did burger flipping become a "real job" instead of something teens did in high school?

      Probably had something to do with capitalistic business owners that moved all of the manufacturing jobs overseas to make more profits. Might have something to do with the fact that more than 50% of all white collar jobs can be replaced by low-wage workers overseas or computer systems. My own work involves analysis, design, and implementation of systems to streamline workflow. And, yes, it has allowed companies to downsize their workforce. At least I have a job for a while, I guess. Sure does suck that my job can have really negative consequences for others. So yeah, that burger flipper might have no other options available than doing that job to make ends meet. One day it could be you.

    4. Re:America! by operagost · · Score: 2

      I think you have some valid points, but you'll have to speak up. I couldn't hear your insights over the racket of all the command economists' necks snapping as they flipped from criticizing Uber drivers from stealing taxi drivers' business to pitying Uber drivers for having a poor quality of life.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:America! by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      I mean, when did burger flipping become a "real job" instead of something teens did in high school?

      During the 1980s.

      Maybe it's time to look at adjusting your worldview to the reality that appeared about 30 years ago.

    6. Re:America! by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      when did things change an EVERY job available became one where you were supposed to make a living from and have a career?

      Uber advertised the median salary in New York for Uber drivers was $90K per year while in San Francisco the median was $74K per year. People then went to work for Uber based on those advertisements.

      You're not implying that Uber lied when telling people they could have a full-time, good paying job driving people around like is done in every other cab company, are you?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    7. Re:America! by JimFive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      should I pay a living wage to the kid down he block to mow my lawn or rake leaves...or baby site my kid

      You have a choice. You can pay a living wage or you can pay for the social safety net that subsidizes those jobs that pay less than a living wage. If a job does not pay enough for the workers to support themselves then that job is being subsidized in some manner. (How do I know: because the worker is alive.) You can pay the wage or pay the subsidy, but you will pay.
      --
      JimFive

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
    8. Re:America! by chfriley · · Score: 2

      " capitalistic business owners that moved all of the manufacturing jobs overseas to make more profits" ...

      Which had something to do with high taxes, unions pushing out poor products while protecting *some* workers who didn't cut it, and over-regulation in the US.

    9. Re:America! by quax · · Score: 1

      "I couldn't hear your insights over the racket of all the command economists' necks snapping as they flipped from criticizing Uber drivers from stealing taxi drivers' business to pitying Uber drivers for having a poor quality of life."

      Color me impressed. Not understanding how one is connected to the other is redefining the meaning of "dense". We are talking neutron star kind of dense.

    10. Re:America! by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I was getting ~20$ hr cutting peoples lawns in late 80s. Probably doing a lot better than any Uber driver.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    11. Re:America! by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'll take a third choice: instead of a social safety net (or even raising the minimum wage), spend that money on low-skill government jobs that no one is doing, with no cap on hires. Pay the $15 minimum. Cleaning litter, landscaping highway medians, cleaning train stations and trains. Oh wait, never going to happen, for two reasons:
      The right: that's expansion of government! They're taking more of our tax money!
      The left: If they don't want to do those jobs they shouldn't have to just to live!

      Never mind the benefit of overall wage / working condition improvements to all jobs across the board. The power of "My crappy office job is so terrible that pulling weeds along the highway for $15/hour and benefits is appealing, and I can get that job tomorrow" would set standards naturally without needing legislation.

    12. Re:America! by operagost · · Score: 1

      You're right, they are connected. In our economy, people need to go places and services exist to serve them. Cities decided there were "too many cars" and established medallions/licenses to create artificial scarcity. So the market sensed the damage, and routed around it. Now it's even messier, isn't it? It's almost as if it's more complex than the enlightened socialists would claim. Perhaps they should take their arrogance and shove it up their posteriors, and let the adults clean up their mess.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    13. Re:America! by es330td · · Score: 2

      I know I"m moving closer and closer to the "get off my lawn" crowd, but please tell me, I missed it..when did things change an EVERY job available became one where you were supposed to make a living from and have a career?

      You better be careful even asking this question. The baristas at Starbucks might draw nasty designs in your foam.

    14. Re:America! by Digital+Mage · · Score: 1

      "I mean, should I pay a living wage to the kid down he block to mow my lawn or rake leaves...or baby site my kid, and throw in full blown benefits too?"

      I easily pay $25 for the local neighbor kid to cut the lawn which would be considered a living wage for an hour 1/2 worth of work (and cheaper than professional lawn care services). Baby sitters also make good money as well as I recall.

      So the answer is yes, you should pay a living wage. No, you don't have to pay for full blown benefits, you're not a company.

    15. Re:America! by Pfhorrest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I mean, when did burger flipping become a "real job" instead of something teens did in high school?

      When jobs on that pay scale became the only kinds of jobs that an enormous fraction of the populous can get (and having a job working for someone else became necessary for survival because everything everywhere is owned by someone else so you either work for whoever will hire you or die).

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    16. Re:America! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since FDR pushed for the establishment of a minimum wage. Seriously, read up on the history of minimum wage and educate yourself in what the authors of the legislation were thinking about the creation of a minimum wage. Hint: it wasn't aimed at putting high school kids in pocket money. What it has seemingly become, however, is a different story altogether. If you wish to abolish the minimum wage, go for it (good luck). I've been to countries without effective minimum wages and I wonder if that's what the GOP wants to accomplish: well-heeled betters and their groveling poor suck-ups. A return to neo-feudalism. And frankly, I'd rather see guillotines make their return before we get to that point.

    17. Re:America! by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      You have a choice. You can pay a living wage or you can pay for the social safety net that subsidizes those jobs that pay less than a living wage.

      Or, yet another choice those folks get other jobs that *DO* pay a living wage, or work two jobs to get by....

      They can also try to be somewhat intelligent human beings and see that they need to spend time off work honing skills that get better jobs!!

      It simply is NOT that hard to get a job out there. It might not be one you like right off to bat, but there are jobs to be had where you can support yourself. And yes, you might have to struggle and not have luxuries in life, but that's kind of your own fault, for not grabbing that education you were offered as a youngster.

      You have to pay the piper at some point, and if you didn't do it early on, well you have to do it later in life, when things are even more difficult, but it can be done.

      Society does not owe you a living, it is up to you to fight and do what is necessary to live and succeed in our civilization and economy.

      Humans were born to adapt...so, fucking adapt!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    18. Re:America! by losfromla · · Score: 2

      Great point cayenne8, there is a bit of a problem though with the foundation of your argument. That being that, yeah, back in the day, only/mostly kids who would take these types of jobs for extra cash. Unfortunately due to automation/outsourcing/walmart/dual-income trap, the number of good quality jobs has diminished. Subsequently for a lot of people, these side-gig jobs are the best thing out there. So, now the crap-shit jobs are the few jobs left. When Pres Obama was going on about job creation, sadly it was mostly these McJobs he was talking about.

      Yeah, you are definitely in the "get off my lawn" crowd with this argument, I believe I've already covered what you missed. You're welcome! Have a great day! :-)

      P.S. I have 15 mod points but thought I'd miss out on using them on this thread just so I could respond to you. That is how much I value your comment.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    19. Re:America! by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Slave labor as per AC, also lack of environmental regulations (the oh-so-clever and damaging externalizing of costs), and the willful and malicious weakening of the American middle and working classes.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    20. Re:America! by Whorhay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That would qualify as a social safety net, though obviously isn't a cash handout.

    21. Re:America! by fropenn · · Score: 2

      Throw in free health care and I'll pull your weeds.

    22. Re:America! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      hmm. I earned £2.20/hour babysitting, adjusted for inflation, with a bonus for an overnight stay.

      That is not well paid. I pay more than that for a friend to feed my cats when I'm away from home and she has a full time job on top of that.

      I actually pay well over the national living wage - £7.50/hour from April - unless she sits playing with the cats for fair while. In which case she's not feeding them and she should be paying me for the entertainment.

      This could make an interesting court case.

    23. Re:America! by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Find me a union contract that wasn't signed by management. Every complaint on unions could be levied on the executives that signed the contracts. Unions were a reaction to the abuses by employers. The employers brought about every "evil" of unions themselves. Then blame the victims.

    24. Re:America! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I grew up in a country with no minimum wage and yet everybody had food, clothing and shelter. Not necessarily regular luxuries but a decent enough standard of living, enough cash for cigarettes, a car, a TV to watch.

      Maybe the countries you've been to have other issues, because the lack of a minimum wage does not cause grovelling suck-ups.

    25. Re:America! by nobuddy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Things did not change. The minimum wage was set to ensure that EVERY job pays a living wage, minimum. During boom times, salaries soared and minimum wage jobs were the ones kids took. Adults worked "real" jobs that paid more. That is where that false perception comes from.

      FDR made a public speech after signing the minimum wage in to law. He said:

      "In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living."

      http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist....

    26. Re:America! by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      on this country with no poverty, no welfare safety net, and no minimum wage.

    27. Re: America! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tornado deaths under Obamas' first weekend: 0
      Trumps: 17.

      God hates Trump voters.

      Thanks Trump.

    28. Re:America! by TWX · · Score: 1

      They aren't taxi drivers. They keep insisting on this.

      For once I will actually agree with them, they aren't taxi drivers, as taxi drivers usually make a livable wage even if it's still on the lower end of the spectrum, and taxi drivers are not forced to take fares that take them so far from home that returning for the night isn't practical.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    29. Re:America! by anegg · · Score: 1

      You didn't answer the question: "Should I pay a living wage to the kid down the block to mow my lawn or rake leaves...or baby sit my kid"?

      There are chores that I would be willing to pay someone to do, at a cost below the so-called "living wage," that I would not be willing to pay someone to do at whatever rate is calculated to be a "living wage." The "kid down the block" represents a labor source that used to be (and in many places still is) willing to do those chores at the price that I'm willing to pay, primarily because that kid *isn't* trying to earn a living doing that work. He/she is looking for some spending money, not a "living."

      I'm not making a choice between paying a living wage or paying for a social safety net that makes the "kid down the block" capable of "living" on what I'm paying. I'm making a choice between doing the work myself (or leaving it undone) because I'm obviously not willing to pay a "living wage" for it to be done (or else I would have hired a landscaper or child care professional).

      The same choice applies in other contexts, with more "real" jobs. I may be willing to buy a meal at McDonald's for a certain price, but not at a price that guarantees all of the McDonald's workers a "living wage." Given the "living wage price" of the meal, I might rather just buy some hamburger myself and cook it up at home. What happens to the people would would have profited (not at a living wage level) by my eating out at McDonald's when I choose not to eat out because I don't want (and maybe can't afford) to pay that price?

    30. Re:America! by quax · · Score: 2

      Markets are an artificial creation. It takes governance to have a market. Do you also want to scrap all the safety regulations for the traffic service market? I.e better airfare from airlines that are not at all regulated? Sounds awesome, doesn't it?

    31. Re:America! by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Don't go at MacDonalds? That's a no brainer, if you're not willing to pay don't go for it. Why try to ruin other people's lives with your weird ideas. If you're not willing to pay a useful minimum wage, you might eventually end up with undernourished workers who can't afford heated water at home, perhaps try to live without electricity, they'll go childless, often homeless, family-less, will get serious health problems by age 50 or less, clog the emergency rooms instead of working, and die. Perhaps preparing unsafe or badly cooked burgers along the way, and go to work with contagious illness. Or, they will turn to criminality to supplement their income. More used needles and muggings in the streets, more waste of courts and batteries in tasers will age more.

      By the way, let's say your a programmer. Just sitting on your ass and copy pasting crap, so I guess it's fair if you'll earn $22K without healthcare, right? Say, you pay $10000 a year for healthcare, $800 per month for rent, you have a whole big $200 a month left for food and cell plan. Don't complain, that's your new wage lol. Leave the money for those with a "real job".

    32. Re:America! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile Germany with higher taxes, more regulation and unions with actual political power (instead of the toothless things you pretend are a bogeyman) is doing ok.
      Maybe you should consider that the problems are due to something other than what you think they are.

    33. Re:America! by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it became a real job when you have to do it 8 hours a day to keep it.

      uber driving became a real job when you leased a car from uber and paying off that car means that you have to drive 15 hours a day.

      on the other hand, if it wasnt a real job and it wasnt fun either why the fuck would you be doing it?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    34. Re:America! by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      That does set a lower-bound, no?

    35. Re:America! by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Reasonable people are saying that if you want a job that pays a living wage, find some work people want to pay a living wage to have performed. You're saying that every adult should be able to choose whatever work they want to perform, and someone must pay a living wage for it. So you're absolving people of responsibility for their own welfare, and turning responsible people into slaves to cater to their every whim. I think you need to get out of your mother's basement and perhaps get run over by an Uber driver in a rush, trying to make ends meet.

    36. Re:America! by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Per job, perhaps. Per hour? Per month? Per year? Depends on where you live, I guess, but most places don't need lawn cutting 12 months out of the year.

    37. Re:America! by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      At no point in US history has minimum wage covered every job and every type of employment.

    38. Re: America! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As an expat living in Germany, with many German friends I can tell you she did it because she feels guilty. Same reason why the EU gave money to Greece twice.

      When Germany said the third time would require their government to provide a plan to dig themselves out of their financial hole, they called them Nazis.

      The refugees, or rapefugees, are mostly men of fighting age, and they are uneducated trash. They leech off the welfare system here, and some do it with multiple fake IDs collecting thousands of Euros per month.

      I've been mugged twice by north Africans, thankfully I carry a weapon with me at all times. They caught some of them, and no charges were filed by police, it would harm the image of these poor people if they did.

      I can't wait until their countries are "safe" and are "forced" to return. More likely they'll stay like some kind of infestation and everyone else of value will uproot and leave, just like Chicago.

    39. Re: America! by Sivaraj · · Score: 1

      5) Export to other countries
      6) More profit!!!

    40. Re: America! by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      When it became a full time job, obviously. A side job is per definition part time.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    41. Re:America! by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      I'm getting reasoned arguments at least.

      GGP was effectively arguing against minimum wage. I'll quote :

      "What happens to the people would would have profited (not at a living wage level) by my eating out at McDonald's when I choose not to eat out because I don't want (and maybe can't afford) to pay that price?"

      This may go ad infinitum until you have live-in valets and servant at $1 an hour (with a few expenses deduced from their pay). Albeit, while it worked up until the 19th century or early 20th century, people from the middle class or upper middle class today would be unable or unwilling to house them.
      Somehow there is a reasonable demand for fast food outlets and the dumbass kind of retail, as well as unskilled warehousing/shipping, although there's an excess supply of workers.
      With your hostility to minimum wage, you're turning people into not-quite-slaves. A more slave-like status would be more beneficial for them : want to eat cheaper burgers served by $5/hour or $2/hour workers? Then allow the workers to sleep in your own, personal home. Afterall, slaves got to be housed and fed. We could Uberize this : the fast food restaurant patrons/customers use an "app" when ordering their menu or burger, then at the end of the service an automatic lottery is organized. Workers are sent randomly to the customers's homes, to sleep for the night. (or three nights, or a working week). Every worker rotates and get sent to different customers (if you go there really often, you might get attributed a worker more than once in your lifetime, perhaps the same worker as last time).
      I'm making an absurd or sarcastic experiment there, to be clear.

      About paying a kid to rake leaves. So, you're gonna pay a 12-year-old kid $10 to rake the leaves or something. It's bubble gum money, so a bit removed from living wages. It's also undeclared labour, I don't know if it'd be technically illegal in the US or not - it's obviously entirely benign and very small scale and well regarded by everyone. Now do that with grown-ups and this is getting into illegal, undocumented employment (Mexican gardener etc.). What's Uber : a large, yuuuge scale illegal employment scheme where Uber doesn't pay any of the payroll, tax, and contributions related to pensions or something (I don't know the exact US make up, or the make up for a given State) for each and every of its employees.

      Where do these laws come from.. Might have to do with workers using bargaining power (that used to include getting shot and killed during strikes), over the decades and centuries, to collectively refuse to work more than five or six days a week, get fire exits that always open from the inside, two weeks vacations a year etc.., ultimately culminating in minimum wage laws, adjusted for inflation when favorable to the workers.

      What's certainly true is Gen X and Millenials sort of woke up in a world where these things are seemingly God given rights. They're not (I'm not sure there's such things as "natural rights" either). That would explain all the real and perceived entitled lazy bums that people like you are constantly complaining about. The worker rights are a permanent bargain or negotiation, like setting your IT consulting rate but on a larger, collective scale, ultimately up to getting certain things inscribed in law. A minimum wage law is a good example and no less legitimate than interest groups voting themselves the F35 fighter or what have you.

      I've had fun writing this somewhat.

      I even sort of want to convince you this is like two people negotiating a price on a stall, or like a private contract between two free individuals, except the workers have to use their numbers, as in a swarm of fish.
      Pay the kid only $1 for a whole day worth of raking leaves, he maybe won't come back.. Or he will tell his kid friends you pay ridiculously low, and they all agree to avoid doing little works for such a miser you. Maybe one of the kids's dad will scorn you or laugh at you. But this was in the 196

    42. Re:America! by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair...not every job out there is meant to be a full time, "real" job that you earn your full living from....

      I mean, uber is just a side money job, that's it. I mean, should I pay a living wage to the kid down he block to mow my lawn or rake leaves...or baby site my kid, and throw in full blown benefits too?

      I know I"m moving closer and closer to the "get off my lawn" crowd, but please tell me, I missed it..when did things change an EVERY job available became one where you were supposed to make a living from and have a career?

      I mean, when did burger flipping become a "real job" instead of something teens did in high school?

      Since burgers have been available within school hours.

      So it always was, the question is why do you think it's a job for high school teens only when Micky D's runs 24 hours.

      Uber is advertising itself as a full time career when it suits it but pretends that its ad hock when it is called out on its bullshit.. However we should have learned by now that Uber is lying out its arse about everything.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    43. Re:America! by dywolf · · Score: 1

      I mean, when did burger flipping become a "real job" instead of something teens did in high school?

      When flipping burgers for money was first invented.
      there is no such thing as a "teenager job".
      There are simply "jobs".
      Next question.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    44. Re:America! by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      And minimum wage would still be a living wage, if people 1) only had kids after getting married, 2) took the bus instead of owning cars.

      1) is a matter of personal responsibility

      2) is only a problem because US land use policy is broken, with supply artificially depressed by zoning laws, and subsidies and tax benefits for building new sprawl rather than rebuilding old areas.

    45. Re:America! by quax · · Score: 1

      "... markets themselves happen organically. If Arg trades his club for Rog's pelt, that's a market - no governance needed."

      If Args club is big enough he just takes Rog's pelt.

      Markets only happen organically when violence is kept in check and is not the easier option.

      And this is not relegated to the stone age either. Anybody up for going and taking Iraq's oil?

      Americans happen to live in one of the oldest Republics, with the exception of the civil war there is not much of a reminder that throughout history it was always the strongest who imposed their will. There were markets within domains at the grace of the rulers who enforced his rules with an iron fist, and trade between countries/kingdoms/empires when there was a balance of power.

      But the natural state of humanity has always been war.

    46. Re:America! by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Even if those figures are true, those aren't livable incomes in those locations. And they aren't salary.

    47. Re:America! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Nothing new. I'm not pro-union. I'm anti-evil. Like the "subprime" crisis caused by rich white bankers, and blamed on poor blacks, I call out inappropriate re-assignment of blame. That some see that as filing me in a particular party or ideology (incorrectly), that doesn't mean I'm a member of those groups.

    48. Re:America! by Altrag · · Score: 1

      should I pay a living wage to the kid down he block to mow my lawn or rake leaves...or baby site my kid

      Yes, unless you're an ass. There's absolutely no justification for paying them less than at least minimum wage. You're just taking advantage of them if you do.

      Of course, you only pay them the hours worked, and its up to them to choose whether or not to work enough hours to make up for a full time job (by cutting multiple peoples' lawns.)

      throw in full blown benefits too?

      That one not so much. If you have enough lawn to employ a lawnmower full time then benefits are certainly something to consider (since presumably you've got a shitload of other staff at that point as well.) But if you're just hiring them for an hour a week then you should treat them as a contractor rather than an employee.

      when did burger flipping become a "real job" instead of something teens did in high school?

      Around the time we collectively decided that exploiting children for cheap labor wasn't cool.

      when did things change an EVERY job available became one where you were supposed to make a living from and have a career?

      Again, around the time that we decided exploiting underprivileged people wasn't really cool. In this case, people who, for one reason or another, are incapable of finding a job better than burger flipping (which includes but is not limited to those high school kids.)

      And even then, minimum wage can barely be considered making "a living" in many if not most parts of the country. There are lots of people who have to work 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs just to afford basic food and shelter for themselves and their families. Not because they don't want something better but because something better simply isn't available to them.

    49. Re:America! by Altrag · · Score: 1

      There's a significant difference in the purposes of regulation though. In the airline industry, its mostly regulated for safety reasons. Anybody who can show that their plane is up to safety spec is free to start an airline (well from the government's perspective at least -- airport authorities and terminal fees and whatnot are an issue of course but that's not regulation and thus outside of this discussion.)

      In the taxi industry on the other hand, the entire purpose of taxi medallions is artificial scarcity. You could get every inspection on the planet done and prove your car is the safest one that ever existed and that you're the best driver in the city, and you still can't start a taxi service unless you buy a medallion.

    50. Re:America! by thesupraman · · Score: 1

      Dont forget to include:

      Dont smoke, drink, gamble, take drugs, 'party'.
      Dont spend money on unrequired consumer goods (but I *NEED* that iphone, bigscreen tv, playstation, sound system, 20 useless kitchen appliances and every fat blaster exercise machine I see on infomercials!).
      Dont live on pre-prepared (and therefore expensive) food.

      And a whole bunch of other things that people seem to now believe are some form of basic human right, however are actually just out of control consumerism.

      A Living Wage doesnt mean a wage that lets you live in the way you would like to be accustomed, where ever you want, surrounded by the toys you like.
      Its supposed to be able to sustain life. Keep you *living*. It should also be dire enough to give you a damn good reason to want to find a better job!

      Of course people will get all pissy about that, however sorry chumps, that is how life is - get off your high horses and go and look at the real world.

    51. Re:America! by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Thought experiment: You have a city with 100,000 people. That city has 20,000 good-paying jobs and 70,000 minimum wage scrub jobs available.

      Explain to me how that last 10,000 even find a job? Or how those 70,000 low-paid workers suddenly find high paying jobs?

      Of course that's an extremely simplified scenario but the unfortunate fact of our world is that there's a _lot_ more low paying jobs than there are high paying jobs, and there's a fair number more people than there are total jobs. "Just do better" simply doesn't cut it when you've got a pigeon hole problem at the fundamental level -- even if you manage to get a better job yourself that means, on average across the population, you just kicked someone else down to your prior shitty job.

      I mean sure that sounds like a pretty pessimistic view, and in some ways it is, but its also a rather realistic one. The real kicker is that even if you pulled some magic out of your hat and suddenly the new minimum wage was $100k/yr, what you'd find is that the markets will relatively quickly adjust such that $100k is the new definition of "shitty job."

      Growing the economy boosts the country in relation to other countries (or your city in relation to other cities or whatever scale you like to talk about) but it doesn't really do much internally because all aspects (again on average across the entire system) tend to grow at approximately the same rate.

      The only way that quality of life gets to significantly improve for the people on the bottom is when technology improvements allow specific goods to drop in price relative to the economy's overall inflation rate (which could simply mean staying approximately fixed while inflation continues to increase.)

      That's why "adjusted for inflation" is always mentioned when discussing historical prices. That $3000 XT my dad bought for our family back in the mid 80s would be almost $7000 now when adjusted for inflation (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ using 1985-2016,) and yet we can go out and purchase a machine thousands or millions of times better by all useful metrics for $700. That is, computers have dropped in price by around 90% relative to inflation over that period. That's great if you want to buy a computer! Which is why even people with shitty jobs can afford a basic PC or TV or such these days.

      However, during the same period, a Big Mac has gone from about $1.60 to $3.80 on average (http://blog.cwpub.com/post/5179859473/big-mac-inflation) Which tracks much more closely (actually somewhat above) inflation for the same period (that inflation calculator puts it at $3.57.) That is, they can only afford 95% of what they could in 1985 with their inflation-adjusted dollar.

      And those are numbers averaged across everybody. And that's the problem -- if everybody just went out and got a better-paying job, the net effect is an inflation on the economy and the entire bar moves up.

      And yes, minimum wages and basic incomes and the like have the same inflationary effect, and they need to be constantly adjusted such that they track with inflation (well really the consumer price index, though the CPI itself tracks fairly close to inflation generally.) That's something we've been pretty bad at in many instances so you see cases where minimum wage is say, $5/hr for 15 years and then somebody realizes that its no longer even close to the poverty line and suddenly it becomes $15/hr with little to no warning and businesses get understandably pissed off.

      Its much better if minimum wages are setup to track with inflation (required yearly review, or just flat out stated to increase yearly based on the CPI change or something similar.) But few jurisdictions do things like that, preferring to just set a fixed rate that sticks around until someone has an "oh shit" moment and forces a abrupt shift.

      And wow, I haven't written a good wall of text like that in a while. Its even mostly on-topic!

    52. Re:America! by Altrag · · Score: 1

      And if your country falls into a depression and "everybody" no longer can afford food, clothing and shelter, suddenly that minimum wage is going to be a very real discussion -- especially if you personally happen to be one of the people who gets the short end of that stick.

      Minimum wage is a bandaid to a problem. If you're lucky enough to not have the problem (yet,) you don't need the bandaid (yet.) That doesn't mean you'll always be so lucky and I suggest holding your judgement of things like minimum wage until you've seen what happens when you actually need that kind of bandaid and don't have it.

    53. Re:America! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      moved all of the manufacturing jobs overseas to make more profits

      Some were moved overseas. Some were automated out. Either way seems to be cheaper than hiring US workers. Ideally, this would raise the general standard of living and free up workers for more important jobs, but that's either not happening or lagging horribly.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    54. Re:America! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      People do try to get jobs that pay a living wage. Lots fail. People do work multiple jobs, but there's only so far you can go with that, and it can pretty well destroy possibilities of acquiring better skills in what would be your time off work (if you can acquire such skills). You might want to look at what actually happens to people rather than what you think should happen.

      Not everyone is offered a reasonable education as a youngster. That depends heavily on where you live, as the quality of public schools varies wildly.

      I take it you don't mind stepping over corpses to get to the grocery store, but most people like people to have a living.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    55. Re:America! by quax · · Score: 1

      The artificial scarcity serves the same purpose. If the profit margin is high a driver doesn't need to self-exploit. Tired drivers are a public risk, and enforcement alone will not do the trick (and is expensive).

      None of this is new. http://time.com/3592035/uber-t...

      Only the self driving cars will substantially alter the equation.

    56. Re:America! by ancientmyth · · Score: 1

      I missed it..when did things change an EVERY job available became one where you were supposed to make a living from and have a career?

      I mean, when did burger flipping become a "real job" instead of something teens did in high school?

      I agree...not every job out there is designed to become a persons sole source of income, but they do. I think near the end of Bush Jr's reign after he demolished the economy....anything is better than nothing was the feeling then and it's simply carried into today's survival guide. I imagine many are unskilled or displaced worker (but can drive and navigate...something i cannot really expect a burger flipper to perform) while lacking the funds to get themselves the skills that could catapult them into a real career.

      The demand is high at least to make the income sustainable income...people need rides and they're tired of the high prices from unionized monopolies. The 'as a side job' mentality for Uber drivers was so they could compete at all against those monopolies still trying to remove Uber, Lyft, and anything that breaks into their territory. The alternative was to keep folks (uber drivers) unemployed and draining valuable resources.

      The take away I got from this story is simply that Uber drivers are acting safely by not driving while sleepy which can be as bad as a drunk driver. That they don't/can't afford to expense a hotel because their commute is long sounds like a whine.

    57. Re:America! by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      In very few places can a worker even pay rent on minimum wage- much less pay food and other necessities. ANd in those places there are no jobs to be had at all, minimum or not.

    58. Re:America! by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      Because they keep slipping in exemptions. The intent was to cover every job, and FDR fought tooth and nail against those exemptions.

    59. Re:America! by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      That's a giant exaggeration.

      Full time work at Federal minimum wage ($9/hour) is about $1700/month. I just looked for single apartments in Houston (a large city with a thriving job market). Right away I found lots of apartments for around $500/month, which is under 30% of minimum wage income.

      And of course, if you're on a tight budget, having your own apartment is an unnecessary luxury. You should really be sharing with a roommate, which provides further savings.

    60. Re:America! by houghi · · Score: 1

      From what I understand Unions in the US are more like guilds. That means they are intended to protect the job or profession. In Belgium a Union is different.

      First: I can go to any union I desire. There are some that are specialized for a specific profession, like railroad workers and others are more in line with a political idea. However I can go to almost any union and become a member. I choose one that was closest to me. The reason I joined is because they took care of payment when I became unemployed.

      That is right, I joined a union when I did NOT have a job. Everybody who is 18 can join a Union, regardless if you have a job or not. That means that means they are more interested in people first and jobs second.

      As everybody is free to join a Union, nobody from the companies really cares if you are Union or not. I have hired people and have done job hunting myself and nobody ever asked me if I was with a Union. After several years working at a company, they would still not have asked and not cared if I was.

      When a company has more than 50 employees, they will have, by law, a social election where representatives for the Unions are voted in and they have regular meetings with management.

      So every company with more than 50 people is unionized and smaller ones will have people working who are in a union. Nobody really cares.

      Now I am not saying that this system is perfect. It has however given me 35 holidays. It has given me reasonable payouts above and beyond what is legally required when a company closed. It has given me extra insurance and a whole lot more.

      It has changed the law in many ways and made many things standard. 21 paid holidays is one of them. Also pregnancy leave and similar things.

      Again: not perfect, but much better than without them.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    61. Re:America! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Full time work at Federal minimum wage ($9/hour) is about $1700/month.

      Umm, no. Full time at $9/hr is about $1550 per month.

      And Federal Minimum Wage is $7.25/hr. At that rate, full time would be about $1250 per month.

      You seem to have misread (or only partially read) the first thing that appears when you google for "US federal minimum wage" which is an excerpt from an article about a state raising its minimum wage to $9/hr....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    62. Re:America! by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Because nothing reduces the need to self-exploit like having to pay off a half million dollar debt.

      I'm not saying that having a completely deregulated taxi industry is a good thing either (and I'm usually not one for blind deregulation generally to begin with,) but if you can show that you're a capable driver with a safe vehicle (via annual inspections or whatever,) there's really no reason to restrict you from calling yourself a taxi. Other than protecting the incumbents against competition.

    63. Re:America! by quax · · Score: 1

      The money you have to pay for the license is an investment, and only pays off if the framework stays in place.

      So yes, the point is to protect the incumbents from more competition without eliminating it altogether. Cap drivers still compete for business. The cities wanted to curtail the number of cabs on the road and ensure that the business model works for the drivers. That it also puts money into he citie's treasuries is a nice side-effect.

      The regulatory framework accomplishes exactly what it was designed for.

    64. Re:America! by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      So not every job is meant to provide a living wage, so what does those suckers simply cease to live when they are not working? Every job should provide a living wage, end of story, only the sickest most selfish think that people should work to death.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    65. Re:America! by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      Examples, please.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  2. Welcome to the future of capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The end game is near: the 1% will have everything, and you will have the clothes on your back, if you're lucky.

    1. Re: Welcome to the future of capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nah, the clothes will be on lease too.

    2. Re: Welcome to the future of capitalism by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      you must rent / buy your uniform and rent our phone / pda at $50 a week to work for us.

    3. Re: Welcome to the future of capitalism by jovius · · Score: 2

      Soon the clothes will be colorless and featureless. Unless you pay to have the colors, branding and features of the class you feel like belonging to. Total transparency for the lowest.

    4. Re: Welcome to the future of capitalism by nospam007 · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Soon the clothes will be colorless and featureless. Unless you pay to have the colors, branding and features of the class you feel like belonging to"

      Somebody, whose name I won't mention, has already ruined the color red for our baseball-caps.

    5. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And they have 99% of the new ideas, provide 99% of the funding to develop new stuff, own/run most of the private infrastructure, oh they also include almost every doctor and lawyer, execs of most medium to large business, hell even a lot of the more senior IT/engineering positions especially in dual income households

      The 1% (that is about 3.5 million people) means an income of somewhere above $250k-300k after taxes. It goes up if you count households and not people but the effect is close to the same.

      If you go by net worth, then it is like $2.5M. The list changes a little because you dump some of the young (35) high income types but pick up many more people nearing retirement, along with a bunch of small business owners and farmers.

      I like to wander around private colleges where liberal arts majors are spouting off about the 1% and point out that their parents probably qualify for the club.

    6. Re: Welcome to the future of capitalism by gnick · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't know if that's intended as a joke, but years ago when I clerked an Allsup's, they did in fact make us rent our aprons. They paid a few cents over minimum wage, but fell below that bar if you deducted the cost of apron rental. They gave us the option of buying an apron, but they were fairly expensive and the laundering requirements were absurd compared to the laundry schedule the store managed.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    7. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by XXongo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And they have 99% of the new ideas, .

      No, actually they don't. Some of the 1% did get there by work, but most of them got there by inheriting money. They don't have any ideas; they don't need to have any ideas. They can buy ideas. The world is full of people with ideas, but most of them don't have the resources to do anything with them.

      provide 99% of the funding to develop new stuff, own/run most of the private infrastructure,

      Yeah, that's the thing. They control all the funding, so if you have an idea you want to commercialize, you are pretty much guaranteed that you'll have to sell it to somebody with cash. And they own the infrastructure. One way or the other, you end up paying them.

    8. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Since the only jobs left for the 99% is to be sex toys and body servants for the 1%, clothes are kind of redundant

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    9. Re: Welcome to the future of capitalism by lgw · · Score: 2

      You should look into how Taxi companies work. People work the first 8 hours or so of the day just to break even.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by entropy01 · · Score: 1

      ...but most of them got there by inheriting money.

      False. Approximately 80% of millionaires in the USA are 1st generation. That does not qualify as "most."

    11. Re: Welcome to the future of capitalism by Jiro · · Score: 1

      According to the Federal laws, the deduction for the cost of a uniform (or any other item primarily to the benefit to the employer, which would include aprons) can't legally bring the employee below minimum wage.

      So either Allsup's was violating the law or it changed recently.

    12. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2

      There being so few people rich enough to do anything with their ideas and so many poor people consequently beholden to those rich people is bad.

      If the money actually flowed from the idle rich to the hardworking poor then the problem would solve itself, but it seems somehow (*coughrentandinterestcough*) the money always ends up flowing right back into the hands of the rich to spend over and over again ad infinitum, and never actually accrues in the hands of the poor who are nominally being paid it.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    13. Re: Welcome to the future of capitalism by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Or he's lying.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by Dishevel · · Score: 2

      So. Can you show me a nation system that has more wealth mobility than the one we have in the US now?

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    15. Re: Welcome to the future of capitalism by gnick · · Score: 2

      Not lying - This was ~1996 in Carlsbad, NM. On Church Street next door to the Tia Maria apartments - Store was closed last time I was in town. Don't remember the exact minimum wage or apron rental cost. We got paid about a nickel over minimum and were docked about a dime.

      It's just a guess but maybe the reason they offered the opportunity to purchase instead of rent got them around that law? Or the law's been updated since '96?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    16. Re: Welcome to the future of capitalism by gnick · · Score: 1

      Update - I read the law Jiro linked to and requiring purchase does not excuse the rental. Either the law's been updated since '96 or Allsup's was in violation - I'm guessing the former since Allsup's has so much to lose by violating labor laws.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    17. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by StarryEyed · · Score: 1

      ...but most of them got there by inheriting money.

      False. Approximately 80% of millionaires in the USA are 1st generation. That does not qualify as "most."

      Way to move the goal posts! Someone with a million is a decently funded retirement in the USA, not one of the rich. Put another way, when it costs a wheel barrow full of money to buy bread, having a wheel barrow full of money doesn't make you rich.

    18. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by invid · · Score: 1

      The end game is near: the 1% will have everything, and you will have the clothes on your back, if you're lucky.

      Naw, the 1% will need about 5% with military training to protect them and another 5% with technical skills to keep the robots working. Throw in another 9% for 3S (servants, sex slaves, and sycophants) and you have 20% with actual cash to spend. I plan on keeping the robots working.

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    19. Re: Welcome to the future of capitalism by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is very common for employers to break labor laws. I have a lot of poor friends who are regularly shat on by employers. The employers figure the employees are too desperate or disorganized to sue, and most of the time, they are right.

    20. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      No the end game is these people have no jobs because the car drives itself. And the end game is less than a decade away. Same with burger flippers. Same with nearly every factory position.

      Musk said it best, "It's not Tesla vs Uber it's Uber vs Everybody." Because the question becomes do you use a personal vehicle or do you use Uber's vehicle?

      We can plausibly blame China and Mexico for maybe 5-6 years and then it's going to be plainly obvious when the factories return but not the jobs that we ain't in Kansas anymore and we need a new economic system.

    21. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by losfromla · · Score: 1

      hmm, can you show one with higher rate of absurd wealth/income inequality? One which isn't a third world shit-hole?
      We are rapidly descending or have arrived at third-world status and that is nothing to be proud of.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    22. Re: Welcome to the future of capitalism by losfromla · · Score: 1

      You do realize you are in the useless, worthless (to the 1%) crowd of the 99%? What kind of morons boost their oppressors?

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    23. Re: Welcome to the future of capitalism by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Because no one will buy their shit or use the services of their shit companies if we aren't around. We, the 99% are the job creators, we are the demand side, without us, they'll soon be doing their own farming and having no one to buy the useless shit they convinced us we need.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    24. Re: Welcome to the future of capitalism by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And if you complain, you are fired. And sued if you tell people why you were fired.

    25. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      I'd say it's worse than having a system where the poor person with the $1B idea could act on it.

    26. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by Cederic · · Score: 1

      What the fuck is a nation system?

      Countries with greater wealth mobility than the US include France, Japan, Germany, pretty much everywhere in Scandinavia and Australia.

      Most of those are nicer to live in than the US too.

    27. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      All of them? India, a system with explicit castes, has about the same wealth mobility as the US.

    28. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there's excellent money to be made by people with the physique and looks for it.

      Sadly I had to rely on my brain instead.

    29. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      False. Those statistics are counting "millionaires" not 1%. The 1% is relatively static (among the 5%, the 1% have ups and downs as well). The numbers done were about saving wealth, not making it. Someone making $20k a year in 1980 could retire a millionaire. It isn't hard (on paper). Just hard (in practice). Most of those millionaires may not come from millionaires, but they also never make it into the 1%. It's about the ability for a determined lower middle class person being able to retire upper middle class.

    30. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by TWX · · Score: 1

      Zardoz made us grow wheat.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    31. Re: Welcome to the future of capitalism by TWX · · Score: 2

      If they're smart they'll actually use color, lots of color, but only a few colors each year and change them every year. They'll also mildly cut the fabric patterns differently every year and use thinner and thinner material, forcing people to pay for more and more clothing each year as they try to stay current year by year...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    32. Re: Welcome to the future of capitalism by sjames · · Score: 1

      You might be surprised at how many employers violate the law all the time. Enforcement is beyond anemic.

    33. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's bad when the poor get pennies on the dollar.

    34. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      "Millionaires" are not wealthy enough to be considered in the group under discussion. A millionaire is a middle-class person who can fund a middle-class retirement.

      Inflation's a bitch. You get used to what "a lot of money" was, and then you look like Dr. Evil asking for "one million dollars!"

    35. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by dbIII · · Score: 1

      So. Can you show me a nation system that has more wealth mobility than the one we have in the US now?

      The USA of a couple of years back, more so a few years before that and so on.
      It's about a decline due to crony capitalism instead of the sort of tempered capitalism we used to be proud of.

    36. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      You really don't think the 1% will have killbots? Once they are technically feasible, private armies will again be a reality. Once Capital no longer needs Labor, there isn't much reason to keep most of the 99% around anymore.

      --

      Enigma

    37. Re: Welcome to the future of capitalism by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      And the very small percentage of companies that are actually prosecuted for violations like this are given a slap on the wrist (generally a small fine) and nobody who was involved in making the decisions are harmed in any way, so there's not a deterrent for such behavior.

      --

      Enigma

    38. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by Rande · · Score: 1

      Nah, sexbots will take over that.
      I (like some scifi authors) predict that they'll make people farm gold online to ensure the otherwise unemployed don't have idle hands.
      When we're glued to the screen for 12-16 hours a day just to get enough for ramen and mountain dew, we won't have time or energy to revolt.

    39. Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism by dywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes.
      Easily.
      Among OECD countries, the US has the 5th lowest economic mobility.

      More economic mobility than the US:
      Denmark
      Norway
      Finland
      Canada
      Australia
      Sweden
      New Zealand
      Germany
      japan
      Spain
      France
      Switzerland

      Less economic mobility that the US:
      UK
      Italy
      chile
      Slovenia

      http://www.epi.org/publication...

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    40. Re: Welcome to the future of capitalism by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Maybe they'll even sell the jeans pre-torn.

    41. Re: Welcome to the future of capitalism by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is very common for employers to break labor laws. I have a lot of poor friends who are regularly shat on by employers. The employers figure the employees are too desperate or disorganized to sue, and most of the time, they are right.

      This one is good. OK, not "good" really.

      http://loweringthebar.net/2016...
      " March 7, 2016

      You may think you have a terrible boss, and you may be right. But you know what? Your boss isn’t the worst boss ever.

      Unless your boss has pooped in your lunchbox...."

  3. At least they did not ask me by Provocateur · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sleep at night?

    Safe? If I did not put on this costume, after my Uber shift ends, and devote my nighttime hours to fighting crime, there would be no place to stop for them; no place to sleep.

    Rest easy.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  4. Ride-sharing is a career? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmm, it's almost like they encourage people to do this job full time. These people used to be called taxi drivers before marketing got hold of it.

    1. Re:Ride-sharing is a career? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      It sounds more like indentured servitude for people that are bad at math.

    2. Re:Ride-sharing is a career? by youngone · · Score: 1

      These people used to be called taxi drivers before marketing got hold of it.

      I have posted here before with my belief that Uber can't work unless they exploit someone.

      In the city I live in it has to be the drivers, because we are already over served with taxis, so consumers have lots of choice

      The problem for Uber is that drivers are leaving because Uber doesn't even pay their costs. There is also the problem with their disdain for regulation, which the Transport Safety Authority is going to cure them of very soon.

  5. Doesn't sound like any Uber drivers I know or have by rnmartinez · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They all seem grateful for the work and only work as much as they want. Also a taxi license plate sells for $125k in my Soviet Canadian city - Uber is a great deal for those needing a bit extra here. I would seriously consider it if I got sick of my business.

  6. soon self driving cars will by FudRucker · · Score: 3, Funny

    put them all out of work, taxis too & city buses, maybe even trucking industry and railroad too

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:soon self driving cars will by quax · · Score: 1

      Yes, they will also do that. All of the above, and put a lot of people out of work.

      Since the poster didn't deny any of this, calling him clueless does not reflect well on your reading comprehension.

    2. Re: soon self driving cars will by quax · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a quote from a German minister, how reacted to the hyping of the service economy, which was really big in the nineties, by saying: "I don't want to live in country where everybody just scrapes by delivering pizza to each other".

    3. Re:soon self driving cars will by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      of course it is going to put a hell of a lot of people out of work, not saying its right, not saying its wrong. but just that it will eventually happen, how fast it happens i dont know. just that the technology is there and that is what it is capable of doing, (automating transportation) it might take the next 50 to 100 years to make human drivers obsolete, heck it might even make airline pilots obsolete too

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  7. Regular Taxi Service fears.. by foxalopex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Interesting article, it pretty much explains why regular taxi service employees are so against Uber. When you have a competitor that undercuts the service so much that you need to live out of your car in a parking lot, it's somewhat hard to make a living from it.

    1. Re:Regular Taxi Service fears.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And makes you realize that the economics of Uber are not understood by the "contractors". They compare something like "$20/hr" from Uber to $15 an hour somewhere else and think Uber is better without realizing their effective wage may even be less than $0 from Uber after taxes. It also makes you realize how we ought to prioritize protecting people like Uber drivers rather than worrying about increasing minimum wages. Uber has destroyed many people's lives, generally to the benefit of the upper middle class and the wealthy having lower taxi fares.

      I am a conservative but until we add financial literacy to the high school curriculum we need to protect the idiots that fall for these scams where you bring in the depreciating capital equipment to bear for another company. Uber is essentially a modern day Ponzi scheme. The only difference is you are not giving Uber cold hard cash - you are amortizing your capital investment in a car for their and their customers benefit.

    2. Re:Regular Taxi Service fears.. by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      Or alternately stated, taxi companies and drivers are against Uber because it eliminates the regulatory protections that allow Taxis to earn more money than the free market would allow.

    3. Re:Regular Taxi Service fears.. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some people just don't get math, and they pay a price for it. Some people that do get the basic math just don't have the critical thinking skills on how to review the problem.

      Typical car salesman con: how much can you afford per month.

    4. Re:Regular Taxi Service fears.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or alternately stated, taxi companies and drivers are against Uber because it eliminates the regulatory protections that allow Taxis to earn more money than the free market would allow.

      In a free society, regulatory protections are integral to the "free market".

    5. Re:Regular Taxi Service fears.. by Gilgaron · · Score: 2

      Does it though? If all the Uber drivers end up living in their leased cars until they go bankrupt then it isn't 'what the free market would allow' so much as a market that hasn't quite finished collapsing. Like a Dust Bowl for taxis instead of farming.

    6. Re:Regular Taxi Service fears.. by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      Except not all Uber drivers end up living in their leased cars. The best way to separate bullshit from fact is to observe how people are voting with their feet and their time vs what is reported and said. There sure are a lot of people who voluntarily choose to be Uber drivers.

    7. Re:Regular Taxi Service fears.. by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      Both could be true. Uber can be screwing people while taxi companies are trying to keep their comfortable status quo. There's also differences between markets - it's possible that taxi medallions in New York are an insurmountable barrier to free competition at the same time small-town Uber drivers are living below the poverty line.

    8. Re:Regular Taxi Service fears.. by radl33t · · Score: 1

      capitalism baby, where the amount of capital you control and your understanding of financial math determines how much and how many you can legally fleece with duplicitous business practices. Yehaw! Wild West Baby. Fair transactions are for idiots!

    9. Re:Regular Taxi Service fears.. by swb · · Score: 1

      I know it's a terrible way to negotiate a car *price*, but I often find myself thinking about some of these bigger ticket items in terms of cash flow and "how little can I pay per month?"

      There are some risks with this thinking, especially with depreciable assets with a limited lifetime, but there are times where I wish I could refinance my mortgage for a 50 year term just to cut the monthly payment down as low as possible to increase my cash flow here and now.

      I'm biased, because my mortgage is half paid and I figure even if only added another 5% in equity over the next 10 years the present value of the extra cash would be more valuable than the savings on interest payments, plus by the time I sell the overall appreciation in value will still result in getting my purchase price back in cash.

    10. Re: Regular Taxi Service fears.. by Cederic · · Score: 2

      Fortunately for us all there's a balance available between those two extremes.

    11. Re:Regular Taxi Service fears.. by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The beauty of the modern world is that you don't have to get math to be able to use it. There are lots of budgeting spreadsheets and websites available for free. You can just key in your expenses and your income, and it'll spit out how much you should expect to make/save or lose.

      The problem is, as OP said, we don't teach basic financial skills in high school. People who don't know how what a budget is won't even know to seek out one of these free services. I've been taking a few hours to teach these skills to my younger cousins and nephews/nieces as they get to high school because it's such an important skill that's so easy to grok, yet our school system completely ignores it.

    12. Re:Regular Taxi Service fears.. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Interesting side-note: if Uber drivers are contracted sub-businesses, why are they taxed like employees ? Uber drivers pay taxes, and have to cover expenses out of what's left - like salaried employees. They do not get money, pay expenses and are then taxed only on what's left - like businesses are.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  8. leasing a car from Uber sounds like the company st by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    leasing a car from Uber sounds like the company store days of the past where they lock you into the job and when the work slows down / something bad happens your on the hook to make the company full and you are not even an W2 worker.

  9. Showers by phorm · · Score: 1

    ok, so they get to use the restroom. How about showers?

    I'd imagine that after awhile, these Ubers probably don't smell so great.

    1. Re:Showers by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yet another reason why they're just like taxis and taxi drivers.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  10. Basic income by djinn6 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is why we need basic income. Nobody should have to live like that, especially people who are motivated and actively looking for more work.

    As a society, we have 3 options:
    1. 1. Ignore the problem as more and more people end up jobless, homeless, in the hospital or worse.
    2. 2. Impose minimum wage regulation, which doesn't fix the problem and makes the jobs disappear instead.
    3. 3. Give everyone what they need to live.

    Now which one is it going to be?

    1. Re:Basic income by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why we need basic income. Nobody should have to live like that, especially people who are motivated and actively looking for more work.

      He chose to quit the job he was currently in and drive for Uber instead. His biggest mistake is leasing a car from Uber. To be fair, Uber is in trouble currently for not meeting the advertised terms and conditions of the leases and it could be argued he was misled into believing he could easily pay off the lease at the rate they promised. However, you really shouldn't be driving for Uber unless you have your own car. And if he had his own car, he would have been better off keeping his original job and using Uber as a side job for extra cash. Of course, Uber nothing more than an illegal cab company exploiting poorer or disadvantaged people as a cheap labor force and skimming everything they can off the top.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Basic income by nasch · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure some combination of 1 and 2 until it gets so bad everyone can see we need to do 3. Given how things are going with climate change, I fear that it will be cities on fire bad before we make that change.

    3. Re:Basic income by adolf · · Score: 1

      4. Head in sand.

      5. Build a wall.

      6. Start a war.

      7. ???

      8. Profit!

    4. Re: Basic income by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He quit his day job to work for Uber. Basic income won't do a damn thing to prevent people from making stupid decisions. If anything, it will reward stupid decisions because failure effectively has no consequence.

    5. Re:Basic income by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How does basic income solve any problems long term? Won`t all prices just simply adjust due to market forces and we are back to square 1?

      Example: Rent in a rich nice area of town is $2000/month. Right now only lawers and doctors can afford that.

      Universal income comes in and gives everybody $5000/month. Now pretty much everybody can afford those apartments. There is an increase in demand but no increase in supply. So the monthly rent jumps from $2000 to $7000/month. Poor people can once again not afford those apartments.

    6. Re:Basic income by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      I'm a conservative, and you might be surprised but I'm all for your proposed basic income.*

      *as long as it is what it purports to be: a basic, living amount of $. ALL OTHER BENEFIT PROGRAMS END. There is no need for AFDC if people are getting a basic income. No need for welfare, no need for social security, no need for food shelves, no need for homeless shelters, no need for subsidized medical care. No subsidized student loans. We can stop subsidized public transport.
      If people then starve, freeze, whatever - then they die. They had the money to avoid it, if they were stupid or wasted it, then they suffer the complete consequences of those choices.

      It's far simpler, and I suspect economically positive for the country and taxpayers.

      Of course, I know that's not what you meant. Because if you advocate a basic income - which purportedly would eliminate extreme economic hardship - WITHOUT in turn eliminating all the programs that are in place specifically to do the same thing? Then you're just looking for another free-money handout.

      --
      -Styopa
    7. Re: Basic income by Ichijo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With a basic income, the consequence of failure will no longer be debt and homelessness, but there will always be an economic incentive to succeed.

      And you're correct that a basic income will reward stupid decisions, which means it will also eliminate a big part of the risk of starting a new business, and that would be a very good thing for the economy.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    8. Re:Basic income by dyeazel · · Score: 1

      How does higher minimum wage make jobs disappear?

      Salaries are a cost of doing business, just like heat, electricity, computers, etc. If a company cannot afford to pay its employees a living wage with health care, then that company should not survive. We as a country need to stop accepting this BS situation where companies make huge profits and their workers need foodstamps to survive.

      This as a great side effect: many conservatives who say "illegal" immigrants are stealing jobs from US citizens because they're willing to work for less. If we raise the minimum wage, more US citizens will take those jobs that formerly didn't pay enough, so the undocumented workers will have trouble finding work and be less likely to come here.

    9. Re:Basic income by Paco103 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's pretty simple. You can't make the UBI be comfortable for the 99%. It should be "enough to survive", not $5000/month. Switzerland tried that with a $75K year minimum and it was shot down at the polls in overwhelming numbers. That is way too much money, and the fact that until you find a job that exceeds that you get no benefit means very few people would have incentive to work. Even if I do make more than that, why would I work 40 hour weeks for 48+ weeks a year for a mere few thousand dollars extra? I sure wouldn't.

      But let's adjust that, lets give everyone the poverty level. Sure, maybe you can afford rent in a studio, or have a room mate. Maybe you can eat cheap, but you can't buy anything of luxury. Yeah, some people will take that one bedroom studio, ramen, and a bag of pot and an World of Warcraft subscription. Fine, they're out of the way and not committing crime, they weren't motivated to start with and arguably provide little value to society, and now they're out of the way and not resorting to crime for 'easy money'.

      But single mom Jane can now afford to go to school and just work part time. Poor orphan kid can go to school when he turns 18, instead of just being dumped on the streets to figure out life on his own because he aged out of the social care for children. Abused uber driver can afford to quit and get a better job. Incredibly smart but poor entreprenuer can afford to take time to build out his idea and make a million dollar business. Yes, these are all hypotheticals, but Finland is testing that right now. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/universal-basic-income-finland-ubi-test-scheme-experiment-a7211241.html)

      The thing is, a family father trying to provide for his family needs to see benefit from going to work as a janitor. Not everyone can be an engineer, and lets face it at some point even that job will be replaced by automation. Now he gets that UBI, but when he goes to work he still makes his family's life better. Sure, maybe he's taxed at 50%, but he still benefits, so he does a job that nobody else wants to do.

      Let's face it, all minimum wage is is a UBI that is only applied to people lucky enough to get jobs, and it encourages companies to not offer some jobs in the first place, or try to automate them away as fast as possible. And then by requiring benefits ONLY to people working over so many hours just ensures they don't let people work over that many hours, and hire 2 people instead of 1. Is it bad to spread the wealth over 2 people instead of 1? Probably not, for the executives of the world. 10 people making $100K is arguably much better than 1 person making $1 million and 9 people starving.

      In order to get to a UBI, the first thing we have to accept is that UBI doesn't mean you get everything taken care of. It means you can survive while you try to better yourself, or you can stay out of the way. We already do this with various food stamp, rent assistance, child care credits, and scholarships, but the problem is the beurocratic overhead, stigma, and it's hard to get everything to line up to where you can actually get out of the dependency loop. Yes people do it, but can we make things better? UBI might be a bad answer. Finland will tell us soon. Right now we're stuck in a loop of doing things the way we do them because that's the way we've always done them, and that may not be the right mindset.

    10. Re: Basic income by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I think we will have Basic Income one day. We have to, with more and more jobs being automated.

      The problem is, if you implement it too early all it will do is cause rampant inflation and everyone will be poorer. One day it will be needed, but I think it's still too early. We're not completely taken care of by machines yet.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    11. Re:Basic income by Paco103 · · Score: 1

      Sure, if it offered you a ridiculous income. I would too. But if it was just at the poverty level, maybe enough to have a cheap studio apartment and meals of peanut butter jelly and ramen, I would definitely keep my job. You probably would too. The catch is you have to find that line where it's a good safety net but still desirable and possible to benefit from additional work.

    12. Re: Basic income by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're assuming that his day job was a better alternative and that he was foolish to give it up. That's a pretty big assumption.

      And no, Basic Income won't stop people from making bad decisions about their work, but that was never the point. With a Basic Income, he could be a complete idiot who vastly undervalues his own labor and works for $1 an hour, and still not have to worry that he'll starve. It's not about protecting you from yourself, it's about ensuring that you can survive even if you are unable to negotiate sufficient payment for your time/labor to do so.
      You could argue that someone might still be an idiot and blow their Basic Income on strippers and drugs/booze, and then starve because they didn't have any money left for food, but there is NOTHING short of 100% state control that completely protect someone from their own idiocy.

    13. Re:Basic income by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      The problem with replacing all other benefit programs with a basic income is that, a basic income for a single person. ($12k enough to survive but not thrive?) would not work for some woman with 6 kids who's boyfriend has left her with all the kids. Those kids would starve.

      Yeah, you could say it's that woman's fault for getting pregnant so much, and you'd probably be right (especially if you put equal blame on the boyfriend) but it wouldn't be fair on the kids who were born to the shiatty parents in that situation! So unless basic income included extra money for the kids I wouldn't favour it replacing other benefits.

      At the same time, you don't want having kids to be a financial reward. Nowadays some people get pregnant just to get more money. You want to avoid that.

      Overall, I think it's probably too soon for basic income though. I think there are still enough jobs and enough people who can work, that all basic income would do is cause massive inflation.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    14. Re:Basic income by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      How does higher minimum wage make jobs disappear?

      Let's consider this. I'm an employer who is making a product that is priced at a point where people actually buy it. If I raise prices, I lose sales.

      Employees are a cost which is offset by the value they bring to the job. Unfortunately, the value they bring is, in this example, $12/hr. I pay them current minimum wage because by the time you include the other costs of that employee, you're up to $10/hr or more.

      Now increase the minimum wage to, say, $15/hr. Their cost is now already $3/hr higher than their value to the company, and that's ignoring the increased employment taxes to go with the increased wage. I can't increase my prices to cover the increased cost, I'll lose sales. I have several options. 1) add more automation, cutting jobs. 2) use fewer employees to do the same jobs, cutting jobs but paying the lucky few who get overtime more. 3) go out of business (your obvious choice considering the next statement you make), costing a lot of jobs. Notice the common thread in those options: fewer jobs. In no case would the answer be "hire more of the more expensive employees, creating jobs."

      If a company cannot afford to pay its employees a living wage with health care, then that company should not survive.

      What an awfully naive view of the world. It is a fact that some jobs are just not worth $15/hr because they don't return $30/hr in value to the employer. Some jobs truly are "entry level" jobs, providing work experience to inexperienced and untrained entrants to the workforce.

      We as a country need to stop accepting this BS situation where companies make huge profits

      We as a country need to stop accepting this BS assumption that all corporations make huge profits.

      If we raise the minimum wage, more US citizens will take those jobs that formerly didn't pay enough, so the undocumented workers will have trouble finding work and be less likely to come here.

      If you are employing illegal aliens to work for you, then you are already breaking the law and most likely not paying minimum wage now. Why do you think that those employers will start paying minimum wage when minimum wage goes to ridiculous levels? In fact, jumping minimum wage to the point that employers cannot make any profit at all were they to pay it means there will be a higher demand for an undocumented workforce, not lower.

    15. Re:Basic income by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Isn't part of what Basic Income means is that it eliminates all the other programs? So that cutting the administrators and program monitoring lowers the cost?

    16. Re:Basic income by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Hey, they'll need those tax breaks to afford the robots they're going to replace us with!

    17. Re: Basic income by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      We could eliminate the minimum wage when we implement basic income.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    18. Re:Basic income by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      The theory is that those 6 children would also be receiving the basic income too. The the mother would be getting $BasicIncome * 7.

    19. Re:Basic income by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      Now increase the minimum wage to, say, $15/hr. Their cost is now already $3/hr higher than their value to the company, and that's ignoring the increased employment taxes to go with the increased wage. I can't increase my prices to cover the increased cost, I'll lose sales. I have several options. 1) add more automation, cutting jobs. 2) use fewer employees to do the same jobs, cutting jobs but paying the lucky few who get overtime more. 3) go out of business (your obvious choice considering the next statement you make), costing a lot of jobs.

      You missed option 4) Accept a slightly lower profit margin on the things you sell.

    20. Re:Basic income by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      You missed option 4) Accept a slightly lower profit margin on the things you sell.

      If I lose sales, I start operating at a loss. If I pay more for employees I start operating at a loss. That puts me back in the first three options, all of which means fewer jobs.

      This ridiculous idea that every company is making huge profits and can afford to pay double for labor needs to stop.

    21. Re:Basic income by radl33t · · Score: 1

      Don't forget elimination or, for the bleeding hearts among us, prison-like housing arrangements.

    22. Re:Basic income by ghoul · · Score: 1

      The problem with UBI is if we replace food stamps and medicaid with UBI and the people just blow it on drugs and are then starving on the streets and filling up emergency rooms what do you do?
      UBI assumes all humans are basically good. Food stamps, rent assistance, medicaid assumes humans dont know whats good for them and need help in a way that they dont mess up.
      Added complication if you provide UBI you would have to adjust it for children and that is a motivation to just have children without planning.
      To make UBI successfull you would have to put so many checks on people's individual behaviour that you would be living in a nanny state. Scandinavia is already a nanny state so UBI makes sense there.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    23. Re:Basic income by operagost · · Score: 1

      as long as it is what it purports to be: a basic, living amount of $. ALL OTHER BENEFIT PROGRAMS END.

      Good luck with that. Hundreds of thousands of government employees who administer those programs would oppose it. No tax or government program ever goes away.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    24. Re:Basic income by ghoul · · Score: 1

      UBI accompanied by compulsory sterilization? Maybe with the existing system side by side so people in a short term ditch due to bad luck can use the existing systems and those who have no hope of getting out of the hole get sterlized and go on the UBI (and have the children taken away to foster care to avoid a bad example for the next generation)

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    25. Re:Basic income by MatthiasF · · Score: 1

      Please don't exaggerate. No one advocating basic income is asking for that much to be given out.

      Basic income is designed to help stop people needing to hold two or even three jobs to survive, not stop people from working entirely.

      The most reasonable amounts I have heard are pegged to the poverty level, such as 50-80% of the poverty line income (which is around $12,000 in the USA).

      That would equate to $500-800 a month given to everyone over 18, which is around 243 million people or $1.5 trillion every year.

      Also keep in mind that in a fiat reserve currency system like the USA, not all of that money needs to come from incoming tax revenues and would most likely increase tax revenues since most of the money being given out is going directly into the economy (and not high level banking instruments that only make the wealthy more powerful).

    26. Re:Basic income by operagost · · Score: 1

      You're assuming it isn't already wafer-thin, as it is in many industries like supermarkets and some restaurants. It's fun to always assume that business owners are rich robber-barons and there's always surplus profit to be skimmed.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    27. Re:Basic income by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure who isn't arguing that the whole inefficient bureaucratic overlapping-with-more-holes-than-a-sieve shit-tacular patchwork of welfare programs needs to be entirely replaced by basic income. BASIC income.

      I suspect that the average welfare recipient would get less when you give them basic income and take away their subsidized housing, social security disability, food stamps, other food benefits, other cash benefits, and all kinds of other income sources I'm probably missing.

      I'm sure I'm not the only person who's heard of or knows somebody who actually wants to work for a living but can't because they get more in benefits than they could possibly make at an entry level job. Usually the cases I'm familiar with are "career mothers" as I call them. Haven't worked in years and years and uneducated so they're not going to get anything other than an entry-level job.

      I'm also certain that as various jurisdictions play around with it, they won't cancel all the other programs. Basic income is being set up to fail for one reason: ALL THOSE FUCKING BUREAUCRATS!

      I don't know about you, but I'd rather my taxes go to making sure that people don't starve or freeze in winter as a matter of course rather than having a good chuck of tax money go to mindless dipshit bureaucrats. I know for a fact that some people who are unable to find work are actually very hard-working people. They're just not young or attractive enough to get work in today's increasingly increasing app-driven ever-modern world.

      I'm not certain the bureaucrats deserve to get the basic income, but I suppose we'd need to let them in the interests of not letting them employ themselves as bureaucrats checking whether somebody getting basic income was a bureaucrat when we decided to get rid of the bureaucrats.

      Surely you're not just bitching about the "free shit army," are you? I don't see where you get GP is looking for yet another handout.

    28. Re:Basic income by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As of 2014 there was 318,000,000 people in the USA. 76% of people in the USA are aged 18 or older. That gives us 241,680,000 adults in the US who could be eligible for a basic income. If we only paid them $1000 a month, that's $12,000 a year which is 2,900,160,000,000 (2.9 trillion dollars). How are we going to pay for a new social entitlement program that costs 2.9 trillion?

    29. Re:Basic income by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      If you get a full basic income per child, that would be bound to stimulate abuse though. I want a 6 figure income, just pop out a few more kids. There needs to be a careful balance so that enough income is provided to care for kids without encouraging abuse.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    30. Re:Basic income by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Option 4: learn basic economics and stop pretending that there's a big pot of "wealth" somewhere out there that the evil one percenters are keeping all to themselves.

      No one is making these guys do this to themselves. If they made a poor decision, then this article does a valuable service to society by publicising it. If you take the ouch out of bad decision making by subsidizing it with free money and free stuff paid for out of the pocket of people who make good decisions, then

      1. More people will make bad decisions out of ignorance
      2. Fewer people will feel the need to keep themselves on the straight and narrow and make good decisions
      3. The pie will get smaller for eveyone.

    31. Re: Basic income by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      False. The probability that a business will fail is not random chance; it is a function of the quality of the business plan, the product, the market need, and the capability of the business owner to follow through and execute. Investors who withhold capital from obvious stupid do so based on their judgement of these factors. Take away that signal, and you will have a lot more people who can barely string two thoughts together "starting a business," and thereby distorting the market for labor and capital. Not good.

    32. Re: Basic income by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I kind of doubt that. For homelessness in particular, it more comes down to supply of housing, not supply of money. If you give everybody a basic income, then only those with more than basic income will have housing.

    33. Re:Basic income by Falos · · Score: 2

      UBI tests so far have found that most people working kept working, and the "indulging" was families being social, spouses becoming housewives/spouses, one parent at home with kids, ect. These aren't conclusive signs of long-term UBIs, of course.

      I do actually anticipate rising costs alongside any UBI. Pretty much every job out there is an upwards cash vector, pretty much all your money goes back to the 1%, not your fellow John Does. Bills, car, mortage, insurance, services - how much goes to your neighbor? Anything taxed out will just promptly reconcentrate.

      The UBI proles will have enough for gray, colorless uniforms, for corn and soy cubes, for living in terrafoam. The world already revolves heavily around the race to the bottom, and we're going to take the absolute bedrock and subsidize it. If you want even the slightest luxury, if you want to eat a piece of fruit that grew out of state, you'll need one of the few jobs left. Musician, poet, literal cock-sucker, one of the few slots we haven't automated. Yet. The equivalent of Prolekistan's trivial level of tourism, the rounding-error trickle of GDP that remains after their only export, labor, evaporates.

      Unless you think we'll need billions of robot repairmen. Prolekistan should be fine, in that case. Otherwise, well, we all know what happens to countries with no exports.

    34. Re: Basic income by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Giving someone $2000 a month doesn't suddenly make them any better at money management.

      Actually, it does.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    35. Re:Basic income by Pfhorrest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the fact that until you find a job that exceeds that you get no benefit

      This is not true, or shouldn't be and doesn't need to be true.

      Let's say we set the basic income to 50% the mean wage (which would be about $25k/year basic income, or a little over $2k/mo), and fund it by a 50% tax on all incomes (which is more than offset by the basic income for about 75% of the populace who currently fall below that mean income). A homeless with no income thus suddenly has a free income of about $2k/mo. But every nominal dollar they earn on top of that, they still get to keep 50 cents of it. If they get a full time minimum wage job, that amounts to over $600/mo extra. If they get a full time median-wage job (around $25k), that amounts to around $1000/mo extra. On top of the basic income. By the time they're working a full-time mean-wage job (around $50k), they're making twice as much as the basic income, after basic income and the taxes they pay to fund it are factored in (and the basic income and the taxes they pay to fund it exactly cancel out in that case). And even at that point, there is still motive to continue working; if they make twice that again, they're still going to end up with yet another extra $1000/mo or so (compared to the mean income) after taxes and basic income are accounted for.

      If you were to make the basic income something more like $1000/mo, which is barely enough to survive off of in many places (that's slightly more than what my destitute mother's SSI pays), or about 25% the mean income (or half the median income), and fund that with a 25% additional income tax, then instead people would be able to keep 75 cents out of every dollar they earn, on top of their basic income.

      In any case, you'd have to set the basic income up in some kind of pants-on-head retarded way (like the way current welfare payments like SSI are set up) in order for it to not pay off to work unless you can get a job paying more than the basic income pays. Any sane way of doing it would provide incentive to work more at any income level. Yes, even the people making a millions per year: if the choice is between doing something that beings in another million of which you get to keep half or three-quarters or whatever, or not doing that and getting nothing at all, which do you think people are going to choose?

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    36. Re:Basic income by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      But let's adjust that, lets give everyone the poverty level. Sure, maybe you can afford rent in a studio, or have a room mate. Maybe you can eat cheap, but you can't buy anything of luxury. Yeah, some people will take that one bedroom studio, ramen, and a bag of pot and an World of Warcraft subscription. Fine, they're out of the way and not committing crime, they weren't motivated to start with and arguably provide little value to society, and now they're out of the way and not resorting to crime for 'easy money'.

      Actually, most UBI have the UBI set for a barracks style living - 8-10 people in a room in bunk beds, with a private locker to keep your stuff safe. Shared bathroom, shared dining with basic meal plan that gets you 3 decent square meals. Shared recreation area as well.

      As in you'll live, you won't starve, and you can choose to live like this, or choose to find some work. The work will give you extra month to which you can spend on a more private quarters (room mates but locked room), or a complete single room to yourself, locked of course. Work a bit more and you can take on the standard studio apartment, house, etc.

      If you want to sit on your ass all day watching TV, you can. But you'll find lots of people will quickly want to move out and into more traditional housing.

      Humans are lazy, yes, but humans also want comforts of life. Giving them the basics of living means they can seek employment that gives them the mix of living and working they want.

    37. Re:Basic income by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      And revocation of voting rights!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    38. Re:Basic income by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      So, no UBI!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    39. Re:Basic income by stinerman · · Score: 1

      The problem with UBI is if we replace food stamps and medicaid with UBI and the people just blow it on drugs and are then starving on the streets and filling up emergency rooms what do you do?

      I'm fine if they starve on a UBI. They can visit the local church soup kitchen.

      Medical care is a different story. No one has said that a UBI is meant to handle health care.

    40. Re:Basic income by Paco103 · · Score: 1

      Personally I think *most* humans are basically good, and I question whether the outliers are worth the energy expended on managing them.
      It's popular to assume that anyone living in the streets is there of their own poor choices. Why not make that more likely?
      Why do we have to control what they do with it? That's kind of the thing about a UBI, it gives the freedom back to the individual. Let's be real, as we have a more automated society, some people are not a positive net value to society. We either let them starve in the street, in which case they will resort to crime to survive, or we pay them to stay out of the way and play video games and do drugs. Some people will do nothing, but others will go to school, or write books, or start a lawn car service that provides income in the summer and
      I agree the children issue is complicated. I would say a good solution is not provide any allowance to a child under 18, or 16, or whatever arbitrary limit you set, but make school lunches free for all (if we have UBI already, why not?). UBI wouldn't disregard social services.
      Again I say ignore their behavior. I'm all about giving people opportunity, not controlling what they do with it. The problem I see now is so many people never have that opportunity, because they never get to build up the safety net to gamble on a job change or school. Even a change in jobs can sometimes result in such a large gap between last and first paycheck some people can't do it.

    41. Re:Basic income by Paco103 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely agree, this is why that proposal was so incredibly stupid. It's UBI only made up the difference between your salary and the proposed UBI, meaning if you earned less than the UBI, you got nothing. If you earned just a little more, then you got very little, and might as well give up your job to earn less. I can't find anything stating the salary I stated at $75,000, but I recall at one point reading one proposal that said that. I may have gotten that figure from a friend looking at a proposal with 2 adults and 2 kids vs his single salary home, where as a well paid engineer he still might as well stay home and play games rather than work. I absolutely agree that UBI would only work if many people would still see benefit to doing additional work. Unfortunately automation isn't to that point yet, so we still need people to do the boring work.

      I really enjoyed reading Manna, but it did just cover one extreme vs another, and at no point covered how a transition period might occur under the alternative, utopian view.

    42. Re:Basic income by Kjella · · Score: 1

      One of the issues is that UBI is different things to different people. Many argue that it will replace almost all other programs, but only if you want the high school dropout that'll take the "one bedroom studio, ramen, and a bag of pot and an World of Warcraft subscription" for a semester or two and lump him in with the faultless traffic accident victim who's fucked up pretty bad and has no realistic prospect of being employed ever again and will have to live at that level of poverty and zero additional aid for the rest of their lives.

      Or we could start making value judgements about who "deserves" our help, who are capable of contributing, who has contributed, who's looking to contribute and what help have they already gotten and then we're pretty much back to the complexity where we started. I already pay taxes. If you want to give me a "UBI" all you have to do is adjust the income tax curve, paying out a UBI and then taxing me more to pay for it is just an exercise in how to create black labor and tax fraud.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    43. Re: Basic income by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      What is your solution to people making stupid stupid decisions? Some people are just too incompetent at life to make good decisions. Should we have some labor protections and a welfare system such that they can still eek out a meager life? Or should we just let them freeze to death in the streets as a warning to others to be less stupid? A certain amount of nanny state is necessary to keep this from being hell.

      A lot of labor protections exist to keep people from exploiting the stupid and desperate. The argument for the morality of the free market is based on the principle that people should be allowed to agree to terms with the consent of all parties. Because freedom is good. Well, there is such a thing as an unconscionable contract. Minimum wage exists as a sort of arbitrary threshold for what is an unconscionable wage.

      Generally speaking, a more powerful person will have a stronger bargaining position and a desperate person will have a weak position. So, the more powerful person always wins concessions from the weaker party in any voluntary agreement. Labor rights exist to keep these concessions from becoming too large. No, you shouldn't be allowed to sell yourself into slavery. It doesn't just hurt yourself, but everyone who is in a similar situation to you.

    44. Re:Basic income by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      Most of the Western World has a net negative population growth (ignoring immigration), so it turns out some countries are already desperately paying people to have kids.
      http://www.npr.org/sections/mo...

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    45. Re:Basic income by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      That's not how it works. The poor won't flock to the $2000 a month places. And $5000 a month is $60,000 a year, which is well above any proposals for UBI.

      Sounds like you are lying to make UBI sound bad because you don't like it.

    46. Re: Basic income by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      I can guarantee you that if you guaranteed everyone, say, $20k/year, that landlords will get as close to that $20k/year as they can because they know that everyone will get at least that much.

      This is why the minimum wage should be eliminated at the same time. When people are getting only $1/hour for their labor, they will have a HUGE incentive to find a cheap place to live, because living cheaply will bring a far greater ROI compared to working than it does now.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    47. Re:Basic income by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Even if I do make more than that, why would I work 40 hour weeks for 48+ weeks a year for a mere few thousand dollars extra? I sure wouldn't.

      But others might. Just because you are a cat doesn't mean horses don't exist (go read Animal Farm, if you don't get the reference). WWII time, income tax was 90%+. Simply lump all income together (no capital gains tax separated out at a lower rate), eliminate deductions, and add more tiers in the income tax, and we'd be able to fund UBI in the US without great changes. Cut the military by 50%+, back to a defensive force, and move to single payer medical care, and we'd end up with a net tax cut, with a huge increase in benefits.

      The problem is that cutting taxes pisses off the Big Government Republicans, and cutting military pisses off Warmonger Democrats, so we get no progress.

    48. Re:Basic income by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The rate of drug use among welfare users is lower than Congress members. Despite the hate spewed by the 1%, the poor don't use drugs because they can't afford them.

    49. Re: Basic income by sjames · · Score: 1

      Easy to say when the problem hasn't reached you yet. Others are suffering now. It's like saying flood relief isn't needed yet because you're on the 3rd floor and only the 1st floor is under water.

    50. Re:Basic income by sjames · · Score: 1

      So it's binary or quantum? Pay $9.99 and all's well but pay $10 and you're bankrupt? I doubt that.

    51. Re:Basic income by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Let's consider this. I'm an employer

      Let's dispense with the thought experiments, and go with real-world data.

      WA raised it's minimum wage. ID did not. Fast food restaurants are a very labor-intensive businesses that heavily rely on minimum wage or near-minimum wage workers. As such, they bear the brunt of any minimum wage hike. And when you're talking about a fast food chain in an area like Eastern WA/Western ID, they have common suppliers and thus common costs for supplies.

      Before the minimum wage hike, the price of McDonalds food on both sides of the WA/ID border was about the same.
      After the minimum wage hike, the price of McDonalds food on both sides of the WA/ID border was about the same. And WA stores did not close.

      If you'd like a broader example, MN and WI had similar economies coming out of the 2008 recession. MN raised their minimum wage. WI did not. MN's economy is doing very well, WI's economy is not. Again, if the typical thought experiment on minimum wage was true, that would be impossible. The thought experiment would dictate the reverse happens.

      It turns out the giant hole in the usual thought experiment on minimum wage hikes is the assumption that all wages disappear into the ether. They don't. Instead they are usually spent, thus becoming some business's income.

    52. Re:Basic income by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Pay $9.99 and all's well but pay $10 and you're bankrupt?

      If you think the minimum wage debate is about paying $10/hr instead of $9.99/hr, then you are an idiot.

    53. Re: Basic income by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      A properly implemented basic income basically does nothing more than rescale the vertical axis of of an income distribution curve, centered on the mean income. A basic income of around, say, $1000/mo, would be around 25% of the mean income. To fund that and remain revenue neutral would thus require a 25% additional income tax (which would be more than offset by the basic income it's paying for for the vast majority of people). Those together have the effect of moving every point on a graph of income distribution to 75% of its previous distance (on the y-axis) from the mean income's position (on the y-axis). The total amount of money in the economy remains the same, the lineup of who is richer than who remains the same, the qualitative shape of the income curve remains the same, it just gets a little squished vertically. You didn't suddenly print a bunch of free money, you just shuffled it around a little bit. Why would that cause rampant inflation? Some people have more money to spend, sure, and others have a little less. The amount of money in circulation is the same. Whence the inflation?

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    54. Re:Basic income by dbIII · · Score: 1

      and the people just blow it on drugs and are then starving on the streets and filling up emergency rooms what do you do?

      You walk out of the cinema and into the real world where people would rather feed their kids than whatever sort of zombie apocalypse you are going on about.

    55. Re:Basic income by sjames · · Score: 1

      You're the one who claimed that any raise at all was going to ruin you rather than jusrt reducing your margins. I was just challenging the absolute nature of your claim.

    56. Re: Basic income by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      I think we will have Basic Income one day. We have to, with more and more jobs being automated.

      The problem is, if you implement it too early all it will do is cause rampant inflation and everyone will be poorer. One day it will be needed, but I think it's still too early. We're not completely taken care of by machines yet.

      If you wait until the richest have all the wealth and all the means of production (the robots) then it's too late. They already effectively own the government, so legislation is a no-go at that point. The rabble might try to revolt and do away with the 1% like they did in the french revolution, but once they see the killbot armies (and the killbot factories) of the rich they'll quickly lose their nerve. Currently, capital still needs labor so there is still some semblance of control, but once labor is replaced by AI and robotics the 1% no longer has any need for the 99%.

      --

      Enigma

    57. Re:Basic income by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      Just going to throw this out there: Majority of your retail and food service gigs run on a magical percentage that you have to keep as a manager. In all the places I've worked, labor percentages were to be somewhere between 10 and 15%. That would be the target market of your minimum wage employees. If a place is running on such razor thin margins that a slow increase of $5/hr over several years, the place is doomed anyways.

    58. Re:Basic income by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Finnland isn't the first to try it, there have been huge long-term experiments with this in the past, Canada's Mincome for example. They all showed massively positive results (and zero negative outcomes).

      They just didn't become law. Perhaps the most ridiculous one happened during Nixon's time. Nixon presided over the period when the results of a 10-year experiment from the war on poverty came in. The results were fantastic - the cities and towns where the basic income had been provided had seen their economies blossom, entrepeneurship went up, crime went down, employment rates skyrocketed, healthcare outcomes improved... it was all fantastic. Nixon was about to sign this into a national law... then some senator noticed that divorce rates had gone up hugely.
      The idea was dead there and then. Now think about that, what the senators and the president believed - what the divorce rates went up because UBI allowed battered women to kick no-good husbands to the curb... and they couldn't let THAT happen.

      The greatest irony of all - the divorce rates had not, in fact, gone up at all. The reported increase was a clerical error -literally a typo by the guy who typed up the report for the senate ! By the time the scientists learned what happened and protested the bill was already dead... and has been all but forgotten.

      There has been so many experiments with UBI -they've all been remarkable successes, but never yet has one gone from "excellent test" to "implemented", mostly because the rich people tend to get stroppy at the thought of not being allowed to be QUITE such big assholes. After all, if you measure your worth by how rich you are- you only HAVE worth if the poor are REALLY poor.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    59. Re:Basic income by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >The problem with UBI is if we replace food stamps and medicaid with UBI and the people just blow it on drugs and are then starving on the streets and filling up emergency rooms what do you do?

      Well it's a good thing that the hundreds of UBI long-term experiments world-wide has never shown that happening, and infact, consistently showed healthcare outcomes improving and healthcare costs going DOWN as a result.
      In fact, there was a British experiment that gave 2000 pounds each to a bunch of homeless alcoholics and drug addicts, just a one time dump of cash on a bunch of hobos. A year later they looked in on them... and nearly all of them had gotten completely clean, most had jobs, several were in trade schools... these people got the funding for the biggest bender in history, all of them were already addicts who had lost everything to their habits... and nearly all of them used that money to clean up and rebuild their lives.

      Your hypothetical problem, luckily, is entirely hypothetical and fully disproven by empirical data.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    60. Re:Basic income by Rande · · Score: 1

      Decriminalize most drugs. Then they can afford to use their drugs _and_ eat, and don't need to mug or rob anyone for their next fix.

    61. Re:Basic income by Rande · · Score: 1

      No, the kids would be getting a lesser rate. Something like $BasicIncome*(AgeOfChild/18).

    62. Re:Basic income by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Let's say you don't really need the UBI at all. Perhaps in many years you could find yourself unemployed, even if that's unlikely, for unforeseen reasons.
      Let's say you have a mortgage and savings, and so by then it about cancels out. So your mortgage is paid off basically and UBI somewhat barely pays the property tax and bills. I'm not referring to your very own personal situation nor do I wish to inquire about it ; I'm saying it could work as a safety net, just as it does for the lower income people. Although I guess you'd be the sort of people to plan around it and the banks would know it. So, the banks might allow successful people to pile up yet more debt and thus claim the safety net for themselves lol.

      Maybe I should have more optimistic thinking and think less of disaster scenarios, but I remember there are tales of people driving a fancy SUV to the food banks. I guess they're decently well dressed too. They had a smartphone (this was a few years ago), perhaps this was happening in France and on the French web but might be the US and US web, anyway an outraged pseudonymous person was bitching about all the "well off" people abusing the solidarity intended for real poor people. The infamy! except the SUV had no resale value, a phone has more use value than resale value as well, and these were obviously people in deep shit, with likely way more negative worth than lazy asses can ever accrue in their lifetime :).
      So, I for one welcome dressed up people with SUV (and families) to show up at food banks or soup kitchens, lol.

      If you want to give me a "UBI" all you have to do is adjust the income tax curve, paying out a UBI and then taxing me more to pay for it is just an exercise in how to create black labor and tax fraud.

      I did have an opposite thought, from the other side of the spectrum. Let's say I'm a modest entrepreneur, or get a huge confidence boost from the UBI and create my business/gig/whatever (I think people in their early 20s from a bourgeois family have plenty self-confidence when running a small gig). I then have a lot less pressure to rely on black labor for survival.

      This might depend a lot on the nature of the business : I could be building barbecues in hard concrete in people's yards, get paid in cash 80% of the time and not get caught. But if my business relies on Uber-like platforms, getting paid on Paypal, ordering a lot of stuff from the Internet etc. then I'm creating a lot of electronic paper trails with my real name and address, or vulnerable proxies like accounts and emails, and I fear being caught. Perhaps I get caught instantly, if the tax services simply ask the Uber-like service for a list of all transactions. Hence with UBI, I might conduct much declared business (even if it adds up to something pretty modest) if I know I have the basic food, shelter and Internet covered.

      I can very much understand what you're seeing from your end. Create more taxes which can be "optimized" while you get to keep the UBI they were supposed to pay for. I had never heard of that, thanks.

    63. Re: Basic income by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Indeed there is much lecturing that says "start a business, fail, then fail again, then keep up and be successful!"
      Exactly the same, just for people from a "good family".

      Like, it's the American way of life or something.
      The awesome part is how many dispositions already exist : when people have revolutionary great new ideas, it's often already been implemented in some form for 30 years, 50 years or 100 years. In that "line of business", you have tax write-offs and bankruptcy. Then it's private family assistance : get a free stay in 5000 sq. ft house or mansion as long as you want, lawyer uncle and/or cousin can help you, whatever.
      But if you have none of that you might eventually fall back on foods stamps and medicaid (food stamps are merely pitiful and with too many roadblocks). Pitiful is the world, "food stamps" makes it feel like WW2 (even though you didn't have WW2 on your soil) or some poor Sci-Fi dystopia setting like 1984 movie, Soylent Green, Half-Life 2's intro. Duh.

    64. Re: Basic income by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      *word

    65. Re:Basic income by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      You're the one who claimed that any raise at all was going to ruin you

      I made no such claim, and you truly are an idiot.

    66. Re:Basic income by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Hilariously, said candidate wants France to imitate the US, in pursuing oversea citizens - if US people live in a country where they didn't pay as much as they would pay in the US, you get them to pay what's missing to the US treasury. That would apply to French overseas citizens paying what they didn't pay to the French treasury.

      Currently the US is the only country that taxes non-resident citizens (or at least was, last I read up on the subject). The Fair Tax, and many others are replacements would eliminate that.

      Yet I'm *relieved* that Trump won and not the other option. It was that bad, Cthulhu would have been the lesser evil.

      I blame the Democrats. They should have run Sanders (or Michelle Obama, if they really wanted a female). But they decided they'd rather nominate Hillary and lose the election than nominate anyone else. Hillary *caused* Trump. Hillary was a plant by Trump to get Trump elected. He's been friends with the Clintons for decades, and encouraged Hillary previously. It was all to get elected against her. She was in the race before he was. If she didn't run, he would have waited 4 more years for her to run. It was all a long-con by Trump, and Hillary was the idiot patsy. If she stepped down when the polls showed her losing, Bernie would have won.

      The two most hated candidates in history ran against each other.

    67. Re:Basic income by Altrag · · Score: 1

      So your preference is for people to rob you to buy your drugs?

      Shitty people will be shitty no matter what system you give them. And its been shown many times over that an improved quality of life tends to lower things like drug dependency issues even though the people in question could afford the drugs far more easily.

      Not that rich people don't do drugs of course, but they tend to have a purpose in life beyond just getting high and that tempers the effect somewhat (not to mention they can afford better/safer drugs which is why cocaine is a "rich" drug while crack is most definitely not, even though the active ingredient is exactly the same.)

      As the GP said, a UBI would, at least in theory, put people who are going to suck under any system the ability to do so a bit further under the radar so that the rest of us can go about our lives in peace. It won't fix everything (and likely nothing will) but it would go a long way toward helping some of the worst things we currently see in society.

    68. Re:Basic income by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Drug use among people receiving government assistance is rather low. Drugs are something of an expensive luxury, after all.

      Also, no reasonable UBI can replace Medicaid, as medical expenses can be appallingly high if someone gets unlucky, and the only way to get individual medical insurance that won't kick you out when you really need it and will cover any pre-existing conditions is the ACA, and that's getting trumped.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    69. Re:Basic income by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In the US, the biggest thing keeping people on welfare is medical care. If you've got a kid with health problems, you will do anything you can to get care for that kid, including finding ways to stay on welfare.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    70. Re: Basic income by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If there's demand for housing that has money behind it, and a UBI will supply the money, there will be housing. There are places that are very restricted in building new housing (San Francisco and Juneau, to name two), but most places can build more as they need it. There can be lots of short-term friction, but in the long run it's a competitive market, and people are not going to leave money on the table by not providing low-end housing for UBI folks.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    71. Re:Basic income by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You seem to think that giving people money is an instant solution to all problems. There will be lots of people who need additional temporary help.

      no need for subsidized medical care.

      What have you been smoking and how can I get some? No feasible UBI will cover health care the way the US has it set up. College education is the same way here. You're effectively suggesting that UBI recipients can forget about acquiring more valuable skills or, for that matter, staying alive when medical problems show up.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    72. Re:Basic income by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Employees aren't usually paid according to their contributions, but rather according to their replacement cost. If you're getting $20/hour* net benefit from a minimum-wage employee, you're not going to pay the guy $15/hour if you can always hire another one easily for $10/hour. Raising the minimum wage will remove some jobs, but the increased spending can create enough economic activity to create new higher-paying jobs.

      *Yes, I'm doing an easy special case. I know there are additional costs involved. It's just easier to show the basic ideas if we consider spherical employees of uniform density who are in a frictionless vacuum for a workplace.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    73. Re:Basic income by sjames · · Score: 1

      I guess you have a memory issue. Look back up where it was suggested you might accept a slightly lower margin and how you replied.

    74. Re:Basic income by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      For starters, it would be literally impossible to give a basic income of $5000/mo in the United States. That's about 120% of the GDP per capita, which means that you would have to take 120% of the GDP in taxes just for the basic income, which of course is not possible because you can't take more money than there is, even if there were no other taxes at all and we were completely redistributing all income. Even in that just-mentioned scenario, which is still patently absurd, the absolute most you could give in a basic income, while shutting down the entire rest of government and making everyone's income exactly equal, would be around $4000/mo.

      Probably the most that anyone would possibly accept -- and the figure I think would be ideal, but I don't expect to see -- would be about half of the mean income, or about $2000/mo, which incidentally is also around the median income, meaning that under such a scheme nobody would fall below what's currently the 50th percentile of incomes. A much more likely scenario is something more like a quarter of the mean income, or around $1000/mo, which is close to what existing welfare programs like SSI currently pay, which would mean nobody would make less than half of what's presently the median income, which is barely livable in many places, and just above the poverty line (and, incidentally, also happens to be around the mode income right now, where the most people's income falls).

      That all said: all you're doing is shuffling around the money, not adding in new money, and in any sane way of doing it (pay x% of the mean income and fund it with a flat x% tax) it wouldn't even change the ordering of who's richer, or the qualitative shape of the curve; it just scales the curve on the y-axis, centered on the value of the mean income. That means that some people at the very top are less able to to afford the highest rents (and $2000/mo is barely affordable by someone barely in the top 20% of incomes), and those prices would come down in consequence. And yes, the prices of the cheaper places would likely come up too, for the reasons you give; more demand, no change in supply. (Although supply does change in response to demand, and this would lead to more lower-cost housing being built instead of more higher-cost housing, which would also be a benefit). But as a result, the difference between a cheap place and an expensive place is lower, and the difference in effective incomes between the poor people living in the cheap places and the rich people living in the expensive places is smaller, which means that it is easier to change, by your other life choices, whether or not you can afford the expensive place. And that is the whole point of this exercise, to make moving from poor to rich (or vice versa) less a matter of scaling (or falling off) a sheer cliff, and more a matter of climbing up (or down) some stairs. The slope from poor to rich, as represented on a graph of income distributions, is literally less steep, and so figuratively much easier to climb.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    75. Re:Basic income by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2

      Because the minimum wage is a law enforced upon you and your competitors, your competitors' costs go up as well, meaning their prices have to go up too (or they go out of business), meaning there is less competitive pressure forcing you to keep your prices low or else lose sales, and so you don't necessarily lose sales by raising your prices in response to the minimum wage. The overall market price of your product goes up.

      Which in general would mean that demand for it would also go down, which isn't necessarily bad for you but would be a social ill as fewer people could afford the product... except the available money to your customer base (who are also employees or someone, now making more from the minimum wage increase) has gone up too, so they can afford it at the higher price.

      The only people who lose are the people who make more than minimum wage, whose costs go up without a commensurate increase in income... except that other wages do generally increase in response to minimum wage increases, but not uniformly across the board, rather in proportion to their distance from minimum wage; someone making $15/hr now is much more likely to see a wage increase in response to the minimum wage going up to that than someone already making $50/hr is.

      So the overall effect of the minimum wage increase is to increase net costs for the few people at the very top and decrease net costs (i.e. increase net income) for the many people at the very bottom, which means that on the whole more people have more money to spend, increasing economic activity, increasing overall wealth, and of course increasing the wellbeing of the vast majority of people, at a barely noticeable expense to a few people who can really afford not to care that the top (they're still at) isn't quite as far from the bottom as it used to be.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    76. Re:Basic income by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I guess you have a memory issue. Look back up where it was suggested you might accept a slightly lower margin and how you replied.

      I know exactly how I replied and it has nothing to do with a minimum wage changing from $9.99/hr to $10/hr. The 'reduced margin' refers to profit margin not a 'reduced margin' increase in minimum wage.

      I guess you have a reading comprehension issue, or a bug up a part of your anatomy.

    77. Re:Basic income by sjames · · Score: 1

      If you can't understand how those are two sides of a coin, you have a thought disorder.

      If labor costs go up, your response is some combination of increased prices and accepting reduced profits. You claim there exists no non-disastrous combination of those for any increase in wages.

      I can understand why you might want to walk that back a bit, but calling others idiots and claiming you never said such a thing isn't the way to do it.

    78. Re:Basic income by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Dont give the child's Basic Income to the mother. Give it to the foster parents who take care of the child. No more motivation to pop out babies.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    79. Re:Basic income by ghoul · · Score: 1

      A UBI gets its efficiencies by abolishing all govt hierarchies including medicaid, medicare. UBI believes people know whats best for them so if they want to use the BI money on community college tuition and take a chance by not having health coverage they should be able to . This is contrary to our current society where we do not want people to die because they cant pay for health care.
      If you start making compromises with UBI you end up with a mix of medicaid, food stamps, section 8 and EITC basically what we already have.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
  11. Hours-of-Service Safety Regulations uber does not by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hours-of-Service Safety Regulations uber does not give a dam about them but what will happen when an uber driver falls asleep at the wheel and does big damage?

  12. London Too by monkeyxpress · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I live in central London and we have a similar situation with food delivery bike riders. A couple have a very organised camp setup at a local church park. Another sleeps every morning at my wife's gym (where I presume he has discovered a membership is far cheaper than rent). I don't think I've ever seen a situation where there were so may people working yet homeless. There was a story in the paper recently about a guy who got a job at a pub that opened till 3am, and would then wonder around until one of the train stations opened at 5am so he could go in and sleep.

    I just cannot see how this situation can continue. I don't think I could personally stand visiting the big empty homes of rich people to deliver them overpriced takeaways every night, while knowing that I'll never be able to buy a home of my own anywhere on the wages I'm earning. At some point surely these people will realise they outnumber the rich they are delivering meals for, and something is going to happen?

    1. Re:London Too by Alumoi · · Score: 1

      Perhaps now you'll realize why army and police jobs earn enough to make a living. The praetorian guard was alway paid more than the peasants.

    2. Re:London Too by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      That's not entirely true, you can own a gun in the UK- most people can't own concealable handguns, but sporting guns you can. The guns that are allowed are tightly regulated.

      The result: very low gun crime. I've often thought the US should follow a similar policy. Most gun crime is committed by people with concealable handguns. You don't have to ban guns completely, you can have a right to bare arms, maintain an armed citizenry that can protect itself, without completely banning guns.

      If you ban handguns, you eliminate most of the crime.

      The purpose most people state for right to bare arms, is so that the government can't run rough-shod over the people. If that's true, if you're going to mount an insurrection, you're going to want to do it with rifles, not small handguns.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:London Too by operagost · · Score: 1

      The guns that are allowed are tightly regulated.

      Yeah-- you can't have them in London and certainly not without being a member of a shooting club WHICH COSTS DUES.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:London Too by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

      I'm in an outer London suburb - and a fairly wealthy one at that ("leafy Tory suburbia" pretty much nails this place). Back at the start of December, a huge number of Deliveroo drivers started congregating on the market street every evening, and then drifting off to a nearby park as the night goes on. It's not quite become a permanent encampment yet, but it's well on its way. From what I've observed, very few of these guys have more than a few words of English. It doesn't really feel like a healthy situation for anybody.

      There's only one local takeaway that I use and it's an old-fashioned one that still employs its own driver. For all I know, he's horribly downtrodden and oppressed, but at least he's not part of that slightly creepy pale-green army.

    5. Re:London Too by erapert · · Score: 1

      Nobody is fucking with "you".
      If you don't like your situation in life then go do something else, go somewhere else, go live some other way, go do something else for a living.
      Yes, that might mean you have to farm your own food and live in a hut.
      Robbing someone else isn't the answer.
      Even if they're selfish, even if they were mean to you, it's still wrong to rob them or assault them.

    6. Re:London Too by Cramer · · Score: 1

      (a) There never has been a very high rate of gun crime in the UK, ever. (b) Banning them doesn't magically make them no longer exist. (hint: there are plenty of handguns across the UK. Some of them are in the hands of criminals.) (c) It's a well established fact, criminals don't give a shit about your laws.

    7. Re:London Too by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes, that might mean you have to farm your own food and live in a hut.

      Not possible in a lot of places. Shantytowns get knocked down.

    8. Re:London Too by mjwx · · Score: 1

      That's not entirely true, you can own a gun in the UK- most people can't own concealable handguns, but sporting guns you can. The guns that are allowed are tightly regulated.

      The result: very low gun crime. I've often thought the US should follow a similar policy. Most gun crime is committed by people with concealable handguns. You don't have to ban guns completely, you can have a right to bare arms, maintain an armed citizenry that can protect itself, without completely banning guns.

      If you ban handguns, you eliminate most of the crime.

      The purpose most people state for right to bare arms, is so that the government can't run rough-shod over the people. If that's true, if you're going to mount an insurrection, you're going to want to do it with rifles, not small handguns.

      This, guns are controlled in the UK, not banned. You need to be licensed and firearms registered, just like cars which are per use, less dangerous than firearms.

      Also when it comes to modern revolutions, you are pretty much entirely dependent on the military, in part or in whole, being part of the revolution. Without this you only end up with situations like Waco which only end in the favour of the government.

      You're also entirely correct about guns and cirme. When guns are controlled, crime is also reduced. I live in the UK, the worst thing I worry about are my car being broken into when I'm not there. If someone were to attack me with a bat or knife, I know how to defend against that unarmed (I also know how to take a gun off someone, but that is mainly for shits and giggles). Although conventional wisdom says, if you're in a knife fight you're going to get cut I can say I prefer the notion of having to nurse a few lacerations compared to a gunshot wound. Much higher chance of surviving a stab wound than a 9mm, especially since you can block a knife with your arm and only get a slash there.

      If I lived in a place with an abundance of guns I wouldn't be so unconcerned with the potential for being attacked... And having a concealed weapon is no defence when an attacker will already have a gun pointed at you. As any shooter knows, you always treat a gun as being loaded and locked (yep, I've owned guns). This is because the criminal will get the jump on you and it's not like you can say "excuse me Mr Crim, could you not shoot me whist I pull my own gun out", fuck no, if even look like going for a weapon you're brown bread mate.

      Finally there will be gun control in America.. about 10 seconds after the rich feel threatened by the peasantry. That's more or less much how it happened here in the UK in the 1900's and 20's, the irony is we aren't any less free than you (we just have less crime and fewer gun deaths). Go back and see my point about revolutions and Waco, your AR15 is no threat to criminals or the government.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    9. Re:London Too by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think that it was just a long-winded restatement of, "Let them eat cake."

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    10. Re:London Too by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In the US, I can make a much better argument that banning handguns is Constitutional than I can that banning modern automatic weapons is.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re:London Too by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Yes, that was my partially my point. For the spirit of the constitution (well regulated militia) that suggests an armed populace, and is believed to be intended as a deterrent to government abuse. Hand guns aren't going to scare the military.

      You'd save more lives banning hand guns then you would banning automatic weapons too. Sure, you wouldn't stop the mass shootings where automatics are frequently used, but the mass shootings are really an anomaly and make up a very tiny fraction of gun crime... it's just the crime that the media likes to focus on. Most gun crime is committed using smaller hand guns.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  13. Re:I don't even like Uber but by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Yeah, fuck you. ...

    Seriously, was that animosity necessary?

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  14. the cognitive dissonance between hype and reality. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    marketing: our billion dollar business idea is to empower the gig economy with a system that frees them from the shackles of the traditional labour paradigm by allowing drivers to work their own hours on their own terms. the government hates us because we're revolutionary disruptors of traditional capitalism
    Reality: live out of a parking lot, subsist on slurpees and hotdogs, work more hours than you ever imagined, get sick, die somewhere conveniently outside any media scrutiny of your employe...er..i mean, app.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  15. Re:I don't even like Uber but by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "I left my job thinking this would work, and it's getting harder and harder," Howard said. "They have to understand that some of us have decided to make this a full-time career." Howard

    Yeah, fuck you. The world doesn't owe you anything and even Uber's own ad campaigns bend over backwards to emphasize that this is supposed to be a side gig to make some extra money.

    No, fuck you. It doesn't matter if Uber insist that it's supposed to be a side gig. If they're willing to let people work full time then they should be willing to pay full time wages. If someone's working 40 hours per week then they shouldn't be sleeping in their car out of exhaustion because they're struggling to pay their bills. Nobody who works full time should live in poverty. Period.

    I can't believe that so many people have been conditioned into thinking that poverty is something that's okay to inflict on people for making a non-glamorous career choice. If a business can't afford to pay its workers enough to get by on, it shouldn't be in business.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  16. Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Poor people who believe they can make the same living as their parents and grandparents with the same skillset. Yeah, your grandpappy could afford to buy a house, 2 cars, and raise 3 kids by swinging a hammer all day but that's over. Driving a car is not much of a "skill" anymore. Soon it won't even be a job for people anymore. Computers will do it for much cheaper. That's called progress. 70 years ago people assembled automobiles by hand. Now it's mostly robots. Same for driving.

    I was the first in my family to go to college and graduated over 20 years ago. There was no way my parents were going to let me loose without ensuring that I had some form of education or at least some non trivial skills that I could use to make a living. If I hadn't gone to college they would have sent me to a vocational program. I am doing the same thing with my kids.

    Idiots who thing they can stand against the tide of progress will be swallowed by it.

    1. Re:Progress by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      Yeah, your grandpappy could afford to buy a house, 2 cars, and raise 3 kids by swinging a hammer all day but that's over.

      Actually, skilled construction trades are one of the few blue-collar jobs that are still viable, and will likely continue to be. It's impossible to outsource, and the situations are so dissimilar it's hard to automate. They tend to make good money (over 50k a yaer).

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Progress by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      For a while maybe... I was running some Pex plumbing and was shocked at how easy it was compared to copper. May not be far enough off where the machines can poop out other building materials you can snap together as well as traditional materials, either.

    3. Re:Progress by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Hey, isn't that what H-1B is for??

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

      Poor people who believe they can make the same living as their parents and grandparents with the same skillset.

      It's not even that. Children grow up today expecting the things they are used to having, ignoring the fact that their parents had to work a long time to get those things. They don't understand that their parents probably lived in an apartment, saving for the down payment on a house for years before the kids were born. And probably the kids being born was a driving factor in actually getting a house. The kids grow up, move out, and expect to be able to buy a house right away.

      Some of that is due to the ridiculous notions of "a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage" and that owning a house is some natural right. This is what led to banking regulations that forced banks to make loans to people who had no way to pay them back, and we know how that turned out.

    5. Re:Progress by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Home repair is getting easier for untrained people, but the big money for building trades is in new housing and major remodels. The latter require building permits and code inspections, which will always remain the baliwick of the construction trades simply because housing codes won't allow amateurs to do major work.

      When amateurs do undocumented major construction projects you wind up with issues like the homeowners who bought a property with a small cottage in the back yard who wanted to improve it. Turned out there were no permits and no code inspections, and the cottage was too close to the property line AND was build on top of the city sewer lines.

    6. Re:Progress by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Yes, and plumbing tends to require a trade education as well. It's not work I want to do (as a career, as a hobby, I enjoy carpentry)

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:Progress by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are about 1.5 STEM graduates for every entry-level STEM job opening in the US.

      Even making the "right" choice and getting an education is no guarantee of a successful future. No matter how much parents push it as a magic bullet.

    8. Re:Progress by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Pay attention to how 'they' redefined STEM about 5 years ago. You are repeating a statistical lie.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Progress by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      And you would define STEM as.............?

    10. Re:Progress by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Children grow up today expecting the things they are used to having

      In other words, kids are just like they've been for centuries. What's changed is that most children can't expect to do as well financially as their parents did.

      There were no banking regulations enforcing bad loans. There were banking regulations forcing banks to use uniform criteria. There were lots of banks that thought that a mortgage that was certain to be defaulted on was an asset, and apparently no regulations or common sense to say that a loan that will lose money will not in the end make money (it could be profitable in the short run because idiot investment bankers would pay actual money for bad loans).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re:Progress by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      In other words, kids are just like they've been for centuries.

      No, not really. It's been relatively recent that "chicken in every pot" and "everyone should be able to afford a house" has taken over.

      There were no banking regulations enforcing bad loans.

      You are completely ignorant of the purpose and the result of the Community Reinvestment Act and all following legislation regarding it, then. The CRA was federal law that brought strict federal oversite to banks and who and how they made loans. It is the CRA and similar legislation that "community activists" used as bludgeons to force banks into essentially removing financial considerations in approving loans.

      Remember the term "redlining"? It was the term used against banks who didn't approve enough loans in certain parts of the community. You know, like a low income part of town where there was a high percentage of people who really couldn't afford a home loan so they were being turned down. But the CRA and federal regulators prohibited such statistical anomalies, and that's how the legislation was enforced. Nobody looked at the individual loans that were approved or turned down to see why, it was a percentage game. The percentage of previously ineligible borrowers didn't change, but the percentage of loans had to go up. (And this is exactly the same way that Title IX "violations" are determined. If you don't have the same percentage of boys and girls playing sports in your high school, you are in violation. It doesn't matter if the girls don't want to play sports. It doesn't matter if you have to cancel boys sports to make the numbers balance, just as long as the numbers balance.)

      Why do you ignore the fact that a loan officer who was presented with an application from someone who had little or no down payment, no steady income, and little prospect for future income was pressured into approving the loan to keep the feds off the bank's back? Do you REALLY think that banks wanted ARMs where they got almost no return on the money and every likelyhood that when the balloon came due they would be stuck with a foreclosure? If you do, then you really don't understand why banks make loans in the first place.

      There were lots of banks that thought that a mortgage that was certain to be defaulted on was an asset,

      Oh, don't be stupid. Banks didn't want loans that they knew would go into default. It costs a lot of money to clean every one of those loans up. They LOSE money on those loans. They only reason they BECAME an asset was because they were forced to make those loans and because that money was tied up in the loan they couldn't make other, better loans. They had to sell the bad loans. It's an OBVIOUS result of making bad loans. Everybody but Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd knew this, and I suspect that they knew but didn't care. Remember, Frank is the fellow who claimed there was no problem in FNMA well after everyone with a brain saw how the market was collapsing, and Bush wanted to put regulations in place to limit the impact.

      You might want to read up on the situation. "Architects of Ruin" by Peter Schweizer covers it pretty well. If you really want to know what happened.

    12. Re:Progress by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      "Chicken in every pot" is older than I am. "Everyone should be afford to own a home" is at least as old. I hit Social Security full retirement age in three years. You have no sense of history.

      During the mortgage bubble, mortgage companies sprang up that would issue a mortgage and immediately sell it to someone. They weren't picky about who they issued mortgages to, because they could sell each and every one. This means that banks were deliberately buying bad loans of their own free will.

      I was a contractor for the home mortgage division of General Motors for a couple of years, working on modeling. They weren't interested in cashflow on a loan, but a complicated formula that assumed a lot of defaults. Since housing prices would continue to go up, it would be possible to take foreclosures as they came and on the average sell the house for enough to cover any losses, right?

      I don't really care to acquire and read a book when it's pushed on the grounds that what I saw with my own eyes is false.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:Progress by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      "Chicken in every pot" is older than I am. "Everyone should be afford to own a home" is at least as old.

      Both are relatively recent, especially when you are claiming "centuries".

      You have no sense of history.

      'A chicken in every pot' was a 40's or 50's concept. "Everyone owns a house" is an 80's or so concept, supported by the CRA and other legislation dealing with banks and loan practices.

      During the mortgage bubble, mortgage companies sprang up that would issue a mortgage and immediately sell it to someone.

      Of course they would. They have to have the money to loan if they are going to make loans. If all their money is tied up in existing loans, what money do they loan out?

      This means that banks were deliberately buying bad loans of their own free will.

      Right. Because the CRA didn't exist.

      They weren't picky about who they issued mortgages to,

      Right. As an obvious consequence of the CRA and legal atmosphere of the times. To claim that banks were loaning so they could foreclose is just ridiculous. Foreclosures are one of the most expensive ways of making money. It's much cheaper to make good loans at a reasonable rate and get all your money plus interest back without having to go through all the legal hassle of a foreclosure and hope you can resell the property.

      I don't really care to acquire and read a book when it's pushed on the grounds that what I saw with my own eyes is false.

      GM isn't a bank. What you saw with your own eyes was exactly in line with CRA requirements that the banks were being saddled with. But you have to know that the CRA and other regulations exist before you would know that.

    14. Re:Progress by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      "Everybody should be able to afford to buy a house" is a lot older than the 80s, although the definition of "everybody" has changed. However that's not what I meant by centuries: for centuries children have had reason to expect that they'd do at least as well as their parents. This has changed fairly recently.

      The CRA covered approving loans, not buying them. If mortgage companies were able to sell dubious loans, it was because banks were buying them. Many of these were investment banks, who didn't really need to worry about the CRA. When institutions that are not under any regulatory pressure are buying NINJA mortgages, something's seriously wrong with how people are running the financial system.

      And, yes, foreclosures are expensive, but that doesn't mean much if housing prices are rising rapidly. Assuming it costs $20K, figure that the bank makes a NINJA mortgage for $200K, and forecloses when the house is worth $250K. The bank comes out all right. So, since housing prices will continue to rise, this isn't a real problem, right?

      Nobody at GMAC-RFC was interested in the cash coming on on loans. I added that to the financial model myself, and nobody else ever looked at it. If they had wanted some summary of what was likely to happen with mortgage payments, they would have used it. (Another issue is that the model has no provisions for underwater loans, since those weren't happening in the period they were mining data from.)

      What they were doing was selling off the income streams as tranches, meaning that the top quarter (or fifth or whatever) of performing loans would be in the top tranche, and the bottom quarter in the bottom tranche. The bottom tranche wasn't worth much, but the other ones were. It reminded me of complicated gambling systems that ignore the fact that the expectation of the sum is equal to the sum of the expectations, or, simply, you can't combine losing bets to get a winning system. They were taking NINJA loans, chopping them into tranches with credit default swaps, and actually selling them and making money. When the music stopped around 2008, whoever was holding the mortgage suddenly lost.

      This was combined with systems for evaluating deals that made a range of predictions, and were rewarded according to an expectation that didn't include the risks of low probability. Any ambitious trader, being evaluated by such a system, would structure things to make as much money as possible with high probability, and pushing as many negative outcomes as possible so they'd be concentrated in the low 1% or 5% or whatever. If outcomes had been independent, that might have worked. When the mass defaults started, the worst-case consequences started happening all over the place.

      It should be clear that the CRA was not the cause of the collapse, since institutions that weren't affected by it were fully in. It may have contributed in some manner, but it didn't cause the feeding frenzy where any up-and-coming dealer that dealt only in loans of positive value would at best get bad job reviews for underperformance.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  17. "They" don't have to understand anything by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm always amazed when I hear stuff like this. People really believe that other people will treat them right when a) it's not in their interests and b) they're not being forced.

    When I tell people I'm a socialist one of the responses is: "Well, are you gonna force people?". Yes. Yes I am. This is civilization. You don't get to say 'no' to civilization. Just like you don't get to say no to the polio vaccine. That's because your actions do not happen in a vacuum. They don't just hurt you, they hurt me too.

    So yeah, I'm gonna force Uber to pay a living wage or go out of business. I'm gonna force everyone to give everyone else health care (aka "single payer"). Because that's civilization. We're all humans. We're all valuable. Yes, everybody gets an ever-loving Gold Star. We all earned the right to a good life simply by being born human.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:"They" don't have to understand anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Civilization is getting what you want at the barrel of a gun.

      Got it.

      Now give me all your money or I'll shoot you in a civilized manner.

    2. Re:"They" don't have to understand anything by anegg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How will you decide what to force people to do? The economy is a very complex ecosystem. The risk of unintended consequences are high when tinkering with complex systems. I'm amazed when people who force a corporation to do something get upset when the corporation adapts to what they were forced to do in a manner apparently not envisioned by those forcing actions on the corporation. For example, forcing a corporation to pay more taxes, then being surprised when the corporation passes on the cost to customers.

      I thought that the "grand experiment" in centrally-planned economies showed that central planning not only couldn't outcompete economies with distributed planning, but that centrally-planned economies couldn't even provide a reasonable living environment for the citizens. If you are going to force people to do things the way that you think they should be done, I hope you have a very good way to understand the consequences of what you are forcing on people.

      I can't tell if you are trolling or not... is that a I here?

    3. Re:"They" don't have to understand anything by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      People really believe that other people will treat them right when a) it's not in their interests and b) they're not being forced.

      I tend to believe that of random people I meet. I don't believe that of people who have gone through a selection process where that kind of behavior is screened out (e.g. corporate executives). Although, to be fair, I would also expect to be treated well by most corporate executives in a social setting.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:"They" don't have to understand anything by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Nope. Civilization is being part of a social contract, which comes with both benefits and obligations. If you don't want to accept the contract, you are free to move to a part of the world with no such contract. I'm not sure you'd appreciate living in those areas.

    5. Re:"They" don't have to understand anything by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Wow, just wow. I just happened to watch The Hunger Games: Mockingjay parts 1 and 2 this last weekend and I saw what I believe to be a good example on how socialism ends up. You can even ignore the most brutal aspects of this fictional socialist world and still see a violent tyranny. You have "peacekeepers" that enforce production quotas. What happens if someone doesn't want to meet quota? Think about that. What happens if an individual doesn't want to do what you tell them to do?

      What does "force them" mean to you? How far are you willing to go to force people to do your bidding? The Hunger Games series is a fictional example but it doesn't take long to find real world examples of what happens. Obama got everyone to buy health insurance by the force of the gun. If you didn't get qualifying health insurance then you were fined. If you didn't pay the fine then you risked jail. If you fled then now you are an "enemy of the state" and they will kill you.

      All of this so we can have proper medical care? What kind of "care" is that? You do as you are told or "civilization" will hunt you down.

      If that is your idea of civilization then I want out.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    6. Re:"They" don't have to understand anything by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'm gonna force Uber to pay a living wage or go out of business. .

      So.......that's what Venezuela did. And companies responded by actually going out of business (sometimes by choice, sometimes not). The economy has gotten worse and worse until now there are food shortages. Your plan hasn't ever worked in real life.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:"They" don't have to understand anything by monkeyFuzz · · Score: 1
      You mean like forcing people to
      • drive on the right side of the street?
      • stop at a red light or sign?
      • make way for ambulances?
      • pay taxes?
      • allow poor kids of a different race to attend otherwise homogenous schools?
      • treat folks who show up at emergency rooms without insurance and a bullet in their gut?
    8. Re:"They" don't have to understand anything by operagost · · Score: 1

      Why don't you skip a few steps, have the government buy Uber, and then you control their wages directly? I'm sure that will work perfectly.

      I mean, since you believe you, the government, are entitled to dictate to everyone how they will live, why not keep it simple, and make them work for you? Then there is no guesswork.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:"They" don't have to understand anything by deadwill69 · · Score: 1

      Let me guess, you don't pay taxes. Have never call 911 or other emergency services or have ever used them. How about the DMV? I could go on, but I don't think you have though much about that statement. All of these are things you are forced to use or pay for access to. Might not be the best way, but you do it.

    10. Re:"They" don't have to understand anything by J053 · · Score: 1

      If you didn't get qualifying health insurance then you were fined. If you didn't pay the fine then you risked jail. If you fled then now you are an "enemy of the state" and they will kill you.

      Bullshit. The only truth is that first sentence. Nobody has been declared an "enemy of the State" for not purchasing health insurance. Nor has anyone been jailed. Keep your alt-right fantasies to yourself, please.

    11. Re:"They" don't have to understand anything by sjames · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that Socialism has no monopoly on force. Our current capitalism is full of forced situations, some by government and some by businesses. I am forced to pay a doctor if I need a prescription, even if I know what I need. I can't get an x-ray without the radiology consult. I am not permitted to convert my front yard to food crops, so I must pay the grocery store. I'm not supposed to do my own electrical work even if I exceed code. Many restaurants have a problem if they want to offer Coke and Pepsi products at the same time. Sometimes you can't buy parts for appliances and home electronics unless you've also paid a few thousand to be a "certified" technician (basically, certified that you've paid them a few thousand, that is). Same crappy deal for modern automotive diagnostics.

      The lack of a basic income also creates a force situation for many. Work when we say and as much as we say and you'll take what we're willing to pay. Be sure to kiss the manager's ass or you'll be even worse off.

      Some of that force comes from government, some from businesses.

    12. Re:"They" don't have to understand anything by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      If you want to know how socialism ends - read 1984, that *is* what it is about. Hungergames is where a nihilistic western society ends.

      Seriously dude, you need to update your worldview - it's obsolete.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  18. Great news everyone: Prof Farnsworth by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well, there's great news for this guy. In a few years, autonomous cars will eliminate the need for drivers, and this guy won't have a car to sleep in, or an income at all. The moral to this story is if you want to make a good living, get a marketable skill that takes some skill to develop and is in demand. Since virtually every adult in the US can drive, driving services were never going to be a cash cow. Machinist, electrician, elevator repair, commercial equipment service and repair, etc. are the way to go. To a certain degree, this is the sad result of not teaching even one class in high school on basic applied economics (supply and demand, markets etc.)

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  19. Re:tax on stupid / indentured servitude by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

    Kid? The man's 53.

  20. Hooray for the gig economy by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2

    I hear so many people saying what a wonderful thing the gig economy is -- how much freedom they have, how much they love not working a traditional job, etc. All of that may be true, but just wait until all the traditional jobs go away and most people are forced into squeezing out a tiny living doing things like driving for Uber. I highly doubt everyone would be super-happy at that point.

    The relative economic stability of the last century was driven by consumers consuming, buying stuff, paying taxes, etc. and that was driven by those consumers having a stable paycheck or other source of income to fall back on. When that gets kicked away in the name of disruption, society needs to have a better answer than "oh, we'll figure something out later." I've been lucky to have stable work, but I know that I cut back on spending when I think something might be afoot at work. I can't imagine never knowing whether I'm going to have a good or bad week coming up.

      I think a lot of the gig economy cheerleaders are mistakenly thinking that Uber drivers are in the same league as, say, a flavor-of-the-moment software or IT contractor making $200+ an hour. I know a lot of people like this, who do nothing but travel around the country and get paid obscene amounts of money to implement the new hotness at random businesses. It's not super-stable, but they make enough to survive bad times. Uber drivers are barely breaking even, especially if they're financing their own vehicle purchases, etc. Like them or not, their business model is exploitative at best. Driving a cab is often the last resort job for people.

  21. Cell 411 by vvaduva · · Score: 1

    Not sure why uber drivers stay in these abusive relationships. Use a more decentralized app like Cell 411 instead...it's free and you keep 100% of your fares: http://getcell411.com/

    1. Re:Cell 411 by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      I can think of two major yet very simple reasons.

      1. They know about Uber.

      2. They go where the riders are.

      There is tremendous mindshare for Uber and Lyft. If you start on one of those services, you expect to get jobs very quickly---and confirmation of this expectation encourages future involvment.

      For people doing this as their day job, the ability to find a high volume of customers is a requirement. Even casual drivers seek a service that provides fares when they want them. And riders prefer services that can deliver drivers quickly.

      This creates the same kind of inertia that precludes people from migrating to new social platforms quickly.

      If I were interested in allowing strangers into my car, I would probably test the waters with Uber or Lyft first. And that is true even with all of the bad press they get.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    2. Re:Cell 411 by vvaduva · · Score: 1

      All good points...definitely

  22. Re:I don't even like Uber but by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but there are certain jobs in society that really aren't meant for a person to fully support themselves. Even moreso when the person is trying to support themselves and their family. Delivering the local newspaper was great job when I was 12 and I wanted to buy some hockey cards and music CDs. It's not a job that really requires any skills, and even if you are doing it full time, I couldn't see it being a job that's likely to pay a living wage.

    Same with the job I had flipping burgers at McDonald's. I was making minimum wage and even if I was working full time, there's no way that I really deserved to make a living wage in that job. Again, it required very little skill and they didn't really expect much from me other than to show up and make some hamburgers. But that's fine because I was in highschool and just wanted some money for CDs, computer games, and going out to the movies.

    Theses were great jobs to get me used to working, and if they weren't allowed to pay me such low wages, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to work at all. Especially in the year 2016. They will just get a robot to do your job if it becomes too expensive for a person to do it.

    If you want to make a living wage, be prepared to get some real skills. You don't deserve money for doing nothing, or for doing a job that requires almost no skills.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  23. Wear and tear, self driving by jeffreyxcav · · Score: 3, Informative

    I use Uber several times a month. I love the service, and I believe that some of the improvements in Uber over Taxis are due to technology and innovation rather than just taking advantage of employees. Especially in smaller cities like mine, where critical mass for traditional taxi service is not there, but being able to track and summon Ubers works pretty well.

    That being said, I have noticed that drivers are getting less happy. One problem I see is that people underestimate the wear and tear on their car. This is a real expense - more frequent oil changes, tires, etc.

    The other problem is I've noticed less surge pricing. Uber has recruited drivers so aggressively they have effectively gotten the price down. If you think about it, Uber's model is great, because they raise the price until someone picks you up. This ensures you get a ride home. However, their base prices are probably unrealistically low, so if they can flood the market with drivers, they are basically getting them cheap.

    Now they will churn through drivers doing this, but I wonder if Uber thinks there are enough drivers out there to churn through to tide them over until they have fully self-driving cars?

    In such a wold of automation, you need to wonder about basic income.

    1. Re:Wear and tear, self driving by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      I was wondering, how many of these Uber drivers have Commercial-coverage on their auto insurance? They are are using the car a job, a transport service, not just to get to and from work or take the kids to school...

    2. Re:Wear and tear, self driving by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Hardly any... there have been lots of articles about it over the past few years about the risks of being one of these drivers, or hosting AirBnB and so on.

    3. Re:Wear and tear, self driving by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Amazing how people don't bother to think this shit through and then wonder why they're dead broke....

  24. GigEconomyScam by sdinfoserv · · Score: 4, Informative

    This just so exemplifies the scam aka – Gig Economy.
    Looking at his numbers
    Let say he makes $300/day, that’s $230 after gas and a couple of 711 munchies.
    Well, since he’s self employed, he pays full SS & Medicare tas of 13.85% - which goes against GROSS receipts of $300 = $41.55
    Secondly, reading through most Uber forms, people who work 55+ hours per week drive © 300 miles a day. A DAY!. The Federal allowance for vehicle maintenance is $.54 / mile. At 300 miles = $162.
    The reality is he will have to change his tires, breaks, engine oil, much more often, and that costs Probably not far from the fed estimates.
    So, take is net after gas, subtract $41.55 in SS/MC taxes, subtract $162 in maintenance leaves $96.45, which he as to pay Federal Income Tax of 10%.. or $9.65..

    This leaves him with a NET of $86.81, for a 10 hour shift – or $8.91 with zero benefits.
    You’re WAY better off flipping burgers.

    1. Re:GigEconomyScam by Nemyst · · Score: 2

      You forgot that he's leasing the car from Uber, so there's also a monthly cost to that. He's probably making under $8/hr with that factored in, and in a large city (the only place where Uber is really viable as a full-time job) that's basically nothing.

    2. Re:GigEconomyScam by WhiteKnight07 · · Score: 1

      As I understand it that is why Uber is something you do three or four times a week when you happen to have free time and are already in the area with the car that you already own. You know, a side gig, separate from your regular full time benefit providing job. Something you do to earn an extra $60-70 per week so you can go to a nice dinner once in a while or save up for a new TV a bit faster or something. Sure Uber should be faulted (and punished) for selling a false picture of lease terms and personal profitability, but this guy has to be faulted as well for quitting his job to go try and make a living on something that is simply not meant to be able to provide a living on its own. Not every job is able to provide a living wage because some jobs just aren't worth that much. Simple as that. Maybe that means that those job shouldn't exist (automation/minimum wage) or maybe it means that the government should pay the difference for people working those jobs (socialism). Maybe there is some other solution that hasn't been thought of yet. I don't know.

      --


      We're going to make information free Mr. Anderson, whether you like it, or not.
    3. Re:GigEconomyScam by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      That maintenance has to be wrong. I think you have to take into consideration much of that maintenance comes from the car sitting idle for years, something we do not have in this case. And any reasonable professional will be driving a car that will wear well, not some shiny pile of junk that is expected to fall apart the second the warranty expires.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:GigEconomyScam by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      P. T. Barnum famously quoted "There's a sucker born every minute". If these idiots want to slave for sub-minim wages, spending days away from their family, sleeping in cars, subjected to high risk of street crime, let them. True freedom includes the freedom to fail.
      I think on a bigger scale, the real travesty is that there seems to be a general decline of critical thought process in modern America.
      Seattle for example, just voted to have "safe" places where heroin users could use their drugs while being "safely" monitored.
      http://www.seattletimes.com/se...
      BBD- Beyond Brain Damage!

    5. Re:GigEconomyScam by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Here is a report on Taxi's, which measures maintenance at about 5% of expenses, about 10% of the costs of the gas. Clearly Uber drivers are not spending $1620 dollars a day in gas, you must be orders of magnitude away from correct.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    6. Re:GigEconomyScam by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      he pays full SS & Medicare tax of 13.85% - which goes against GROSS receipts

      You must be mistaken, hardly anyone makes profits in the double digits of percentages. Most business men make like 1-2% profits. If you calculated tax on gross, no businesses would survive.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    7. Re:GigEconomyScam by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      " And any reasonable professional will be driving a car that will wear well"

      Any reasonable PROFESSIONAL will be woirking for an actual cab company or car service, NOT Uber or Lyft.

      (Side note, I don't hear about Lyft on the news or even on Slashdot nearly as much as (if at all) at Uber.... not sure what that says about Lyft.... )

    8. Re:GigEconomyScam by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      You can't do that. The vehicle lease/buy is a totally separate consideration.

      The Uber lease is not mandatory, and even if it were you would have to offset it against typical vehicle ownership. Most full-time employees in other industries also own vehicles, so you can only count the excess expenses and depreciation due to commercial use of the vehicle.

      While I agree that Uber is a very bad employment option, it is best to level valid complaints against them.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    9. Re:GigEconomyScam by erapert · · Score: 1

      But if you've already subtracted all his overhead and living expenses then isn't that $86.81 per day pure profit that he can save up?
      Wouldn't someone working for $8.91 per hour still need to have all his overhead subtracted in order to actually compare apples with apples?

    10. Re:GigEconomyScam by Cramer · · Score: 2

      The $.54/mi is for tax purposes. It has ZERO to do with vehicle maintenance. Tires, brakes, and oil will amount to ~1800 PER YEAR. The 100k miles per year put on the car is going to mean you need a new car in a few years. (I've seen what a Prius security guard car looked like after 360k miles.)

      Also, where the hell do you live that you'll use $70 worth a gas in a 300mi day? At current prices, that's 3 full tanks for me -- @550-600mi per tank.

    11. Re:GigEconomyScam by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Most jobs don't require a car. You can get by with public transportation, especially in metropolitan areas.

    12. Re:GigEconomyScam by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 1

      It goes against gross because that is also their "salary". For a normal worker, they pay half of the SS tax on their wages and the company pays the other half. If you are self-employed, you pay both sides. Reference

      This is why consultants are ridiculously expensive - they are very aware of their overhead for taxes, and have to compensate for it.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    13. Re:GigEconomyScam by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      sitting in traffic doesn't spin the odometer... so there's no mileage or costs (outside of your time, if you value that sort of thing)... Again, reading through the Uber forms, drivers tend to agree if you're doing 55+ hours a week, you're diving 300 miles a day.

    14. Re:GigEconomyScam by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      Clutches, transmission, breaks, bearings do not "wear out" just sitting. Engine seals can dry rot if a vehicle is ignored too long. Diesels actually wear at 25 miles per hour of idling. There's a reason the FED's allow mileage deductions - driving costs money. I used to be a pharmacy rep and drove 1500 miles a week. It really takes it toll on a car - even a new one.

    15. Re:GigEconomyScam by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      Just wanted to point out that the federal mileage rate covers the cost of gas as well. So that $162 also covers the $70 you're figuring on gas. More to the point if you have even a reasonable gas mileage vehicle you're looking at around 25mpg city or about 12 gallons of gas a day which would be between $30-$50 depending on the city. Just saying you might need to revisit those estimates.

  25. Be part of the change by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    Shit on workers so hard they turn to full-time Uber then demand basic income on their behalf... Aren't you virtuous.

    Despite your low-PH response, the OP really has a point.

    Economically speaking, automation and increased use of AI(*) will put many people out of work(**), and unlike the previous manufacturing revolutions there won't be enough work remaining to keep everyone employed.

    Our economic system has to change, it simply cannot survive the rise in productivity. UBI is one way to accomplish that, I know of at least three other viable solutions.

    Being toxic and preaching doom and gloom won't solve this issue, but inspiring people to action and raising their hopes might.

    You could try educating yourself and then getting the word out - pick a stance that you like and try to convince others. (Assuming that you can't implement any of the actual solutions, that is.)

    The system has to change - why not be part of that change?

    (*) In the current industry-used version of that term.
    (**) Self-driving vehicles alone are poised to put 5 million out of work in the next 10 years.

  26. Re:Doesn't sound like any Uber drivers I know or h by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They all seem grateful for the work

    Well, not starving is high on people's lists. The fact that they are grateful for the work cuts against the 'they don't need the money' argument you're about to make.

    But yes, children in sweatshops were also grateful for the work.

    >Only work as much as they want

    Which may include over 40 hours a week. After all, most people convince themselves they want to do something if they are forced into the situation. And people tend to want to work over starve.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  27. Tip them by Necron69 · · Score: 1

    And that's why I always tip my Uber and Lyft drivers. They aren't making as much as you think, and most people aren't doing it as their first choice of employment.

    OTOH, if I were unemployed and since I have a decent car, I'd probably start driving for Uber or Lyft immediately while I looked for another 'real' job.

    - Necron69

    1. Re:Tip them by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      "OTOH, if I were unemployed and since I have a decent car, I'd probably start driving for Uber or Lyft immediately while I looked for another 'real' job."

      So in other words, you're smart enough to NOT think it's an actual "living wage" option...

  28. Just wow people, what the hell were you thinking? by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    "Howard has been parking and sleeping at the 7-Eleven four to five nights a week since March 2015, when he began leasing a car from Uber and needed to work more hours to make his minimum payments."

    So you basically sold yourself into slavery just to skip taxi driver laws?

  29. Re:I don't even like Uber but by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Did anybody force him to sign it? No; Not a problem than. People make bad decisions all the time.

    $575 for payment plus commercial insurance isn't unreasonable. Depends on his driving record. If he's totalled a car or two, it is cheap.

    If he had any brains he would shift off the car, like cab drivers do. Perhaps share a cheap apartment with the same person(s).

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  30. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If they're willing to let people work full time then they should be willing to pay full time wages.

    Don't worry. Uber will fire them all shortly when self driving cars are perfected.

  31. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Informative

    Uber's own ad campaigns bend over backwards to emphasize that this is supposed to be a side gig to make some extra money.

    Uber was just this week fined $20M by the FTC for doing the exact opposite of what you're saying, so pardon me if I don't believe anything you've just said. They were overstating median incomes by as much as $29,000/year, advertising unlimited mileage for leases that didn't actually have unlimited mileage, and advertising that their leases were lower-cost than their competitors (which wasn't true in the least). The FTC found that in some markets, only around 10% of the drivers were making as much as the "median" incomes that Uber was advertising.

    So while I do generally agree that the world doesn't owe anyone anything, I'll add the caveat that companies are obligated to not make fraudulent claims, which is exactly what Uber is being fined for having done.

  32. Don't fuck with people who handle your food by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1
  33. Sure it can by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    look at India, South America and large parts of China. And that's just the places we pay attention to. This is nothing new and nothing surprising. For most of the world's 6 billion inhabitants this is they way things are and always have been. The best thing you can do it get over the surprise that it's like this while keeping that feeling of disgust. Don't let the fact that these situations are so far outside the norm for you let you turn away from the truth in disbelief. It's like that old quote: The greatest trick the devil ever did was convincing the world he didn't exists.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  34. Uber is a scam by Baleet · · Score: 2

    As I have said before, Uber is a cab company that avoids the regulation of a cab company. "How many cabs do they own?" None. That's another aspect of how they privatize the profits and socialize the costs of doing business. Do not construe this as my blaming the drivers themselves. They are guys trying to make a living. I get it. But the "ride-sharing" industry is still a scam, pure and simple.

    1. Re:Uber is a scam by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      "How many cabs do they own?" None.

      Well, apparently they own at least one, because they're leasing it to this guy.

      But the "ride-sharing" industry is still a scam, pure and simple.

      Obviously, when you are leasing the car just so you can "share the ride" with someone.

    2. Re:Uber is a scam by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      And if they are leasing from Uber, it's just like working for a cab company

  35. Through democracy, careful planning by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    and constant adjustments. Here's what makes it so hard for folks to accept real socialism: It's not a system of beliefs it's a system of government. It's a means, not an end. The practical consequences are that a socialist admits when they're wrong and makes constant adjustments and improvements. It's basically the scientific method applied to politics with a bit of Socrates "I know that I know nothing" philosophy mixed in. The short version of all that is Progresivism. Always making progress (and twirling, twirling towards freedom!).

    The trouble with all that is branding. When the right wing start a debate they've got simple answers to complex problems. They're always the wrong answers, because if a problem has a simple answer then, well, by definition it's not complex. But those simple answers feel good, sound good, and just got a Demagogue elected President of the United States...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Through democracy, careful planning by Kjella · · Score: 3, Informative

      The trouble with all that is branding. When the right wing start a debate they've got simple answers to complex problems. They're always the wrong answers, because if a problem has a simple answer then, well, by definition it's not complex. But those simple answers feel good, sound good, and just got a Demagogue elected President of the United States...

      Norwegian here, you don't think socialists have simple answers? Some people have a [something] problem, let's regulate [something]. Which means that right now at 8:30 PM on a Monday I can't buy a damn beer at the store. We need more money for [good cause]? Increase taxes. I could work harder, but I don't. Why? Because on my marginal dollar I pay 25% + 8.7% + 8.2% = 40% taxes and 25% VAT on most things mean I lose another 15%. Sorry for 45 cents to the dollar I'll just get an easy job (37.5 hours/week, paid overtime, flexible hours) and be lower middle class. If was in the US I'd probably work 50-60 hours/week and make $200k.

      Getting kickback from creating value is not a socialist virtue, if you got lots of money you can pay lots of money is their thinking. The day we run out of oil all hell will break loose because we're lazy and think everybody deserves good pay just for showing up at work or doing meaningless paper pusher jobs. And since I can't change the public opinion and tax system to reward hard work, I've decided if you can't beat them then join them. Even on cruise control I seem to get praise for good work, which is both cushy and a bit creepy at the same time. Maybe it's just that I can't stand all the stupid and make actual working solutions from time to time.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Through democracy, careful planning by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      If was in the US I'd probably work 50-60 hours/week and make $200k.

      Nope. You'd work 50-60 hours/week and make $50-75k (since this is slashdot, I'm assuming you're talking about a skilled position)

      Or if you're like the fastest growing group of US workers, you'd work 80 hours a week and make $30k.

      That's kinda the problem. The "work hard and you'll get ahead" thing broke down a couple generations ago. It's taken a while for people's idealism to be crushed to the point where they begin to accept reality. And now we're getting various flavors of backlash.

  36. Re:I don't even like Uber but by cryptizard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hate to break it to you but most jobs, by the numbers, require "almost no skills." 40% of US workers are unskilled. Should they all starve to death?

  37. Re:I don't even like Uber but by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    THIS

  38. Re:I don't even like Uber but by The-Ixian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems like what you are saying is "some jobs aren't meant to pay for someone's subsistence"

    My question is "what jobs are those?"

    Are they "unskilled" jobs? If so, are you suggesting that there needs to remain a majority of people without proper education in order to have an "unskilled" work force so that you can go to the grocery store on Sunday or out to eat in the evening?

    What happens if everybody has an education and is competing on the same level for "skilled" jobs and nobody wants to do the "unskilled" jobs? What happens if we don't have anyone to man the register or pick your food from a field? Wouldn't you say those jobs are necessary?

    Is this a reason why we shouldn't make education easily accessible to all?

    It seems to me that "unskilled" workers are necessary in order to provide a quality of life for the workers in "skilled" jobs. So why don't those "unskilled" workers, people who wake up every day and GO TO WORK in a job that they probably HATE, not deserve to be able to live a reasonably comfortable life?

    I certainly appreciate the ability to order food that arrives at my doorstep or a cab/uber that can take me to where I want to go.

    I am guessing that you appreciate those things too.... but you somehow don't feel that the people doing those jobs deserve a wage that will allow them to live at or above the poverty line....

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  39. Re: I don't even like Uber but by jxander · · Score: 1

    These jobs still need to get done though, ya? So someone needs to get paid to do it. If you can recruit little Timmy to do it on the cheap, good for you, but I don't think that's a viable option for Uber.

    --
    This signature is false.
  40. I tried to warn a friend by wickerprints · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A few years ago, a friend of mine who had been working in a full-time job in the hospitality industry, had signed up to be an Uber driver during his spare time. He claimed to be making an extra thousand dollars a month or so, which he used to finance a used vehicle.

    I probed for more details. "What about insurance," I asked. "Have you accounted for wear and tear on the vehicle due to increased mileage? Is this a sustainable income model? What if the pool of drivers increases and you face increased competition for fares?" He was completely nonchalant: at the time, Uber was still growing, there weren't as many drivers as there are now, and since he was still receiving a salary, he had no concerns for wage instability.

    Months later, he mentioned that he quit his full time job because he could make more money driving for Uber, and it was lower stress. He seemed happy. Well, we know how that turned out. He ended up essentially destitute, unable to afford food and rent; unable to fix his car when the inevitable breakdown occurred and would cost thousands to repair; and still had payments to make on the loan.

    I'm not saying that these kinds of jobs cannot be sustainable as full-time employment, but it is a great deal more difficult to make it viable than the vast, vast majority of people enticed into the idea are led to believe. The fact that these companies make it sound like it's easy (for obvious reasons) is the modern-day equivalent of selling Amway.

    1. Re:I tried to warn a friend by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      Would it be sustainable if you had an electric car? Little maintenance expense, less fuel expense.

      Of course you'd have to be able to afford the car in the first place, but electric cars are gradually getting cheaper.

  41. Re:Hours-of-Service Safety Regulations uber does n by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hours-of-Service Safety Regulations uber does not give a dam about them but what will happen when an uber driver falls asleep at the wheel and does big damage?

    Nothing will happen. Mr Driver will be held responsible just like any Joe Sixpack that fell asleep behind the wheel. If he says anything about being an Uber driver:
    1) Uber will bring up their "independent contractor" (not our employee/liability) business plan.
    2) His insurance will bring up their "you're not covered under your personal policy if you're acting as a ride sharing/taxi-for-hire service" clause... and more of them have this nowadays.

    The loser will be victims in the accident.

  42. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Ogive17 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately not everyone has the means to go out and get those skills required to earn a decent salary.

    I agree with the GP, if you're willing to put 40 hours in of work per week, it should earn you a basic living wage in the area you're in. I don't really care what skill level the job is, it's a job and someone's working hard to complete it. Society needs people of all skill levels to function.

    Minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. There are thousands of manufacturing jobs open in my area that go unfilled because they cannot find the people who want to work hard, starting at $10/hr without benefits. That's almost $2/hr above minimum wage. Even in this region where living expenses are very low, good luck paying your bills on $20k/yr.

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  43. Re:I don't even like Uber but by ccguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was making minimum wage and even if I was working full time, there's no way that I really deserved to make a living wage in that job. Again, it required very little skill

    You keep talking about skill as it if was the only thing that mattered. Well, time matters, too. If you spend 1/3 of your life doing something for someone else then you should be able to make a living from it. It's just not a question of how hard it is, it's a question of how much time you spend doing it. If it order to pay flip burgers a living wage they have to raise the price of the burgers then so be it.

  44. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And what do you propose should happen to those who don't have the skills, and can't acquire them? What about those who try, but just aren't good enough? There are presently some 3 million or so drivers in the U.S., between taxis, Uber, delivery trucks, and long haul trucks. What should happen to them as demand for their previously valuable skill dwindles to the point they can't support themselves anymore, or wind up unemployed en masse when the vehicles can drive themselves? There are some 3.6 million fast food employees in the U.S. - what about them?

    Perhaps you think they should learn to program, or become auto mechanics, or HVAC technicians, or some other job that remains in demand. Some of them may well be able to, but is there really immediate demand for several million more of them? Did it ever occur to you that some of them might like to learn those skills, but lack the time and money it takes to do so? Education isn't cheap, and it's getting significantly more expensive by the year. And worse, you might find after you complete it that you can't get a job in that field, because the competition is high, and others are simply better at it than you are.

    So what then? Because I'm going to hazard a guess that you're not suggesting that we fund a robust social safety net with programs to make sure those people don't starve, or some form of universal basic income.

  45. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Streetlight · · Score: 1

    You posted some of the data I was going to look up about this fine. IIRC, Uber was suggesting incomes of $90,000 in some locations. That would be a pretty good income even after expenses. And it doesn't require a degree in computer of software engineering, either, and being basically homeless.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
  46. Re:Hours-of-Service Safety Regulations uber does n by wbr1 · · Score: 1
    Failing Joe-Dragon does not know what will happen. Sad

    I know all about this. It will be great damage. The best damage. Blood everywhere! But I know it will be fine! We will make the victims pay for the damage.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  47. Re:I don't even like Uber but by generic_screenname · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This desperation is what happened when factories left the Midwest. The good jobs are gone for the unskilled. The remaining jobs need training that the unskilled can't afford. This is the guy's best option right now. If he could just stop being poor, he would. His best option is to sleep in a parking lot where he could freeze to death in a Chicago winter. Think about how bad things must be to have that as your best available option. This man isn't the only one making this choice. There is a bigger problem, and telling people to just stop being poor won't solve the bigger problem.

  48. Re:I don't even like Uber but by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "I'm sorry, but there are certain jobs in society that really aren't meant for a person to fully support themselves. "

    Spoken like a true boss.

    Are you saying that people _like_ having 3 jobs, because of the variation?

  49. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that $90,000/year income was the one they overstated by $29,000 (i.e. the median in New York was actually $61,000/year, rather than the $90,000/year they claimed). And that's before expenses, I believe, so it goes down from there by quite a bit, given that they misled drivers with regard to the expenses too.

  50. Re:I don't even like Uber but by grasshoppa · · Score: 2

    Who's responsibility is your own welfare? Is it a company's? The government's? Or yours?

    The responsibility for your life is *yours*, and no one else's. If I decide to leave my full time job with benefits for Uber, I have no one to blame but myself if I can't make enough to get by. Further, it continues to be my responsibility if I don't find another job because my dream of driving for a living isn't working out.

    It's not any company's job to assume your position in life, which is what you advocate when you say this: If they're willing to let people work full time then they should be willing to pay full time wages.. They offer the work and pay, it's up to the individual to decide if it works for them.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  51. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The problem with this line of thinking is the expectation that there are enough jobs for skilled workers. There are not. The survival of the fittest model you suggest will inevitably leave many skilled workers in poverty or working those "not meant to be full time" jobs.

    There is also the issue of skilled jobs being replaced by automation, or simply by companies unwilling to pay for the skill. Every single person can't "get some real skills" without flooding that "skilled" market until it behaves just like the unskilled one.

    Engineering is a great example. Wages are stagnating. If every single person suddenly got an engineering degree, it just drives the cost of engineers down-- as all the now "skilled" labor, isn't considered "skilled any more.

    You even mention it yourself -- if people are too expensive they will have a robot do it. This is the crux of the problem-- we value people based on work, when that is an outdated idea (though to be honest I think it was never a good one).

    The fact that you seem to understand that automation is removing skilled jobs from the market makes me think your whole post must be a troll. Do you really think people who can't get a skilled job don't deserve the ability to live? By condemning them to jobless poverty and by refusing to give them "money for nothing" that's exactly what you are saying, though maybe you just didn't realize it.

    I certainly don't want to live in a society where we condemn the useless to poverty or inevitable death?

    I'm very confused at the phrase "you don't deserve money for nothing". Do you not believe people have inherent value? Are peoples only worth defined by the work they perform? Who decides what jobs are "worthy" or "skilled" enough to deserve the right to live? What job do you have which is so remarkable that you could not be replaced? And what will you do when you are?

  52. Re: I don't even like Uber but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Uber supports a shitty apartment, goodwill clothes, and fast food.

    Uber does NOT support a wife, two kids, a dog, and a nice house with a white picket fence.

    You can live off Uber, but you can't LIVE off Uber. It is a part time job for desperate people.

  53. Re: tax on stupid / indentured servitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I can't afford one of those, I'm an Uber driver.

  54. Re:Just wow people, what the hell were you thinkin by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Probably couldn't get a job with a taxi firm because of the rise of Uber.
    Probably can't afford to start his own taxi firm because Uber has now made him poor.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  55. Well by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    As I've said before, people work for Uber out of desperation. It's better to be destitute and work for Uber then be destitute and out of work, these are the jobs America is churning out. The problem is why those people are destitute in the first place and businesses like Uber are the circling vultures.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  56. Re:I don't even like Uber but by XparXnoiaX · · Score: 1

    Why do you think the problem is Uber? Why don't you blame ridiculously high rents? If you've ever taken action to 'keep property values up' then you are part of the problem. If you've ever opposed new apartment buildings in your town, then you are a huge part of the problem. If there were enough houses for everyone, then rent would go down and these drivers would be able to afford a place to live.

    --
    Irresponsible disclosure is responsible
  57. Re:leasing a car from Uber sounds like the company by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    It's exactly that. Leasing a car from Lyft seems a way better deal - they pro-rate your lease payment based on how much you drive for them, and if you drive the 40 hours a week they want (rush hour, bar closings, etc.) they comp the whole thing.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  58. Re:I don't even like Uber but by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

    Hence the quotes...

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  59. What is the 1% by XXongo · · Score: 1

    The 1% (that is about 3.5 million people) means an income of somewhere above $250k-300k after taxes. It goes up if you count households and not people but the effect is close to the same. If you go by net worth, then it is like $2.5M.

    Different tools estimate slightly differently, but this site: https://dqydj.com/net-worth-in... says that the 1% level is reached at a household net worth of $7.87 million.

  60. The Magic of Capitalism by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    The ability to renegotiate the terms or quit your job without being thrown in jail.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  61. Sarcasm is invisible on the internets by XXongo · · Score: 1

    Need a new sarcasm detector?

    Sarcasm is notoriously difficult to detect on the internet, since it looks exactly like cluelessness, but I can see no indication in that case that the comment had been intended sarcastically.

  62. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    There are thousands of manufacturing jobs open in my area that go unfilled because they cannot find the people who want to work hard, starting at $10/hr without benefits.

    Sounds like those employers are either getting by just fine without those employees or if they do need those employees they better start making better offers to get those positions filled. The other day I drove past a burger king and they had a big banner out front offering $15+/hr to work for them flipping burgers.

    That said I agree minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation but worse than that is that college costs have vastly outstripped inflation so people's ability to better themselves is decreased. For example I compared my tuition for the class I took at the local technical college (DCTC) and compared it to what I paid in 2001 with my last year getting my BS in CS (Mankato State University, Go Mavs!) I paid 4x the amount per credit at DCTC. The interesting part about this is that I DCTC like all community and technical colleges in the MNSCU system have a lower tutition than the Universities, like Mankato, do. I looked quickly and saw that inflation was 35% over that time so in 2001 dollars I still paid about 3x per credit today at DCTC than I did at Mankato in 2001. I do feel sympathy for those who can't afford college and actually are trying as I was able to pay for my BS working at a gas station and later u-haul making $13.25 and $15.50 part time back then which was really good pay then.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  63. Re:I don't even like Uber but by DavidMZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, nobody should starve to death, or left without healthcare, or without drinking water, or not given the chance to get quality education at an affordable price.

    Maybe we should push for things like Universal Basic Income, Single Payer Healthcare System, Free Education, and stop privatizing utilities?

  64. Uber doesn't care by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Uber doesn't care if you've made a career out of this. All they care about is how much money you can make for them while maximizing how much they FUCK YOU OVER.

  65. Re:I don't even like Uber but by ghoul · · Score: 1

    In countries like India most middle class software programmers have a maid who cleans the house, makes the bed,washes dishes and clothes,a cook who comes cooks the evening meal, a driver who drives them to work, a gardener who comes and maintains their yard and a laundryman who comes picks up their laundry presses and returns it.
    In USA you have to do all of this yourself or go out to a central place to get food made by someone else.
    Personal services are only feasible when their is a large gap in income between the middle class and the working class.
    If you expect middle class wages for jobs like taxi driver or food delivery than these services will only be avilable to the elite and not to the middle class.
    Working class folks need to have an uncomfortable life . This is motivation for their children to work harder in school than their middle class counterparts and clim out of the working class.
    In every generation some middle class kids will screw up and fall back to the working class. Hence you will always have your supply of working class people. The fallacy is to believe just because your parents were middle class you will be middle class and not working class. If yu try to prevent downward social mobility you also block upward social mobility

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
  66. "Lease???" by superdave80 · · Score: 1

    ...when he began leasing a car from Uber and needed to work more hours to make his minimum payments.

    These are the people I don't understand. Isn't the point of Uber that you can use your existing car? Don't you already HAVE a car? If not, why would you specifically LEASE one, especially with payments that are so high that you have to drive 24/7 to afford them? I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that took on risk to make an easy buck without doing some basic math on their investment first.

    1. Re:"Lease???" by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Plus don't you still have to pay maintenance costs on leased cars? And carry Commercial-level auto inurance?

  67. Re: I don't even like Uber but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It wasn't his best option. He left his job for a lie and hope that this fraud would be better.

  68. Re:I don't even like Uber but by ghoul · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Americans dont value education enough. In India maids will skip a meal in order to buy a text book for their kids. Instead the poor in the US would much rather buy videogames than spend time studying at the library. Life is not hard enough in the USA. It needs to get harder. The period from 50s to 70s where you could lead a middle class life on working class skills is never coming back. It was an anomaly created by the WW2 where all the other countries had destroyed economies and depended on US manufacturing and US could export its way to wealth. Now all countries are recovered from WW2/colonialism. Its an equal competition and working class skills will not get you a middle class lifestyle.

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
  69. Supply/Demand 101 by superdave80 · · Score: 2
    FTFA

    He likes driving, but, he said, “They need to stop lowering their rates.”

    They won't until people like you stop driving. If you are willing to drive at X rate, then they lower it to Y rate and you are STILL willing to drive for them, they have zero incentive to go back to X rate. In fact, next stop will be an even lower Z rate.

  70. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, time matters, too.

    No, not really. You can spend 80 hours per week doing a job that returns $1000 in value to the company you work for, but you can't expect them to just hand you $1500 for your time. You have to do something that results in the money you get paid, it truly does not grow on trees.

    If it order to pay flip burgers a living wage they have to raise the price of the burgers then so be it.

    And when do you expect to get the raise that will allow you go buy the now more expensive product? Someone making $15/hr already who gets no raise when the minimum goes to $15/hr will be in serious trouble as the prices for everything that come from current minimum wage workers goes up to cover your largesse. I'm glad you have lots of excess cash now that you can spend on the more expensive products, but most people do not.

  71. Yea, America's fault. Wait, lets blame Trump! by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    I'm shocked. These people quit their real jobs, let Uber sell them the car that they supposedly needed, and now they are not getting rich driving other people around, even when they gouge with surge fares? Yea, lets blame America for that, not the stupidity of the people who did this. (Actually we might want to blame the education system that they went through that failed to teach them common sense, but really common sense isn't taught in any school system, much less ones that rely on lottery dollars for part of their funding.)

    I'm going to go set up a GoFundMe page now for any of you bleeding heart liberals who want to help these idiots. As far as you know they might actually receive some of the money that you contribute.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Yea, America's fault. Wait, lets blame Trump! by Cederic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We know that half the population is not intelligent and we know that modern marketing techniques can subvert intelligent, aware and thoughtful people. Ergo half the population is very vulnerable to exploitation by malicious people and companies that have resources.

      You may consider those victims a cash cow. I personally feel that it's appropriate that society provides them with a level of protection, including preventing cunts like Uber from building a massively valuable company by breaking the law and exploiting people that were unfortunate enough to trust them.

      Conning people out of money is illegal in most countries. It's fraud or comes under other legislation. Why do you think that conning people out of their labour is perfectly just fine?

    2. Re:Yea, America's fault. Wait, lets blame Trump! by TWX · · Score: 1

      I'm reminded of the line, "I owe my soul to the company store." from the song Sixteen Tons.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Yea, America's fault. Wait, lets blame Trump! by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Because corporations are people, while (real) people are commodities in our backassedward version of modern capitalism. Thus corporate rights trump personal rights in most cases.

    4. Re:Yea, America's fault. Wait, lets blame Trump! by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      Did you read the article?

      So every Monday morning, Tugas leaves at 4 a.m., says goodbye to his wife and four daughters, drives 90 miles to the city, and lugs around passengers until he earns $300 or gets too tired to keep going.

      That terrible job he has is paying for a wife and four children! How can you say he's being exploited by Uber?

  72. Read the article by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Wow, mankind IS getting stupider......

  73. We force people all the time by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    if you don't pay your taxes you go to jail. If you speed in your car you get a ticket. If I shoot somebody I go to jail. We're just arguing over where to draw the line, not whether it should be drawn.

    You're going got get forced to do things one way or another. If you leave a power vacuum by trying to live with a weak central government then somebody will step in and take the reigns. Central Governments are just too valuable. Somebody sooner or later will create one for their own purposes. The question is never, "Will we have a strong Central Government?" but whether _you_ will participate in it?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  74. Re:It's your choice by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you're sinking all your time into a low paying job instead of an education then that's your problem.

    Because such an education costs nothing, and magically pays all your bills. And people don't need things like "food" or "shelter" while getting an education. Also, if you make the "right" choice and get a STEM education, there aren't more STEM graduates than entry-level job openings. (This site claims 1.55 graduates per job opening)

    Oh wait, absolutely none of that is true. Huh. Almost like reality doesn't quite fit your model.

  75. Venezuela is a 1 commodity market by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    whose commodity (oil) just plummeted in price. Ideally what should be happening right now is the rest of the world should help them pick up their slack until oil prices rise. What's instead happening is the rest of the world is using their crisis to take advantage of them. Sorta like how Pay Day Lenders operate but on a national scale. There's things their government could have done to mitigate or prevent the crisis before it happened but, well, like I said, Socialism is hard because we're solving very hard problems.

    Remember, anyone can promise to solve all your problems with their 10 step program plus some principles and beliefs. It's actually _doing_ it that's hard. I'd argue that Obama/Hilary were on the right path until Hilary screwed up by not campaigning in the swing states. But, well, here we are.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Venezuela is a 1 commodity market by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      No..........Venezuela is a 'one commodity market' the same way Norway is. In other words, not (although it is a large part of both). You haven't been paying attention to all the nationalization and price controls and such that has been going on in Venezuela.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Venezuela is a 1 commodity market by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Norway is just about what you'd call the textbook example of a socialist state, including state owned companies and price controls, so I do not get your point.
      If you want to see an example of price controls ask a Norwegian about the price of beer.

    3. Re:Venezuela is a 1 commodity market by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Heavy taxes aren't price controls. A price control says, "You must sell the product at X price."
      Norway does have odd laws about alcohol sales, but are you really going to try to argue that those laws don't distort the market?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Venezuela is a 1 commodity market by dbIII · · Score: 1

      You've avoided the main point. Norway is probably more socialist than Venezuela ever has been but is far better run. Do you disagree with that point?

    5. Re:Venezuela is a 1 commodity market by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      'socialist' is a meaningless word, because everyone has their own definition. Is Norway more of a command economy than Venezuela? No, and 'command economy' is the topic here. tbh though I can't figure out what definition of 'socialist' you are using that has Norway more socialist than Venezuela.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Venezuela is a 1 commodity market by dbIII · · Score: 1

      'socialist' is a meaningless word,

      If you are going to take that line then why blame problems in Venezuela on it instead of the obvious?

    7. Re:Venezuela is a 1 commodity market by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I didn't. I blamed it on their trying to control the economy too much.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Venezuela is a 1 commodity market by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Fair enough but I think that shows ignorance of the actual issue of them attempting to fund everything with a oil boom without planning on what to do when the oil price dropped.

    9. Re:Venezuela is a 1 commodity market by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That is a problem, but they would be having problems even without that. Russia has a similar oil based economy, for example.

      I specifically brought up the example of Venezuela because one of their problems is the tell companies, "You are charging too much." Then the companies find that they can't make profit with the requirements given to them, so they go out of business. (Then there are shortages of goods. Then the president accuses someone of hoarding, and finds a warehouse of stuff, showing it on tv. The incompetence is deep there, it's really not fair to blame it on one thing.)

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:Venezuela is a 1 commodity market by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but choosing a nation that has suddenly lost 100% of revenue and has to prop up a unprofitable oil operation besides as something to push your naive little political barrow is not a good look.
      I think you will find the major cause of their problems is the utterly obvious one no matter what sort of government it is.

    11. Re:Venezuela is a 1 commodity market by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I think you will find the major cause of their problems is the utterly obvious one no matter what sort of government it is.

      Well maybe you'll feel better if I say directly I am not insulting socialist governments haha

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Venezuela is a 1 commodity market by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's not about me feeling better, it's about an utterly ridiculous example you should be ashamed of. If you'd written about what was going on there before the Saudi oil price war it would be a different story, but instead you chose an obvious failure from one cause and blamed it on another.

  76. Re:I don't even like Uber but by erice · · Score: 1

    What happens if everybody has an education and is competing on the same level for "skilled" jobs and nobody wants to do the "unskilled" jobs?

    Not to worry. More than enough educated people will find their skills in low demand and will work unskilled jobs in order to survive. Just as happens today. The danger comes when unskilled jobs are no longer available and the losers of the macabre game of musical chairs no longer have options.

  77. Re:Just wow people, what the hell were you thinkin by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

    So you basically sold yourself into slavery just to skip taxi driver laws?

    No, no, the guy is just a contractor. Uber is the party ignoring taxi regulations. They collect payment from the riders and disburse it to the drivers.

    Drivers sell themselves for the illusion of freedom. Illusory freedom is the hottest commodity in America.

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
  78. Re:tax on stupid / indentured servitude by erapert · · Score: 1

    Then by now he should have figured out how this whole money thing works and what bills are.
    Or maybe he has figured it out and is doing what works for him and he isn't a victim.
    Nobody is making this guy do anything. He can quit any time he wants and go do something else.
    Feeling trapped doesn't mean he is trapped (if he even feels bad about his situation at all).

  79. Re:It's your choice by newcastlejon · · Score: 2

    A business is not obligated to subsidize your choice to work a low paying job.

    Of course they are, because otherwise the taxpayer ends up doing it.

    Uber is for college students who want to make extra money running people around.

    To drive for Uber in the UK you need to be a) 21 or over, which rules out anyone who isn't in their final year or hasn't already graduated and b) own a car registered in 2008 or later. Not many cash-strapped students drive at all much less in a new(ish) car.

    If you're sinking all your time into a low paying job instead of an education then that's your problem.

    No, it's society's problem. Some people are never going to get anything better than a minimum wage job, not out of idleness or other moral failing, just because that's the limit of what they can do. Don't pretend that there's always a choice involved on their part. Either we as a society make employers pay a wage that people in that situation can live on or we accept having vast numbers of people on state aid. Whichever one we opt for, the public end up paying for it.

    If a person is genuinely learning/training for most of their day then the odds are that they're already on state aid or they aren't a breadwinner.

    To pre-empt your likely rebuttal, let me ask you a rhetorical question: do you really think anyone would do the sort of work that pays the minimum wage by choice? They're usually very shitty jobs, sometimes literally so.

    This is why Uber is very interested in autonomous vehicles.

    A company wants to automate its workforce. I'll try to contain my amazement.

    Those people working 40 hours a week being silly are going to find Uber force them to work only 20 hours a week or put them out of work completely.

    Why? The only reason to have twice as many drivers working half the time (that I can think of) is to reduce the average wait time for each fare and to increase the number of short journeys you can cover in a given time, but you lose some of that extra profit by doubling your per-driver overhead. Smaller (i.e. barely profitable) companies sometimes have to reduce their workforce when minimum wages are increased, but something tells me that Uber isn't one of them.

    Your pay is based on productivity per hour. Not simply showing up per hour.

    Being paid piecemeal is the exception, not the rule. In cases where it is done the pay per unit is calculated so that an average worker will usually end up receiving at least the minimum wage anyway. No-one is advocating that people be paid for simply turning up for work; if a salaried or hourly paid employee doesn't pull their weight you warn them, give them a reasonable chance to improve and then sack them if they don't.

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  80. Re:I don't even like Uber but by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

    Uber drivers are self-employed contractors and the drivers are effectively small business owners.

    Yes and Uber is a ride-sharing company, absolutely nothing like a hackney carriage operator...

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  81. Re:I don't even like Uber but by WolfgangVL · · Score: 2

    My question is "what jobs are those?"

    Are they "unskilled" jobs? If so, are you suggesting that there needs to remain a majority of people without proper education in order to have an "unskilled" work force so that you can go to the grocery store on Sunday or out to eat in the evening?

    Yes, that's about the long and short of it.. people need to learn how to have a job, and learn the value of a dollar *before* they have the skills to command a livable wage... it grounds you to reality and teaches the young how the world works.

    What happens if everybody has an education and is competing on the same level for "skilled" jobs and nobody wants to do the "unskilled" jobs? What happens if we don't have anyone to man the register or pick your food from a field? Wouldn't you say those jobs are necessary?

    It seems like what you are saying is "some jobs aren't meant to pay for someone's subsistence"

    This is exactly what he is saying. If everybody could skate by doing low/no-responsibility work without ever picking up any marketable skills, there would be very few people to do things that require responsibility and trade-skills.

    These jobs are meant to be worked while you are a student, or living with your folks, or picking up something to do because your setup already and bored. It blows me away that people actually attempt to make a career out of those positions, but there's always "that guy".

    What happens if everybody has an education and is competing on the same level for "skilled" jobs and nobody wants to do the "unskilled" jobs?

    Those people compete for the limited amount of jobs, the lesser applicants compromises and take a step down to a lower position, or less optimal trade and keep training for the next opportunity. They also have children, and pass this life lesson on to them, which hopefully teaches them the importance of a strong work ethic, education, and/or trade-skills.

    Nobody grows up wanting to be a plumber, what a shitty job... but its also a marketable skill, and will support you and your family, especially if you couple it with a strong work ethic and the drive to succeed. The job you want may not be available to you right now, but the job you need likely is. Those days may be numbered though, as every time people with no skills or motivation convince the world to pay them more for basically being present, it undervalues all the trades, making that livable wage worth that much less.

    What really blows me away is the under-skilled workers complaining about not making a living wage while they blow paychecks on shit they cant afford. Things like tobacco, video-games, subscription entertainment services, and overpriced electronics all come to mind right away. Then there are the real silly things like scratch tickets, drugs, overpriced food, and generally living beyond your means.

    If your really in a spot... maybe pregnant, addicted to drugs, mental issues, diseased, or otherwise UNABLE to learn skills or go to work, there are social safety nets in place to help you, otherwise, its YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to learn things. That's not saying you need to accept crushing debt and enroll in higher education, what that means is that instead of spending your off-time hanging out at the bar, or playing games, or generally fucking off complaining about how your always shit on, spend it developing skills on your own. Libraries offer so much more than free internet access, but internet access is also one of those things. If you REALLY have issues learning skills on your own, there is also the armed forces (here in America anyway) not only will you learn a skill, but you will learn how to learn. There really is no excuse for this sort of thing.

    TL:DR= Develop some skills and get the job you need, while learning the skills for the trade you want. Every time you get another nickel or doing nothing, it makes that job you WANT less exactly that much.

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  82. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Digicrat · · Score: 1

    To be more effective, it should be:

    If employee != student (meaning going to school and still a dependent of their parents/guardians) then living wage == minimum wage Else minimum wage == some lesser amount. Perhaps even combine with some ratio (no more than 3 part-time student employees for each full-time living-wage employee per shift).

  83. Re:Doesn't sound like any Uber drivers I know or h by chispito · · Score: 1

    Thank you for letting us know that you don't know anyone in the situation described. Now what, pray tell, does that have to do with the price of rice?

    That analogous evidence is just that.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  84. Re:the cognitive dissonance between hype and reali by erapert · · Score: 2

    Yes, freedom means that you can make un-worthwhile, or unwise, or even outright stupid decisions with your life.
    Part of being an adult is recognizing that and behaving appropriately.

  85. Re:I don't even like Uber but by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but there are certain jobs in society that really aren't meant for a person to fully support themselves. Even moreso when the person is trying to support themselves and their family. Delivering the local newspaper was great job when I was 12 and I wanted to buy some hockey cards and music CDs. It's not a job that really requires any skills, and even if you are doing it full time, I couldn't see it being a job that's likely to pay a living wage.

    Same with the job I had flipping burgers at McDonald's. I was making minimum wage and even if I was working full time, there's no way that I really deserved to make a living wage in that job. Again, it required very little skill and they didn't really expect much from me other than to show up and make some hamburgers. But that's fine because I was in highschool and just wanted some money for CDs, computer games, and going out to the movies.

    Theses were great jobs to get me used to working, and if they weren't allowed to pay me such low wages, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to work at all. Especially in the year 2016. They will just get a robot to do your job if it becomes too expensive for a person to do it.

    If you want to make a living wage, be prepared to get some real skills. You don't deserve money for doing nothing, or for doing a job that requires almost no skills.

    Sorry but this is complete and utter bullshit.

    A paper round, by definition, only takes a limited amount of time in the morning and could never become full time, so your comparison is irrelevant. As for flipping burgers, some people do this work because they need to support a family. If you spend 40 hours per week flipping burgers then you should not need to work a second and third job just to pay your bills because some other people have made a value judgment about how important your job is.

    Flipping burgers is no less skilled than a lot of production line jobs in manufacturing industry, and in the days when the west was a manufacturing economy, workers were paid enough to keep a roof over their heads and raise a family.

    Christ. Even in the days of domestic service, rich people ensured that their butlers, maids, and other personal servants had food to eat and a roof over their heads.

    I say again that too many people have been conditioned into thinking that it's acceptable to pay starvation wages to the hardest working people in society, and conditioned into demonizing those at the bottom end of the pay scale. If that's not class warfare then I don't know what is.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  86. Uber is a scam by ventsyv · · Score: 1

    When you account for taxes and depreciation, the uber drivers are making a minimum wage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  87. Re:I don't even like Uber but by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    If you have such a low opinion of your workers that you dismiss them all as making "poor lifestyle choices" then you should not be in business. And no. I did not say that someone starting a business has an automatic right to be successful, but someone starting a business should have enough money on hand to pay for what he uses, be it materials or labor.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  88. Re:I don't even like Uber but by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It IS a company's job to pay a living wage to its workers. We had this discussion during the civil war. Slavery is now illegal. It's a moral issue. In any case there's also the economic argument that impoverishing the middle class (who drive economic growth through consumption) is a bit of a silly idea.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  89. Re:I don't even like Uber but by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    So go work elsewhere with better conditions? I mean you guys act like someone is forcing them to do this. There are lots of jobs for people who want to work. Go find one that treats you like a human being.

    Fine. Bring back slavery then. If employers are under no obligation to pay a living wage, why insist on them paying anything?

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  90. Re:I don't even like Uber but by lgw · · Score: 1

    Hate to break it to you but most jobs, by the numbers, require "almost no skills." 40% of US workers are unskilled. Should they all starve to death?

    Today many of those jobs do pay a living wage, because "unskilled" is a broad category, and some of those jobs are just hard work. But there also need to be "first jobs", and those don't need to pay a living wage. I don't think Uber counts as that, though, but they still sound less sleazy than taxi companies.

    When I was poor and working those sorts of jobs, you made a living by working 60+ hours a week. Because overtime kicked in at 40, no job would ever give you close to 40 hours: mid-30s was the most you could hope for. So you worked 2 jobs, and commuted between them, often with very inconvenient gaps between the jobs. I used to hate the idea of overtime pay, as it destroyed what little time might nave been left most days, and still no one in my circumstance got overtime pay.

    It sucked, but you find a way to move to something better.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  91. Re:I don't even like Uber but by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    Nobody who works full time should live in poverty. Period.

    NOBODY IS FORCING THEM TO DO ANYTHING. Get it through your head.

    Oh really? Nobody is forced by circumstances to take any work out of desperation? I hope the world's a bit more understanding when you get laid off and have to dismount from your high horse.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  92. Re: I don't even like Uber but by valdezjuan · · Score: 1

    Except Uber advertised that they would be making a living wage ($90k in NYC for example) and leased them the car. They pretty much fell for an offer that was too good to be true and are probably spiraling in the sunk cost fallacy.

    I know there is no way in hell I would have quit a job for Uber, even when I was making around $90k. I've been through startups, some good, some not but with this your not even part of it (except as a profit model).

  93. Re:I don't even like Uber but by radl33t · · Score: 1

    Yeah fuck you too buddy! I hope your marginally poor choices are amplified into extremely negative consequences! I'll be there to capitalize on your destitution! After all, its your fucking fault for being such an idoiot! My large capital reserves, better understanding of financial math, and political access give me the ability and the de-facto permission to scam/fleece/rip you off as I please! Gosh this society we're building together is going to be AWESOME.

  94. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Streetlight · · Score: 1

    Any idea what expenses are? One thing that can mitigate those is they should be deductible from Federal and State income taxes. Nevertheless, they need to be paid. In 2017, the IRS allows 53.5 cents per mile and I would guess the lease payments if that's the choice of the driver, but not sure. Using a paid for, reliable car could be a better choice. If the tax deductions match expenses, it might balance out so expenses are negligible.

    NYC, particularly Manhattan, is the high rent district. If your route is in Manhattan then for reasonable rent or home ownership/living expenses, one might need to be fairly far out of town to live on the net Uber income - and put some money in savings and some kind of retirement plan. Its not so expensive to live in some place like Denver or Colorado Springs where I live. One of my wife's cousins drives Friday and/or Saturday night for Uber in Denver using his own car and says he makes $120 per evening. Those days and times are probably prime times to pick up party attendees.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
  95. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    I'm afraid I don't know the expenses off the top of my head. I looked them up around a year ago and realized it'd be untenable to pursue as a career in my town (not that I was planning to; I was just curious about the value proposition), since you'd have to be working crazy hours just to break even on your costs. Other than that, I saw mention in some of the articles I linked of the expenses being far higher than Uber had advertised, which obviously would push the bottom-line down, though I admittedly didn't look into the specifics.

  96. Re:Doesn't sound like any Uber drivers I know or h by stinerman · · Score: 1

    Which may include over 40 hours a week.

    Exactly. Do you know how much I want to work? Zero hours. Do you know how much I have to work? Yeah.

  97. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

    Nobody grows up wanting to be a plumber, what a shitty job... but its also a marketable skill, and will support you and your family, especially if you couple it with a strong work ethic and the drive to succeed. The job you want may not be available to you right now, but the job you need likely is. Those days may be numbered though, as every time people with no skills or motivation convince the world to pay them more for basically being present, it undervalues all the trades, making that livable wage worth that much less.

    Oh, the old "if you pay people $15/hr to flip burgers, they won't want to be plumbers or EMTs or etc..." The work still needs to be done, salaries will go up proportionally, and in the end you've only really succeeded in deflating the value of your currency. ($15 is the new $7.25) Which is why raising the minimum wage doesn't fix the real problem: job scarcity.

    Now, we get to why you're truly going to be fucked being a plumber. What jobs do you think are going to be sought after by all the transportation industry workers when automation gives them the pink slip? If you said "skilled trade/manual labor jobs", you win one great depression, redeemable soon at your hometown in America!

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  98. Re:I don't even like Uber but by ranton · · Score: 1

    It seems like what you are saying is "some jobs aren't meant to pay for someone's subsistence" My question is "what jobs are those?"

    No jobs are meant to pay for someone's subsistence. Jobs are meant to fill a need of the employer. The wages are meant to provide the incentive for the need to be filled. The amount of money it takes to live a good life is completely decoupled from this arrangement. When I need a babysitter, I don't care if my wages are enough to feed and house a 15 year old girl. I only care what amount of money it will take to get the more responsible teenagers in the area to consistently disrupt their weekend plans to watch my kids for me instead.

    This is why I greatly prefer a universal basic income, because it allows society to decide what quality of life everyone "deserves" regardless of their economic value. If funded in a progressive way, it doesn't lower the purchasing power of the working/middle class as much as minimum wage and doesn't disincentive economic activity which is not worth the minimum wage.

    Are they "unskilled" jobs? If so, are you suggesting that there needs to remain a majority of people without proper education in order to have an "unskilled" work force so that you can go to the grocery store on Sunday or out to eat in the evening?

    Unskilled really just means less skilled. Just being literate would have been considered skilled labor 200 years ago, so being "unskilled" is always a moving goalpost. Being unskilled generally means you don't have any skills which would take more than a few weeks / months to teach your average high school graduate. Just like with a business, if your skills don't create a barrier to entry for competing workers, you will probably not command a high wage. The higher the barrier to entry, whether through natural ability or training, the higher wage you will command.

    What happens if everybody has an education and is competing on the same level for "skilled" jobs and nobody wants to do the "unskilled" jobs? What happens if we don't have anyone to man the register or pick your food from a field? Wouldn't you say those jobs are necessary?

    If for instance the goalpost moves by every person receiving a college-level education, skilled labor will be those who have skills which cannot be quickly taught to your average college graduate (as opposed to an average high school graduate). Someone who did poorly in college and never differentiated themselves would be considered unskilled.

    It seems to me that "unskilled" workers are necessary in order to provide a quality of life for the workers in "skilled" jobs.

    Yes, we will continue to need many unskilled workers but as I've said there will probably never be a shortage of them since it is a relative term.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  99. Re:I don't even like Uber but by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    Did you really just compare forced labor with the threat of harm and/or death to voluntary employment?

    I realize that making outrageous comparisons is exciting, but rarely is it accurate. Willful ignorance in pursuit of the party narrative usually does more harm than good.

    These people, much like those fulltime fastfood workers we keep hearing all about, are not owed shit from anyone. If they want a "living wage", then they should be making better life choices and stop relying on others to fix their mistakes.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  100. Company Store by Spazmania · · Score: 1

    The only thing that concerned me in the article is that Uber is leasing the car. Uber should not be running a company store. That creates debt slavery.

    If the self-employed want to get a jump on their competition by sleeping in their cars, that's their choice. If you don't want the low-skill self-employed life where you work your tail off, work a low-skill 9 to 5 job instead.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    1. Re:Company Store by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Uber should not be running a company store. That creates debt slavery

      Intentional on their part.
      People talk about "the new economy" but it's just piecework right out of the 19th century, only with an app.

    2. Re:Company Store by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Oh great oracle, where are those low-skill 9-5 jobs you can apparently live on?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  101. Lots of jobs near the bottom by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

    In my experience in the UK, the difference between minimum wage and entry level graduate position is not that great. Not saying that minimum wage is too high, just that the value of a degree seems to have become somewhat devalued and I don't see salaries having moved much in ten years.

    1. Re:Lots of jobs near the bottom by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Although comically, 'straight out of university' graduates joining my company this year will be earning more than the graduates that started last year now earn.

      This is causing some understandable conflict.

      But even that aside, the starting salary for graduates at my company is above the UK average wage, so not even remotely close to minimum wage. Average graduate salaries are £18-20k/year, which is £200/month more than minimum wage (assuming someone on minimum wage gets paid for 40 hours/week including holidays). £200/month is worth having, especially at that tax rate, and that's the starting salary; two years in that £200/month differential will have doubled, five years in the difference buys a new car.

      So your experience may not reflect national trends, even without salaries moving much in the past decade.

  102. Re:Doesn't sound like any Uber drivers I know or h by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

    So the point is that without the crappy Uber job, they are better off?

    Yes. By imposing some limitations on the contractual agreements that can be formed, Uber will have to offer better jobs or go out of business because of a lack of drivers. This will make their employees better off.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  103. Re:I don't even like Uber but by netsavior · · Score: 1

    It doesn't take 7 billion people to feed, clothe, shelter, and entertain 7 billion people. So, now what? What is the solution to that fundamental problem caused by our technological advancements and medically enhanced longevity?

    Do the people who are unnecessary to societal function deserve a death sentence? Deserve to be tortured to death? Live on the brink of starvation? Live in constant medical/dental/emotional pain?

    The real problem with people not "deserving" a living wage is that people are real, actual living humans, and most people do not want to live in a society which treats human beings as disposable.

  104. Uber is a Taxi Cab service by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    and Taxi cab driving is a full time job for adults. Always was, always is.

    Burger flipping became a 'real' job when globalism eroded the job market for folks who couldn't make it to college. There's millions of 'em, and last I checked neither you or anyone else in this country has the brass balls to put a slug between their eyes and end their misery. Maybe you do. Either do something about their awful lives or admit you don't care. But enough already with the B.S. about how these jobs aren't jobs for adults. You're saying it to make yourself feel better by looking down on the folks doing them. I'm sure that's working for you. For them? Not so much.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  105. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

    How are people supposed to get independent of their parents if they can't get the income they need to be independent of them until they are independent of them?

    What about people who are students and don't have parents that they can be dependent on, working their way through school? Do they get the money they need to survive, or the lower student income? Do the first group above (people struggling to get independent of their parents) have to go through a barely-surviving stage like this before you start paying them enough to survive?

    What about working people who go back to school to try to get training to get better, higher-paying jobs? Do you cut their pay while they're doing that?

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  106. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Cramer · · Score: 1

    It's a "side gig" and you f'ing know it from the get-go. If you choose to make it your full time job and sole source of income, then that's your choice. Don't come bitching to me or anyone else about your dumb ass poor decisions. It's these sort of idiots thats transformed "RIDE SHARING" ("I'm going across town, who needs a ride?") to an unlicensed taxi service (idiots circling the block waiting for someone to need a ride.)

  107. Re:I don't even like Uber but by cryptizard · · Score: 1

    Or we could just not make people suffer through that out of some vindictive "I did it so you should too" attitude.

  108. Re: I don't even like Uber but by Jack_the_Tripper · · Score: 1

    If you spend 40 hours per week flipping burgers then you should not need to work a second and third job just to pay your bills because some other people have made a value judgment about how important your job is. You know, every single person who ever decides they want a $7 Big Mac value meal over a $25 hamburger meal in a proper restaurant (made by a 'burger flipper' getting paid a living wage) has made this value judgement you seem to be condemning. So, basically, every single person alive today has made the judgment that some skills are more valuable than others and have made their preferences known through how much they are willing to pay.
    The only solution to this is to have a Commission of Goods and Services to set prices and wages because it is painful obvious that every single person can't be trusted to make decisions that are beneficial to the common good.

  109. An education costs a $200 laptop and free wifi by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    If you think the only education you can get to lift you out of a low paying job is a college degree then your worldview is the first thing that needs a correction through education.

    Poor people like to demand that others walk a mile in their shoe because it'd be too much work to walk a mile in the shoes of those who lifted themselves out of poverty.

    A $200 laptop and free wifi at McDonald's will give you all the education you need to work your way up to a livable wage.

    1. Re:An education costs a $200 laptop and free wifi by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      If you think the only education you can get to lift you out of a low paying job is a college degree then your worldview is the first thing that needs a correction through education.

      If you only got that from that post, perhaps a college degree would have taught you what an example is.

      A $200 laptop and free wifi at McDonald's will give you all the education you need to work your way up to a livable wage.

      It's amusing you think $200 is a paltry sum of money when discussing how people can get out of poverty.

      Maybe they should just get a loan from their parents to start a business.

    2. Re:An education costs a $200 laptop and free wifi by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      In fact, $100 with free wifi should be plenty.

      What part of "poverty" are you unable to understand? They have no money for a laptop. Zero. None. Nada. Zilch.

      Those riches took their skill and opportunity to strike at the right time.

      No, they started in a situation where a $200 laptop was not only possible, but it was cheap.

    3. Re:An education costs a $200 laptop and free wifi by Samhain138 · · Score: 1

      You are, for some reason, ignoring the part about "food" and "shelter".

      I'm self-taught, dropped out of high-school, never went to college.
      Lately I took a couple of months off (contracting) work to brush up on new technologies, etc.
      Let there be no mistake: it set me back financially a lot more than $200 even though I already had a laptop.
      I am not from that part of the world but I assume this "heating" thing alone would cost more than $200 this time of year in Chicago.

      As a side-note, wtf do we need laws and governments for if not for when people *don't* do the right things and make mistakes?
      Humans make mistakes. They should never be allowed to dig themselves so deep in a hole where they risk freezing to death sleeping in their cars.

  110. Re: I don't even like Uber but by generic_screenname · · Score: 1

    He made a mistake and is now stuck. It is presently his best option, as we have not invented time travel yet.

  111. Re:I don't even like Uber but by lgw · · Score: 1

    Or we could just not make people suffer through that out of some vindictive "I did it so you should too" attitude.

    That attitude is in your head, not my post.

    I get this bullshit a lot. I explain some situation and how I or others found a way out - real world answers actually done. And people come out of the woodwork to complain in the way you did. WTF? Do you object to any useful advice in life? Not every bit of advice will worth for everyone. We get that. But everything that actually worked for someone will be useful for someone else!

    Some people can't be functional adults, and obviously need charity, whether physically or mentally disabled. For the rest, yes, they need to find some path to skilled work. We as a society need to make that path easier, but it's clear there will be no unskilled jobs by the end of the century.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  112. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Cederic · · Score: 1

    I've known people put their life savings into learning a new skill, only to find that the jobs aren't there, the world's moved on or that even after the training they just aren't able to compete in the labour market.

    The effort isn't lacking, the risk taking is there, the desire to learn exists and the outcome still completely sucks.

    I don't want people like that dying young and homeless. You were lucky, in your background or genetics or decisions; others aren't. Survival in this century shouldn't be down to luck for anybody.

  113. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Dr_Terminus · · Score: 1

    So what about the all of the unskilled jobs that are essential for a modern society to operate (garbage men, gas station clerks, waiters/waitresses, cooks, drivers, farm laborers, etc)? Do you imply that people in those jobs should accept the fact that in order to survive they need to devote even more of their time to their job, just because a company is too damn cheap to support them?

    It seems this is history repeating itself, and we are going back to the time of the industrial revolution and the gilded age, where workers were expected to work 16 hours, 6 days a week just to survive.

  114. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Indeed. Mocking people stupid enough to believe your lies as you exploit them is sociopathic. Employees are stakeholders too and neglecting them tends to be an excellent way to kill a business.

    What pisses me off is that the cunts behind Uber will exit with a large windfall before the model collapses.

  115. Re: I don't even like Uber but by Cederic · · Score: 1

    That is exactly the point though. Working full time should be enough to let you live, especially something like providing personal chauffeur services.

    Uber paying their workers a pitiful amount is exactly the fucking issue.

  116. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Cederic · · Score: 1

    So by voting for Brexit to reduce the flood of immigration I've very clearly done my best to reduce demand for housing.

    Uber still don't pay their staff enough. Whatever the cost of living, Uber should be paying enough to cover it. They're clearly not.

  117. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Given Uber have lied about the income their drivers can expect to receive I'm not sure how you're expecting him to have avoided that bad decision.

    I also think that even if he made a bad decision, Uber at a minimum allowed him to make it, knew he was making it, probably encouraged him to make it, and have a fucking obligation not to fuck him over as a result of it.

    People make bad decisions. If the job is shitty, if he hates it, if it doesn't earn as much as he wants, that's a bad decision and sure, he should look for other options.
    The job is all of those things and doesn't even pay him enough to go home and sleep in a bed at night. That's not a bad decision, that's a fucking travesty. Yes, Uber are very much accountable.

  118. Re:I don't even like Uber but by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    First of all, you obviously have no idea how much some of those jobs pay. I'd wager most garbage men out earn me, for example. Waiters/waitresses can, too. Cooks have more variance, but can still earn a comfortable wage in a lot of instances.

    However, what value do gas station clerks really provide? Or, more accurately, what value do they provide that you can't find in any one else who walks through the door? Drivers provide a bit more value, but not much; valid license and clean record. Not that hard. Why should the bare minimum be rewarded with unbalanced compensation?

    You want to talk about history repeating itself, how often must we bungle heavy handed attempts at market manipulation before we finally get that it doesn't work. If a job doesn't provide a livable wage worth of value to the company, then how do you expect the company to survive by forcing it to pay one? You can't just wave your hand and it magically happens, nor can you demonize companies for wanting to stay solvent.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  119. Re:I don't even like Uber but by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    He's a big boy, everybody lies/distorts during job hunts, employees, employers. Everybody.

    Like I say, the conventional way is to run the cab 24/7. Splitting it two or three ways while only paying one lease.

    But that requires him to have one or two people in the world that he trusts and trust him. I suspect a 53 year old full time 'uber' driver/whiner will get more trust from strangers than people he actually knows.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  120. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Just how much would a second driver even earn, if this guy is already driving at peak times just to cover his own costs.

    You're also assuming there aren't excess mileage charges on the lease, quite apart from other factors.

    But hey, you know where he sleeps. Pop over, give him the benefit of your insight and ideas. Hell, sounds like he'd welcome the company and a decent cup of coffee at least.

  121. Re:I don't even like Uber but by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Jobs are meant to fill a need of the employer.

    Sounds like slavery. The employer gets 100%, and the employee is valueless, less than human.

    I'd say the reality is somewhere in the middle. The job has some "value", but the employers don't pay based solely on value to them, as then we'd see higher wages for things like engineering. Instead, the employer claims "market value" when it benefits them, and "value" when it benefits them. Whatever harms the employee most. If employers weren't unethical evil machines, we wouldn't have (or need) unions.

  122. Re:I don't even like Uber but by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    What happens if everybody has an education and is competing on the same level for "skilled" jobs and nobody wants to do the "unskilled" jobs? What happens if we don't have anyone to man the register or pick your food from a field? Wouldn't you say those jobs are necessary?

    If the job is "necessary" then the employer will pay market rates for that job. In some places, unskilled work is paid higher than skilled work. This is done for some things like construction, where people don't want the job, so to get a person willing to stand for 8 hours in the hot sun directing traffic in a construction zone gets paid about the same as someone 3-years after getting an engineering degree. If you have to have someone there, you pay them more until there is someone willing to take the job. Even if it's unskilled.

    It's mainly the US that asserts "unskilled" and "necessary" jobs be paid at slave wages. Outside the US, "trades" are not seen as "unskilled" and unskilled jobs are paid higher (comparatively, even if not absolutely).

  123. Re:I don't even like Uber but by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    That's how we'll get Great Again. Crash the economies of everyone else, so we are comparatively good again.

  124. Strawmen attacks by mabu · · Score: 1

    It's the height of irony to blame the loss of decent jobs on unions.

    Look up the definition of a standard corporation and you'll find nowhere in their charter is to create jobs or make the world a better place. All corporations care about is creating value for their shareholders. If they can outsource, replace employees with robots, poison the air and water (and get away with it) they absolutely will.

    Unions are one of the few ways workers can protect themselves from the predatory nature built into every corporation.

    1. Re: Strawmen attacks by psycheitout · · Score: 1

      Very true. Which is why so many companies are moving towards automation and outsourcing to increase their bottom line. Its not like they need to have their employees best interest at heart or even the customers, as long as your big enough you can guarantee a customer base in this country even if everyone hates you and you hate your customers Like Wal-Mart or the Kardashians. The only part of the US economic system that is even obligated to give a crap about the average citizen is the government. But with a republican majority and their conservative values of small government and little to no market regulation the likelihood of seeing any intervention to help Americas working poor is non exsistent. Which puts working Americans of all walks of life at risk of their positions being undercut and being replaced by someone or something willing to do the same job for pennys on the dollar. Course eventually your going to reach a point where the majority of Americans are too poor to buy any products or use any services beyond what's needed for survival. Maybe then companies will realize how dangerous it is to ignore the other half of the economic system that gives them all the money in the first place.

  125. Re:I don't even like Uber but by cryptizard · · Score: 1

    lol were you under the impression that I was asking for your advice how to raise myself out of poverty or something? What is the point of your anecdote?

  126. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like those employers are either getting by just fine without those employees or if they do need those employees they better start making better offers to get those positions filled. The other day I drove past a burger king and they had a big banner out front offering $15+/hr to work for them flipping burgers.

    My wife works at an automotive supplier. They hire through a temp agency, those that stick around and do a good job will eventually get hired on, start around $15/hr and get benefits.

    When I was a student worker (sort of like a co-op) at my current company back in 2000, I made $11/hr. I lived at home and was able to get my B.S. at a state university in Ohio and only walked away with approximately $6k in debt. 17 years later wages really haven't changed, I think the students only make about $11.50/hr now.

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  127. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    No. Any jobs worth $15 before a minimum wage hike will also increase in pay grade, because otherwise why would people bother when an ostensibly easier job pays the same?

    No. Who said the lower wage job was easier? Dug any ditches recently? If the $15/hr job was only worth $15/hr before the minimum wage went up, it will still only be worth $15/hr after.

    Prices go up, wages go up across the spectrum

    You have a remarkably interesting view of how prices and wages interact. Prices going up does NOT mean wages go up. If only that were true, then the skyrocketing price of gas in the last decades would have meant Nirvana for all the employed folks whose wages went up with it.

    Some jobs are also likely lost to automation because the cost-reward ratio changes,

    Try "a lot of the entry level jobs" go away.

    That's very clearly and obviously not how economics works,

    Uhhh, right.

    or there wouldn't be any people between minimum wage and $15/h in the first place.

    Because clearly there are no jobs that are worth between "minumum wage" and "$15/hr" today, so clearly nobody pays anyone anything in between those two numbers. Except for all those jobs that are $10/hr, $12/hr, etc...

  128. Fine. Be poor by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    The poor get poorer for the same reason the rich get richer.

    They keep doing what they're doing.

  129. Re:It's your choice by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    Either we as a society make employers pay a wage that people in that situation can live on or we accept having vast numbers of people on state aid. Whichever one we opt for, the public end up paying for it.

    The difference being that increasing the minimum wage to make it a basic income means you give money to everyone who works minimum wage, and having assistance for those who need more than the current minimum wage means giving money only to some. Which costs less -- giving money to everyone or giving money only to those who need it? And what do you do for those that even a new minimum wage won't provide enough? You're still running welfare because of them, so you don't even get the savings from eliminating that program.

    The second difference is that increasing minimum wage increases the cost of labor for almost every business, especially those dealing in food (grocery stores, burger joints, etc). Unlike the common opinion here, grocery stores are NOT companies that are just rolling in profit that can afford to pay everyone twice what they make today. Grocery stores who hire high school and college students part time to stock shelves and such will wind up paying them a lot more when they aren't even trying to live on that wage -- a cost without an associated benefit.

    do you really think anyone would do the sort of work that pays the minimum wage by choice?

    Yes. Now here's one for you: do you really think that the only people who work a minimum wage job are those who are trying to support a wife, three kids, and pay off a mortgage?

    Being paid piecemeal is the exception, not the rule.

    Piecemeal is not relevant to the issue of how much value your work has. If you produce $10/hour in value, then a sudden raise to $15/hr is ridiculous.

    if a salaried or hourly paid employee doesn't pull their weight you warn them, give them a reasonable chance to improve and then sack them if they don't.

    You just don't understand. They can 'pull their weight' if they are paid $8/hr. It's when they are paid $15/hr that they are no longer doing so. "Pulling their weight" is a balance between cost and benefit. Make the costs too high and they can't "pull their weight" simply because the job they are doing can't produce enough benefit. It has nothing to do with the employee or how hard they are working, it has everything to do with the job itself.

    Let's pretend. You run a food service that sells hot dogs wrapped in pretzel dough. (Auntie Annie's, for example.) It costs 50 cents in hot dogs and dough and electricity for the oven per unit. You sell them for $3 each (two for $6, yum). You have an employee making $8/hr. Assume $16/hr for costs by the time you add all the extras in. He has to sell 16/2.5 dogs per hour to break even -- ignoring all the other costs of doing business. Your oven can keep up with that rate of production, and so can the employee. You actually sell 24/hr. You're ok.

    Now double the minimum wage to $15/hr. That makes the employee costs $30/hr. Now you have to sell 30/2.5 dogs per hour to break even. But you're only selling 24 per hour, and that's all your oven can handle or the employee can prepare. The employee is "pulling his weight" at $8/hr wage; he's falling behind at $15/hr, and there's nothing you can do to fix it that doesn't cost you even more money. Your solution: "warn them, give them a reasonable chance to improve and then sack them". But there is no way they can improve. "The beatings will continue until the morale improves."

    Oh, but you just raise the price to cover the difference. Now you sell fewer than 24 per hour and you're falling further behind. But you're a company that's rolling in profit, right, so you can absorb the costs. No problem.

    There is a fact that you cannot get around: there are just some jobs that are worth the current minimum wage but not double that amount. (I use that number because minimum is abo

  130. Re:I don't even like Uber but by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Working class folks need to have an uncomfortable life

    Are you roleplaying your username "ghoul"?
    There's plenty of motivation for social mobility without advocating shit like that.

  131. Re:I don't even like Uber but by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    Instead the poor in the US would much rather buy videogames than spend time studying at the library.

    There are 1.5 STEM graduates for every entry-level STEM job opening.

    Lazy isn't the problem. The problem is basic math and how many people are unwilling to let basic math trump their ideology.

  132. Re:I don't even like Uber but by dbIII · · Score: 1

    No, not really. You can spend 80 hours per week doing a job that returns $1000 in value to the company you work for, but you can't expect them to just hand you $1500 for your time

    Someone seriously wrote that on Slashdot - the site for programmers, system admins, R&D and so on who are considered a "cost center"?
    A lot of people here do not generate a salable return but without them the systems used to generate a return would fail. Should most of the people here take a pay cut just because an accountant has defined them as a "cost center"? Should the accountants also take a cut since they are also support staff?
    Consider that and then think about your example as applied to yourself instead of some other person you consider worthless untermenchen.

  133. Re:I don't even like Uber but by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

    You were lucky, in your background or genetics or decisions; others aren't.

    DEAD WRONG. I worked my ass off and got shit on over and over and over for it. I've homeless more than a few times, and lost more than one opportunity to my scary background on account of my "lucky" decisions. Eventually I enlisted in the US Army, learned (learnt?) a decent skill, gained real world experience, and refused to quit until I had at least a decent job with a livable wage. None of that is luck, none of it was genetics, and the decisions that led me here have been mostly teaching me what not to do.

    I get it though, it's easier to blame unseen forces like gods and luck and shit than accept that the world is a harsh place full of harsh realities and will never be fair. The only way anybody ever gets anywhere is failing over and over again. Yup, even the rich kid that inherits a fortune spends his life failing over and over until he "makes it" Blaming the people signing your paycheck certainly aint gonna move your ass up.

    I'm not shitting on those that are trying, but when a jobs got you sleeping in the 7/11 parking lot, its time to re-evaluate your options. Complaining and demonizing the company that has agreed to employ you is wasting the time you could be using to learn a new hustle, or marketable skill.

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  134. Monoculture (again) by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It's hard to say whether it was a stupid idea or not because the mode of failure was a drop in oil price removing the funds to continue carrying out the idea.
    A monoculture fucked over the socialist state of Venezuela just like it's going to fuck over the monarchist state of Saudi Arabia when their oil runs out. It's got nothing to do with whether a monarchist government is better than a socialist one but all to do with bad choices and relying too much on one point of failure.

    1. Re:Monoculture (again) by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      No, it's pretty clear the country was having troubles before oil ran out.
      At one time, you could make a good argument for communism, but right now there's no good argument for centralized control of the economy. That's just a dead idea.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Monoculture (again) by dbIII · · Score: 1

      No, it's pretty clear the country was having troubles before oil ran out.

      It has not run out.
      The price dropped.
      Try again based on something real.

  135. Re:I don't even like Uber but by crioca · · Score: 1

    You don't deserve money for doing nothing, or for doing a job that requires almost no skills.

    This is such a backwards way of thinking. People's time is valuable. Time they spend doing a job that requires almost no skills is time spent that they could be using to become skilled. This is why it's important that employers pay a livable wage; so we don't waste the value of our workforce.

  136. Re:I don't even like Uber but by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

    So if someone is willing to work for less than what you decide is a living wage, you prefer to have the government forcibly prevent them from doing so and not allow them to get a job? How noble of you!

    Is that because you hate poor people, or you just prefer to keep people from skills from learning enough to improve their lives, or you have some sort of interest in keeping them dependent on others?

      Do you also go around telling people they can't buy stuff 3rd-worlders make so the global poor are forced to live in worse conditions?

    BTW, slavery by definition is involuntary, not voluntary.

    Forcibly preventing people from improving their lives by voluntarily exchanging their time/labor for income is a moral issue, but you're apparently on the wrong side of it.

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  137. Re:Doesn't sound like any Uber drivers I know or h by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

    And people tend to want to work over starve.

    It sounds like you prefer for them all to starve rather than be legally allowed to work. Making it illegal for someone to work in the best situation they can find isn't doing them any favors... quite the opposite.

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  138. Uber drivers are stupid based on my experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I drove for Uber for 1 day on a dare (I earn a six-plus figure salary, and had a brand-new Audi A5 - Sydney, Australia) and this is what I learnt.

    Driving across about twelve hours on a Saturday, I averaged AUD$30 an hour of take-home pay. Equate that to a full-time salary and that's about AUD$60,000 per annum - a pretty-good salary for a lot of people.

    However, why Uber drivers are stupid, is that they only look at what their take-home pay is, and nothing else. They don't factor in petrol/gas (In Sydney ~$1.60 a litre), they don't factor in insurance (although you're covered on your fully-comprehensive insurance for your car, if you crash while driving for Uber and the insurance company finds out, good luck getting any form of payment - not to mention your immediate loss of wages while you wait for your car to be fixed), they don't factor in wear/tear/depreciation on the car, they don't factor in maintenance, they don't factor in cleaning/washing every few hours to maintain a 5-star rating, they don't factor in phone/data plan (calling/sms'ing your customers, data for Google maps). This is assuming they own the car outright from the get-go -- if it's leased / has repayments, they don't factor those elements in either.

    All those factors depreciate immensely from your ~$30 an hour take-home pay. They're unavoidable as you need all of the above to successfully drive for Uber (successfully as in, maintain a >4.6 star rating). What full-time "career" Uber drivers realise - such as the person in the article - is that what you earn from Uber needs to be re-invested into driving for Uber - which means you struggle to pay rent / eat / have a house etc.

    Short-term Uber drivers who need say, a few hundred dollars on a weekend - that's the way to make money - purely as a side-income. Anything more than that will end in tears.

  139. Re:the cognitive dissonance between hype and reali by djinn6 · · Score: 1

    Uber is being shitty to these people by upselling it so much, but I spoke to a dozen Uber drivers over the past couple of years. Some complain about rent, some complain about the traffic, some complain their kids are giving them a lot to worry about, but all of them like driving for Uber, because the alternative is just so much worse. And that's the real problem. There are no better alternative for some of these people.

    A couple of positive things you get from driving for Uber: flexible hours, take any day off, work anytime you want, even after your regular 9-5 job, no asshole coworkers to deal with, and refuse any customer you don't like. It's a really good deal if you're in an area with high demand.

  140. Re:It's your choice by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    How about a different scenario... (first fix the math, 30/2.5 is only 12 per hour to break even so selling only 24 per hour won't break the bank) Your minimum wage customers now have more disposable income so they're willing to splurge on a hotdog more often, so you invest in a more modern, higher capacity, more efficient oven that partially automates the bake/basket/sell cycle and that supports your one (now more experienced and productive employee) to do business of 36 units per hour at a cost of only $0.4 per unit, bringing you more profit. It's a win for the employee, for you, for the staff at the oven factory.

    Rose tinted specs, sure maybe, but better than the shit tinted ones, I get that there is a division of the spoils between capital and labor, but the capital has to up the ante from time to time too, not just sit back and expect the return to be infinite

    --
    Nullius in verba
  141. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Pubstar · · Score: 1

    My mom didn't grasp how bad the situation was for school until we compared tuition. In 1995, she was paying $9/credit. In 2015, going to the same community college she did, I was paying $47/credit. In that time, minimum wage increased by 2x, where tuition increased 5.2x. She has since gotten off the whole "They should just go to college and get a better life, it's easy" rant now.

  142. Re:I don't even like Uber but by TuringTest · · Score: 1

    Did you really just compare forced labor with the threat of harm and/or death to voluntary employment?

    There's a difference in degree only, not semantics. When people live in a region so poor and uneducated that all jobs and communication with the external world are provided by a single landowner, there isn't much difference between being a free peasant or a slave. This advice coming from someone living in a country which was governed by that model for several centuries.

    --
    Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
  143. Re:I don't even like Uber but by TuringTest · · Score: 1

    On the contrary, allowing people to outcompete each others on who works for less is what causes poor people to run out of options. If you work the whole day for slightly less than a subsistence salary, there's no room for doing something that will improve your life.

    Slavery is doesn't appear because "by definition" someone is forced to do something against their will, it happens because some removes all other options from you, so that the other possible voluntary alternative is death.

    --
    Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
  144. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Novotny · · Score: 1

    wow

  145. Re:Just wow people, what the hell were you thinkin by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    No shit, illusion of safety in exchange for basic human rights. America was a fun experiment till the fascists got control of it...

  146. Re:I don't even like Uber but by cryptizard · · Score: 2

    Unskilled labor is harder than skilled labor. It destroys your body and shortens your lifespan. Meanwhile I am sitting here in a comfortable chair, climate controlled office, making 3x as much money. The reward for getting an education is largely that you don't have to work at such a shitty job. If it payed the same amount of money to work at McDonalds as it did for me to do my current job I would still never do it because it would drive me crazy. The least we can do is give people working at those jobs a livable wage, because I know I wouldn't trade places with them.

  147. Re:I don't even like Uber but by mjwx · · Score: 1

    And when do you expect to get the raise that will allow you go buy the now more expensive product? Someone making $15/hr already who gets no raise when the minimum goes to $15/hr will be in serious trouble as the prices for everything that come from current minimum wage workers goes up to cover your largesse. I'm glad you have lots of excess cash now that you can spend on the more expensive products, but most people do not.

    Sorry to interrupt your lecture on crackpot economics 101 (or introduction to economic fallacies) but there are many, many nations throughout the world that demonstrates this is not the case. The UK, Australia, Japan and and many European nations demonstrate that paying a livable minimum wage does not result in mass unemployment. Quite the opposite in fact, paying people a livable wage enables them to buy things like rent and food instead of living in a leased car in a car park and subsisting on whatever they could get from Poundland.

    In fact Henry Ford's entire business model depended on his employees being paid enough to buy his own products... And that worked out fantastically for him as compared to Uber... who are haemorrhaging cash.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  148. Why Uber's business model can't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    read this
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-deliver-part-one-understanding-ubers-bleak-operating-economics.html

  149. Re:leasing a car from Uber sounds like the company by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and then they will have to cover all the costs of being a landlord.

  150. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    $47/credit is still pretty good. I paid $167/credit at the local technical college, plus associated fees which brought it closer to $190/credit, for the class I finished last December. That is also the same rate that is charged at the community colleges as well as they are part of the same system. I paid some thing similar to your $47/credit when I got my BS in CS and that was back in '01.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  151. Re:I don't even like Uber but by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

    No, that's why it's important to make training people something that is provided by the government. The solution isn't to make businesses pay somebody more than the value they bring to the company. We should be using tax dollars to provide better training to citizens. If that requires collecting more tax dollars from businesses and well off individuals, then that's fine. But forcing high wages definitely won't fix the problem because the cost of the items they are producing will go up, or the jobs will become non-existent entirely.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  152. Re:Fine. Be poor by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    They keep doing what they're doing.

    When your solution involves magically conjuring $200 out of thin air, the problem is your cloistered worldview. Not that the poor are insufficiently creative.

  153. Re:I don't even like Uber but by strikethree · · Score: 1

    And what do you propose should happen to those who don't have the skills, and can't acquire them?

    You already know the answer to that question: Those without skills will starve to death. Hell, even those with skills will starve to death if there is a hiccup in job opportunities.

    The world is an absolutely brutal place and fuck you, I've got mine. I don't really want to live in a world like this, but meh. What other choices are there? Eat or be eaten.

    --
    "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  154. Re:I don't even like Uber but by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    There's a difference in degree only, not semantics.

    No, boiling water and an ice cube are the difference of degrees. Your example is completely flawed. In the case of slavery, people can either do what they're told or face physical punishment ( up to and including death ). They have no rights. To family, to property...none of it.

    In the other, someone freely enters into an agreement ( which they can leave at anytime mind you ). Their employer can't take away their family. They can't take away their property.

    It's honestly a bit offensive to compare the two. It belittles the historic struggles faced by slaves throughout the world, and even today.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  155. Re:I don't even like Uber but by lgw · · Score: 1

    What makes you think I was talking to you? Several people still read Slashdot.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  156. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    In fact Henry Ford's entire business model depended on his employees being paid enough to buy his own products... And that worked out fantastically for him

    He didn't raise the minimum wage, so it's not a good analogy. Actually, it didn't work out so much for everyone else until the labor organized to get themselves a pay rate VERY MUCH ABOVE what he wanted to pay them. Do you think his auto plants would have gone union had he been paying such wonderful wages all along?

    He was creating a market by not just paying his workers, but by creating a manufacturing process that meant what he was building would cost less to build anyway. He wasn't doing it for HIS workers because he'd never survive in business that way. It was media hype produced to create an image. "Come buy cars from the guy who really cares about his employees." He was doing it to make money from free advertising.

    Doubling the minimum wage so it becomes a "living wage" will INCREASE the costs for everything that involves minimum wage labor. This increase will impact EVERYONE who buys anything from those sources, which is pretty much everyone, even those who are getting by with their current $15/hr jobs. Your local grocery store will have to raise prices on everything, after dealing with the wholesale price increases from their suppliers who have to pay more to their labor. It's not just a one-step increase. And grocery stores are just the first example out of thousands.

    Why do your favorite countries get away with paying so much already? Because they are already in a social welfare system that sucks a larger amount of taxes back out of the worker's pockets. It didn't come as a sudden disruption to their system.

    So sorry, the crackpot economics is the nonsense that raising minimum wage will be a panacea to the homeless problem. If anything, it will make it worse as prices go up to pay more to people who aren't producing at that level.

    And that worked out fantastically for him as compared to Uber... who are haemorrhaging cash.

    Your comparison of Ford to Uber is quite interesting. It would appear that you think that Uber should pay their drivers enough so that their drivers could afford to use Uber -- like Ford employees buying Model T cars -- which is patent nonsense. Or that Uber paying their drivers a $15/hr minimum wage (the current "living wage" level being proposed) would mean Uber would be rolling in dough. Yes, surely, if you raise the costs for Uber and thus raise the prices so that fewer people would choose Uber over a regular taxi, Uber will certainly begin profiting like never before. And you call my economics "crackpot".

  157. Basic Income Won't Work Just Like They Won't by kackle · · Score: 1

    The cost of living in a dump varies wildly throughout the country, and is constantly changing; so no number can be decided. Besides, we can't pay people to sit around and have sex (a favorite pastime, BTW) - so case closed. ...Unless you're planning on NOT also funding each child they happen to create, intentionally or by accident.

  158. Re:It's your choice by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    Your minimum wage customers now have more disposable income so they're willing to splurge on a hotdog more often,

    People making minimum wage aren't splurging on pretzel-wrapped hot dogs that are horribly overpriced compared to what they can make for themselves. If you think "minimum wage" means "disposable income", then you're not really talking about a minimum wage, you're talking about a wage well above that.

    And sales don't go up when the prices have to go up to pay for the employee labor behind it.

    so you invest in a more modern, higher capacity, more efficient oven

    No, if I'm going to invest to keep from losing money, I'm going to make an investment in automation and centralized processing, where a machine rolls the dogs in dough and freezes them, and probably puts them on the tray so all the employee at the store as to do is put the tray in the oven and take it out. Less labor, fewer employees.

    and that supports your one

    Yep, one instead of two or more. Half the people have jobs. You've proven a lot of my point for me.

    to do business of 36 units per hour

    Ahh, if only I could get a mandate that more people buy my more expensive product like the mandate that I pay my employees more...

    It's a win for the employee,

    For one of them. I notice you used the singular so you recognize that it will be one winner, many losers. At every site I run where I currently have four employees (two per shift, two shifts a day) I can now cut back to two employees. The two who still have jobs -- golden. The two who don't -- not so much.

    but the capital has to up the ante from time to time too, not just sit back and expect the return to be infinite

    And here we're back to the complete crap assumption that companies are just raking in huge profits all the time. Rose colored glasses, or are your glasses really the shit colored ones?

  159. Squatters camps by Stubbyfingers · · Score: 1

    This is probably going to become the new norm. People who work and pay taxes just living hand to mouth on the streets.

    And the 1% at the top will still think the mother fuckers get to damned much money.

  160. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Pubstar · · Score: 1

    This was just local Communtiy College, and it seems to be the going rate in Sothern California. When you say Technical College, do you mean like ITT/DeVry (sp?).

  161. Unskilled... by cwsumner · · Score: 1

    The phrase "unskilled job" is one used by rich elitists (or not so rich elitists) who have never worked a job. All of those jobs require skills, such as knowing how to safely lift heavy weights, and "white collar" people do not have those skills. Further more, most of the jobs referred to that way are the ones that will still be there after automation.

    On the other hand, jobs that a kid can learn to do don't usually require those skills and make good starter jobs. If you destroy all of the "starter jobs" then how do kids learn about having a job, or get "experiance" so they can get better jobs?

    The people complaining about "living wage" are often rich kids who majored in "art history" in school, without any idea of what job that was going to get them. Do you know how many real Art History jobs there even are? Ptht!

  162. Re:I don't even like Uber but by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

    Even in this region where living expenses are very low, good luck paying your bills on $20k/yr.

    There's a lot of students that live off of less than that.

    The issue is that people making minimum wage think they are entitled to things they cannot afford. They believe they should be able to have a place all to themselves, should be able to support dependents and still have money left over for things like their own vehicle, cable tv and smartphones.

  163. Re:I don't even like Uber but by sound+vision · · Score: 1

    Do you care to explain what makes one occupation more "deserving" of a living wage than another, and how you know we have enough deserving jobs to match deserving people?

  164. Re:I don't even like Uber but by sound+vision · · Score: 1

    If they have to raise the price of the burgers, that sounds like the market correcting itself to me. ...Maybe people really didn't need so many burgers?

  165. Insurance by QlooQl · · Score: 1

    People also forget about insurance costs. Your typical insurance policy does not cover the vehicle being used as a taxi. Commercial liability insurance makes driving for Uber well below minimum wage work when vehicle depreciation is also factored in. This is compounded when there is an accident. When you get into an accident as a passenger in an Uber vehicle, Uber will fight tooth and nail to make sure they don't have to pay anything. So will the insurance company for the driver.

  166. Re:I don't even like Uber but by ghoul · · Score: 1

    If the entry level positions are now in India why dont your entry level graduates move to India to get the requisite entry level experience. Nothing is preventing them from doing so. Its not even as hard as it was for their grandparents. With modern flight India is only a 20 hr ride away. Go work in India in entry level positions and you will be ideal candidates for senior level positions in the US as companies will not even have to do visas for you while you would have the cultural context to work with entry level folks in India. Fact of the matter is with globalization entry level work is no longer valuable enough to do it in USA.

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
  167. Re:I don't even like Uber but by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    When you say Technical College, do you mean like ITT/DeVry (sp?).

    No not like one of those dodgy operators. In Minnesota as part of one of my state's university systems (MNSCU) we have a number of vocational and technical colleges that offer a number of programs designed to actually educate people in practical skills and trades. In my area the 2 major ones that are part of the MNSCU system are Dakota County Technical College and also Hennepin Technical College. The highest degree offered at either one is an applied associates but they also offer shorter programs for various certifications. We also have another Vo-Tech Dunwoody that is really good even if they are a private institution but unlike the ITT/DeVry they actually educate their students and they do work with Hennepin Tech to share resources. The tuition at Dunwoody is more than at Hennepin but then Dunwoody doesn't get the state aid either. They have to compete for students so it can't be too out of line with what the state schools are charging. All of these are regionally accredited, not nationally, institutions that in most cases have been around for a long time.

    MNSCU also operates a large number of community colleges and I think 7 universities that offer bachelors, masters, and PhDs. The community and technical colleges are lumped together tuition wise and the universities are all lumped together. The other nice thing is that credits at any of MNSCU schools will transfer to any other one which is nice as it makes taking classes easier and makes it easier to get your degree. I also know that when I was in high school my school district had a post secondary program and for those who wanted to go learn a trade could go over to Dakota County Tech and get a head start on that program before they graduated high school or if you were planning on going to college you could go and take classes at Inver Hills or Normandale community college. The classes counted towards your high school work but you also got college credit for it and the school district paid for it. I took advantage of it most of my senior year and took a full year of college calculus (no AP test for me), full year of calculus based physics, a world history class, an English composition class, a speech class and a college statistics class (not calculus based). Add in the AP European history, AP biology, and AP chemistry that I had taken my junior year and I started college with sophomore standing at no cost to me. I now wonder if they still have the post secondary program because it really would be a shame if they didn't as it provided a lot of opportunity.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  168. Re:the cognitive dissonance between hype and reali by erapert · · Score: 1

    Basically you're pointing out that in certain situations a group of newcomers can get in and ruin a good thing that the original group had going on.
    Well, that's precisely why immigration needs to be controlled.
    That's why not everyone needs to learn how to c0d3z.
    That's why communism doesn't work.
    ...

    It's a problem with pretty much every human endeavor.
    The best we can do is try to keep people from intentionally screwing up a good thing. But good luck with that.

    As for the uber and taxi drivers themselves: look, all careers are, to some extent, ephemeral. Even farming doesn't necessarily last forever.
    Nobody can guarantee you a farm that won't experience a dust bowl.
    Nobody can guarantee you an engineering job in a city that you like.
    Nobody can guarantee you that you won't get cancer at some point.
    Nobody can guarantee you that you won't be poor or that you'll be rich.
    There are no guarantees.
    There can be no guarantees.
    But even if there were some way to know the future or to offer some real guarantees nobody owes it to you or anyone else anyway.

    Yeah it sucks when you had a good thing going and were making plenty of money but then it goes away.
    That's why we need to be adults and save our resources for when times get tough and keep an eye out for how things are going in the world so we can see the tough times coming.
    It's why we have brains. It's why we conquered the whole planet while animals are stuck in their various habitats.