> "By your logic above, an indentured servitude would count as a "not being taken advantage of" and by implication, reasonable moral form of employment."
No it wouldn't. Indentured servitude requires someone to be indentured, which is immediately in conflict with OP's correct observation that no one is being forced to work. They directly hinged their question on the premise that the workers are free to make choices.
OP's question regarding the free choices of previously unemployed workers is valid. Questioning why 1099 employment isn't "moral" as you put it is also valid.
> > People are not agents of free will, and any sub-utopic framework they have to participate in is immoral?
> This is a straw man argument to its core. No one is, or has suggested that all labor should be abolished unless it meets a utopian ideal.
Actually your response is the straw man here, because you have introduced and attacked an absolute (all labor) where one did not previously exist.
You're projecting the errors you yourself are making onto OP.
> No it wouldn't. Indentured servitude requires someone to be indentured, which is immediately in conflict with OP's correct observation that no one is being forced to work.
You're thinking of slaves. Indentured servants chose to enter into binding contracts. No one forced them to sign away years of their life; they did so of their own volition. US case law would no longer recognize such contracts as valid.
No, I'm thinking of indentured servitude. Which requires them to be indentured, via said contracts. You are agreeing with me.
Uber is the antithesis of being tied to a job. You have complete freedom to engage whenever you wish. In fact it is precisely this freedom that "they should be employees" proponents are attacking.
Wow, you really did a good job of accounting for the aggregate labor supply/demand dynamics right there. There was no Uber before Uber therefore Uber is great! You heard it here first, people!
> These positions fall apart under even the most cursory examination.
As I said, this was a new growth industry. Taxis do not have a supply/demand dynamic because (for example in SF) the industry is artificially constricted by the medallion system or other controls. There have never been unallocated taxi medallions in SF.
As I also previously pointed out, taxi drivers were already independent contractors prior to Uber -- so if non-employee work is inherently immoral then this doesn't represent a change from the status quo.
It's difficult to see how Uber's system of allowing people to work if and when they feel like it is worse than the city's system where people would have to finance up to $1 million to buy a ticket allowing them to work within the regulatory system.
> Right back atcha.
No, as I've shown you simply did not read carefully. Please be civil in your response and please take some time to consider what's already been said.
Your rebuttal is wrong. The number of drivers exploded by 100x or more after Uber showed up. Before Uber, the taxi industry had a monopoly on rides. Uber destroyed that and orders of magnitude more drivers showed up and then more customers showed up.
So the supply increased, there are less jobs there are orders of magnitude more.
You can't really rebut the idea that in our society people are forced to work to live with "that is not the scenario described"
Parent was making an observation about the mandate of working in our society, and you replied that you weren't talking about people who have to work... :/
No it wouldn't. Indentured servitude requires someone to be indentured, which is immediately in conflict with OP's correct observation that no one is being forced to work. They directly hinged their question on the premise that the workers are free to make choices.
OP's question regarding the free choices of previously unemployed workers is valid. Questioning why 1099 employment isn't "moral" as you put it is also valid.
> > People are not agents of free will, and any sub-utopic framework they have to participate in is immoral?
> This is a straw man argument to its core. No one is, or has suggested that all labor should be abolished unless it meets a utopian ideal.
Actually your response is the straw man here, because you have introduced and attacked an absolute (all labor) where one did not previously exist.
You're projecting the errors you yourself are making onto OP.