I have yet to see a convincing argument, here on HN or elsewhere, about how these companies are taking advantage of workers.
Most of us are old enough to have seen these companies spring into existence, so here are the steps:
1) 100% of people are employed or unemployed. Uber (for example) doesn't exist
2) uber starts existing, some previously unemployed people and some previously employed people start working for uber
3) those people that willingly took those jobs are being taken advantage of
What is the principal that justifies 3? People are not agents of free will, and any sub-utopic framework they have to participate in is immoral? Even if that's the case, I'd like to see the argument that those people who chose and choose to work at uber have worse outcomes than they otherwise would.
Most of us are old enough to have seen these companies spring into existence, so here are the steps:
1) 100% of people are employed or unemployed. Uber (for example) doesn't exist
2) uber starts existing, some previously unemployed people and some previously employed people start working for uber
3) those people that willingly took those jobs are being taken advantage of
What is the principal that justifies 3? People are not agents of free will, and any sub-utopic framework they have to participate in is immoral? Even if that's the case, I'd like to see the argument that those people who chose and choose to work at uber have worse outcomes than they otherwise would.