Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I hear this argument a lot, and I wonder, would anyone who has gone through an extended period of poverty agree with it? I went through this myself, and all the worker "protection" laws just made it that much harder to get back on my feet because they limited how much I could work. Or forced me to allocate some of my pay to benefits I didn't need rather than the expensive treatment I desperately needed to stay alive in the short-term.

I drove for Uber and it was seriously the only job I could get and it saved my life. I know of many other drivers who are battling disabling conditions who drive for Uber as well. Jobs that are as flexible as Uber are non-existent.

I find it really disappointing how many people debate this issue without ever actually listening to the people in poverty. That means talking to real people doing the job. Not just the protestors in the streets. And frankly, if you have time to protest, you're probably not that poor. The poorest of the poor work whenever they can and do not spend time on things that don't earn them money.






> if you have time to protest, you're probably not that poor

i dont know what protests you've been attending but the one's ive helped at for laundry and warehouse workers were filled with people that were not only supporting families on minimum wage but also contained people who were here on visas.

in america you're always taking a risk by protesting an employer.


It's all relative. To me anyone who can work full time is not that poor. But I understand why many would view that as poverty.

Minimum wage is not, on its own, enough to afford average rent anywhere in America. If you're making minimum wage and have no other access to support: you're poor.

This is, ultimately the major reason why the status quo never changes here: people dont want to acknowledge their class.


I'm not a fan of the whole "late-stage capitalism" meme, but I think that perfectly describes your complaint here.

The ideal approach is two pronged, you raise the standard which benefits society as a whole and increase the social safety net to take care of those few lost in transition.

The same principle applies to a wide variety of economic changes from increased labor regulations, to housing, to free trade, to automation. Your complaint here is mainly that we haven't followed through on protecting those caught in transition. We shouldn't fall into the trap of mistaking that for a valid criticism against raising the societal standard.


My point is that it's impossible for us to keep up and fix everyone's problem for them. We need to empower people to make their own choices. That's the best way to help.

And my point is that many times a decision made out of desperation is not really a decision at all. We should empower people so that they truly have a choice on some of these issues.

There has to be a line somewhere, though, right? We don’t want people to be able sign away their labor for the next X years and accidentally reinvent indentured servitude, for example.

Yes, definitely. I would view that as restricting choice.

I think the best way to increase wages is more and more jobs so that workers have bargaining power. I've used Uber as a fall-back and it dramatically increases my bargaining power.




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: