If people voluntarily choose those jobs then doesn't that mean those jobs are better than the alternatives they have? It also provides a pretty nice service.
I reckon you are happy that you didn't work in the mines when you were 9 years of age? Or am I completely wrong? Oh wait, naturally you would have been able to decide for your own best.
This was about regulations. I never commented on the uber drivers. Tbh, I have not enough insight to know if they should be protected.
I am merely pointing out, that is is easy to forget what regulations do for you. And yes, 9 year old have worked in mines before working age was regulated.
This regulation is specifically about Uber, and it's also easy to forget what regulations can harm and the unintended consequences they create. Balance is key, and that seems to be have been entirely missed here.
> 9 year old have worked in mines before working age was regulated.
I know. They weren't forced to work, they were hired because it was legal and families back then depended on their income. Children still work often in agriculture and it remains the families choice to do so.
Regardless, there's a big difference between child labor and adults choosing how they want to drive for work.
Oh come on, of course those kids were forced to work in those mines. They weren't allowed to refuse. They had to do whatever their parents told them to. The alternative was being a homeless street urchin.
I believe the alternative to driving Uber is serving at McDonald's, not becoming a homeless street urchin, so vivid imagery of this strawman notwithstanding, the argument for regulation isn't nearly as convincing.
More like: "If people voluntarily choose those jobs then doesn't that mean that any alternatives that aren't even worse have been replaced with ones that are even worse, because the government allows such replacement?", actually.
