# UberELECTION | Hillary Clinton Plans To Campaign Against Uber’s Contractor Economy



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/12/clinton-uber/


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*News about new rates for UberX Atlanta








*


----------



## djino (Mar 15, 2015)

I was just about to post this. Beat me too it again

djino


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

How can Uber be so overt about exploiting those with no choices or commonsense to know better? 

Whoever is the sick mind that comes up with these pay rates and earning garantee is one sick human being.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/12/clinton-uber/


How could've I missed the photo in this article? It makes Hillary look a like a *Uber Neo-Nazi!*


----------



## djino (Mar 15, 2015)

"*Heil Taxi!"*


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

Travis kalanick and his investors are pure evil. I'm not joking here. Just read some articles about Travis or watch videos of him. His investors like Goldman Sachs are the reason the economy tanked and are big proponents on bringing American citizen pay to that of the third world.

A sure fire way to tell if an entity is corrupt is if they claim to be righteous but their actions are wicked.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Another interesting tidbit:










The American Worker is being played for a fool by the Political Elite!


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/12/clinton-uber/


_*Update 7/13 5:45am PST:* Clinton's camp has since clarified to Politico that "she'll cite sharing economy as example of wage pressure", but not as aggressively as its post implied. To better express that, we've edited our headline from "Hillary Clinton Plans To Campaign Against Uber's Contractor Economy."

*Update 7/13 7:20am PST: In her speech, Clinton said* that "the so-called gig economy offers exciting opportunities but raises hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future". She "vows to crack down on employers who misclassify workers as independent contractors", which she says is "wage theft". Clinton also said that benefits, paid sick leave, and maternity leave are essential to strengthening the middle class. Those are things independent contractors don't get.

*Update 7/12 7:45am PST:* Regarding quarterly capitalism, Clinton said "Everything's focused on the next earnings report or the short-term share price, and the result is too little attention on the sources of long term growth" which include research and talent.

Clinton stated "Some of our biggest companies have spent almost half their earnings to buy back their own stock, and another third or more to pay dividends. That doesn't leave a lot left to raise pay or invest in the workers or make new investments to ensure a company's future success. These trends need to change."

A shift in investor mindset and the policy that fuels it could free public tech companies to build for the future rather than maintaining their status quo._


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber enters the presidential race*
*http://fortune.com/2015/07/13/uber-enters-the-presidential-race/*


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

It was only a matter of time before Democrats woke up to what Uber is doing. They've spent decades creating laws to protect workers from being exploited as well as establishing social safety nets, all of which Uber is avoiding. To think Democrats would be okay with this is ignorant. It's only been a lack of awareness on their part of what Uber is actually doing that has kept this from becoming a party issue. Uber doesn't appear to be flying under the Democrats radar anymore. Sorry Travis, but you ####ing deserve what's coming now.


----------



## Uber lies constantly (Jul 13, 2015)

I'm still voting for Bernie


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Growth in the 'Gig Economy' Fuels Work Force Anxieties*
*http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/1...-trend-in-employment-practices.html?referrer=*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/12/clinton-uber/


Posting/Complaining on the Forum about Drivers Earnings & other Uber policies that fail to account for Drivers Operational Reality is of a limited utility. That is because the message seldom leaves the confines of this page. 
More Drivers need to convey the Reality of Driving for Uber, like Robert Charles did in the comments in this article:


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Rand Paul goes off on Hillary Clinton, and says she's disqualified from bashing Uber*
*http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-hillary-clinton-uber-2015-7*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Rachel Galindo's actual Earnings/Hr in LA, after Aug 2014 Rate Cuts:
*Do Lower Fares Really Equal More Money For Drivers Due to More Rides, Just as Uber has claimed?








*


----------



## Kingo9 (May 20, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> Rachel Galindo's actual Earnings/Hr in LA, after Aug 2014 Rate Cuts:
> *Do Lower Fares Really Equal More Money For Drivers Due to More Rides, Just as Uber has claimed?
> 
> View attachment 9794
> ...


I stand with Rand. While I think it is a BS move by Uber... _no one is forcing anyone to drive_. More government is always worse. Rand has my vote and if he doesn't get the nomination which I am sure he won't, I will still vote libertarian.

To me, this is like the person that realizes later that his $500,000 house with a 30-year mortgage at 3.99% actually cost him $858,310.

Could Uber be more transparent... absolutely. Are these rates ridiculous... you bet. At the end of the day though, no one forces you to buy a house or drive for Uber. Crunch the numbers and determine for yourself what you should do in life.


----------



## Uber lies constantly (Jul 13, 2015)

I wish there was a dislike button. No one is forcing uber to take advantage of the less fortunate either, which off course makes it ok.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Kingo9 said:


> I stand with Rand. While I think it is a BS move by Uber... _no one is forcing anyone to drive_. More government is always worse. Rand has my vote and if he doesn't get the nomination which I am sure he won't, I will still vote libertarian.


Pragmatism is the original American Philosophy, not Libertarianism.
Pragmatism is what made America Great.








https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism


----------



## Kingo9 (May 20, 2015)

Pragmatism is more of a 'philosophy,' than a political ideology, but a good take nonetheless.

Found this one interesting too. 5 years old, but the ideas are interesting. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/pragmatic-libertarians/?_r=0

I do not have any party affiliation. I just align with Libertarians more than any other 'party.' I am Socially liberal and fiscally _very _conservative.


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> Posting/Complaining on the Forum about Drivers Earnings & other Uber policies that fail to account for Drivers Operational Reality is of a limited utility. That is because the message seldom leaves the confines of this page.
> More Drivers need to convey the Reality of Driving for Uber, like Robert Charles did in the comments in this article:
> 
> View attachment 9778


Commented on that article via Facebook. True...drivers complaining in here & not active on Twitter or Facebook on what is really like to drive for Uber our message is going nowhere!!


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

UBER BUT FOR PANDERING
*Welcome to the Uber election*
*http://fusion.net/story/165955/welc..._campaign=socialshare&utm_content=desktop+top*


----------



## Escartes (Jul 13, 2015)

Like any new innovation, the sharing economy needs to mature and find a balance between the different elements. Clearly Hillary's team sense a political advantage in tapping into the groundswell of resentment of drivers being squeezed unfairly to breaking point. Rand's argument is also clearly valid and maybe this sort of debate will bring us closer to that balance point.


----------



## Escartes (Jul 13, 2015)

_"Clinton, on the other hand, has a lot to lose. Because wherever Uber has failed, it has decidedly not failed to paint its principled opponents - or anyone who would question its march to ubiquity, really - as backward, nostalgic neo-Luddites. Sure, Clinton might pick up some populist support by going after Uber, but you can almost hear the attack ads now: "Is Hillary Clinton beholden to taxi industry thugs? Does she &#8230; support drunk driving?"

To oppose Uber in 2016 is to enter a rhetorical playing field that has been booby-trapped. There are legitimate reasons to be wary of Uber's rise, but few if any national figures have been able to oppose the company without being made to sound like regressive fogies. And until skeptics of the gig economy find new and better ways to articulate their concerns, it might be better for Clinton to make a play for less flammable ground."_

Will be interesting to see how this develops.


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> More Drivers need to convey the Reality of Driving for Uber, like Robert Charles did in the comments in this article:


Of course often when you give an honest answer to a PAX, your rating seems to coincidentally takes a hit. I think it shames riders how little a Driver makes on their minimum trips, or because they don't tip. And that pisses them off and they take it out on the one who burst their UBER bubble.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> _*Update 7/13 5:45am PST:* Clinton's camp has since clarified to Politico that "she'll cite sharing economy as example of wage pressure", but not as aggressively as its post implied. To better express that, we've edited our headline from "Hillary Clinton Plans To Campaign Against Uber's Contractor Economy."
> 
> *Update 7/13 7:20am PST: In her speech, Clinton said* that "the so-called gig economy offers exciting opportunities but raises hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future". She "vows to crack down on employers who misclassify workers as independent contractors", which she says is "wage theft". Clinton also said that benefits, paid sick leave, and maternity leave are essential to strengthening the middle class. Those are things independent contractors don't get.
> 
> ...


She is getting so much pressure from Bernie Sanders, she has to say something about this issue and try to make it seem she is for the workers... Don't believe it. If it wasn't for Sanders talking about income equality and the decline of middle class wages in the last few years, she would not be saying peep about this issue...


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

Escartes said:


> Like any new innovation, the sharing economy needs to mature and find a balance between the different elements. Clearly Hillary's team sense a political advantage in tapping into the groundswell of resentment of drivers being squeezed unfairly to breaking point. Rand's argument is also clearly valid and maybe this sort of debate will bring us closer to that balance point.


Hillary would likely bum quite a few people by going after UBER. But going after UBER in defense of UBER Driver's pay would be another thing entirely. She could rail on the price of the IPO as the value was built upon Driver pay cuts and diminishing wages. If only somebody could get Hillary (or any other celebrity or politician) to say on camera "tip your UBER driver".


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

frndthDuvel said:


> Of course often when you give an honest answer to a PAX, your rating seems to coincidentally takes a hit. I think it shames riders how little a Driver makes on their minimum trips, or because they don't tip. And that pisses them off and they take it out on the one who burst their UBER bubble.


Many of them, especially the X paxs, want the drivers to be happy about being exploited. Makes them feel like their participation in the exploitation is ok. It's BS. Those that ask this question, generally don't tip....

Instead of answering this questions, I would tell pax to google articles about Uber drivers compensation. There are certainly enough articles these days about how low the compensation at the current rates.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Kingo9 said:


> I stand with Rand. While I think it is a BS move by Uber... _no one is forcing anyone to drive_. More government is always worse. Rand has my vote and if he doesn't get the nomination which I am sure he won't, I will still vote libertarian.
> 
> To me, this is like the person that realizes later that his $500,000 house with a 30-year mortgage at 3.99% actually cost him $858,310.
> 
> Could Uber be more transparent... absolutely. Are these rates ridiculous... you bet. At the end of the day though, no one forces you to buy a house or drive for Uber. Crunch the numbers and determine for yourself what you should do in life.


Exploitation of workers and paying them below a living wage is not innovation Dr. Rand Paul.... Remember slavery used to be legal in this country.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> Rachel Galindo's actual Earnings/Hr in LA, after Aug 2014 Rate Cuts:
> *Do Lower Fares Really Equal More Money For Drivers Due to More Rides, Just as Uber has claimed?
> 
> View attachment 9794
> ...


I need to follow you on twitter


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber enters the presidential race*
> *http://fortune.com/2015/07/13/uber-enters-the-presidential-race/*


I wonder if Jeb Bush will take an Uber X...? Probably not


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Txchick said:


> Rand Paul is a "fake libertarian".


Totally!!! He is a pure capitalist.


----------



## arto71 (Sep 20, 2014)

djino said:


> I was just about to post this. Beat me too it again
> 
> djino


But I Did and by big margin ( 6 hours)
https://uberpeople.net/threads/hill...aign-against-uber's-contractor-economy.27668/


chi1cabby said:


> http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/12/clinton-uber/


Bush to Hail Uber in San Francisco in Swipe at Hillary

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/jeb...logy-uber/2015/07/13/id/654725/#ixzz3foo97FOz


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Escartes said:


> Like any new innovation, the sharing economy needs to mature and find a balance between the different elements. Clearly Hillary's team sense a political advantage in tapping into the groundswell of resentment of drivers being squeezed unfairly to breaking point. Rand's argument is also clearly valid and maybe this sort of debate will bring us closer to that balance point.


But Rand wants to get rid of the government if he is a true Libertarian. That's clearly not a good idea. Libertarians views make no actual sense. Perhaps in theory but not in reality.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

arto71 said:


> But I Did and by big margin ( 6 hours)
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/hill...aign-against-uber's-contractor-economy.27668/
> 
> Bush to Hail Uber in San Francisco in Swipe at Hillary
> ...


I would love to see his fat ass and his security cramped in a Uber X Prius.


----------



## arto71 (Sep 20, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> Uber X Prius.


 That would be Prius C?


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

arto71 said:


> That would be Prius C?


I have no idea... I don't know anything about Prius cars other than that the ones I see mostly w/ U signs are very small.....


----------



## Kingo9 (May 20, 2015)

Txchick said:


> Rand Paul is a "fake libertarian".


He is the only one close that is relevant. Needs to start somewhere.



Escartes said:


> Like any new innovation, the sharing economy needs to mature and find a balance between the different elements. Clearly Hillary's team sense a political advantage in tapping into the groundswell of resentment of drivers being squeezed unfairly to breaking point. Rand's argument is also clearly valid and maybe this sort of debate will bring us closer to that balance point.


There does need to be a balancing point... but that needs to happen naturally... not forced but government.



Gemgirlla said:


> Exploitation of workers and paying them below a living wage is not innovation Dr. Rand Paul.... Remember slavery used to be legal in this country.


*The whole "Uber is slavery" thing needs to stop on this forum.* It is rude, tasteless and just wrong. Having cleared that up, for the 10,000th time. NO ONE IS FORCING ANYONE TO DRIVE!!



Gemgirlla said:


> Totally!!! He is a pure capitalist.


Libertarians are extremely pro capitalism... What point are you trying to make here?



Gemgirlla said:


> But Rand wants to get rid of the government if he is a true Libertarian. That's clearly not a good idea. Libertarians views make no actual sense. Perhaps in theory but not in reality.


We really need to get you a textbook... Libertarians are not anarchists (well, the extreme ones may say they are.) Libertarians want the least amount of government that can still keep a society. Anarchists want to abolish any form of government. Rand is not an anarchist

Lastly... were 7 posts basically in a row needed Gemgirlla ?


----------



## zMann (Feb 21, 2015)

Uber & Lyft are being used in a political war and the drivers are the only victims IMO.


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

Kingo9 said:


> He is the only one close that is relevant. Needs to start somewhere.


Gary Johnson a much better choice. Former 2 term Governor of a border state.He has more experience than any of that crazy herd of elephants. Pro Choice Pro Gay Marriage Pro 2A(with none of that for hunting bullshit) Pro Pot. Built a business, climbs mountains. He should turn Democrat so he can get on the debate stage.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Kingo9 said:


> He is the only one close that is relevant. Needs to start somewhere.
> 
> There does need to be a balancing point... but that needs to happen naturally... not forced but government.
> 
> ...


Yes 7 post were absolutely needed thank you.... are the ****ing monitor or something....?

Pure capitalist don't see any need for regulations or laws b/c they get in the way of profits. Maybe you're ok with that. I'm not. We need laws and regulations to keep greedy people who exploit others, ruin our environment, etc. from doing just that.

I wasn't equating Uber drivers as slaves. My point simply was that the type of exploitation that slavery produced was legal at one time... Let's not go down that road again. There is such thing as constructive slavery when people have no choice but to except very low wages just to survive. Fortunately, in the US, people have fought long and hard for decades for decent labor, OSHA, etc. laws to protect people so we could all thrive and not juch the rich at the expense of everyone else.

And Libertarians want just enough government to keep their money safe...


----------



## Kingo9 (May 20, 2015)

Gemgirlla said:


> are the ****ing monitor or something


Huh?

No sense in debating on this topic, "Opinions are like... we all have one."

I just tend to lean towards freedom.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Kingo9 said:


> Huh?
> 
> No sense in debating on this topic, "Opinions are like... we all have one."
> 
> I just tend to lean towards freedom.


I apparently didn't have the "freedom" to post as many comments as I wanted... so typical. You're correct. No point in debating.


----------



## Kingo9 (May 20, 2015)

frndthDuvel said:


> Gary Johnson a much better choice. Former 2 term Governor of a border state.He has more experience than any of that crazy herd of elephants. Pro Choice Pro Gay Marriage Pro 2A(with none of that for hunting bullshit) Pro Pot. Built a business, climbs mountains. He should turn Democrat so he can get on the debate stage.


I voted for GJ in 2012.

He is truly Libertarian. He could't fit in as a Dem or Repub.


----------



## Kingo9 (May 20, 2015)

Gemgirlla said:


> I apparently didn't have the "freedom" to post as many comments as I wanted... so typical. You're correct. No point in debating.


What does asking if "7 posts were needed" have anything to do with freedom?

We need the government to regulate this site!!


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Kingo9 said:


> What does asking if "7 posts were needed" have anything to do with freedom?
> 
> We need the government to regulate this site!!


Forget it.... no point.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

The 'Libertarian' platform seems rather completely insane. Koch ran on it in 1980.

Seems like Kalanick's wet dream, though


"We urge *the repeal of federal campaign finance laws*, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission."
"We favor the abolition of *Medicare and Medicaid* programs."
"We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services."
"We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry."
"We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive *Social Security* system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary."
"We propose the abolition of the governmental *Postal Service*. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service."
"We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes."
"We support the eventual repeal of all taxation."
"As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately."
"We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as *minimum wage* laws."
"We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended."
"We condemn compulsory education laws &#8230; and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws."
"We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit."
"We support the abolition of the *Environmental Protection Agency*."
"We support abolition of the *Department of Energy*."
"We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the *Department of Transportation*."
"We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system."
"We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets."
"We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration."
"We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration."
"We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children."
"We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and 'aid to the poor' programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals."
"We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households."
"We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act."
"We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission."
"We support the repeal of all state usury laws."


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Hackenstein said:


> The 'Libertarian' platform seems rather completely insane. Koch ran on it in 1980.
> 
> 
> "We urge *the repeal of federal campaign finance laws*, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission."
> ...


Koch Bros. who are responsible for the US Supreme Court Ruling in Citizen's United that basically made it a free for all re: campaign finance. Totally insane. Look up the definition of oligopoly. That's were their platform gets you... And, is arguably where we are today in the United States.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Hackenstein said:


> They should use this as their mascot. What's up with this guy's expression?


He's smug. He's luck he's good looking.... I'm sure he's charming in person. Most narcissists are.


----------



## Kingo9 (May 20, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> "We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive *Social Security* system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary."


That's the problem _most _libertarians run into. Many of us are not anarchists, but some people are and label themselves libertarians. I do agree with several items on this list, but also several I do not. Love these three. 

"Immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission." ABSOLUTELY. Red and Blue work TOGETHER to not let third parties in!!

"We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary." Biggest one I agree on this list. Think of how well we could retire if all your SS $ was going into your own 401k and not a system that millennials will never see a dime of.

"We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws."


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Kingo9 said:


> That's the problem _most _libertarians run into. Many of us are not anarchists, but some people are and label themselves libertarians. I do agree with several items on this list, but also several I do not. Love these three.
> 
> "Immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission." ABSOLUTELY. Red and Blue work TOGETHER to not let third parties in!!
> 
> ...


And abolish the law that everyone has a right to education as well as funding for public education so we keep people stupid w/ no skills so they will work for cents on the dollar just like in 3rd world countries.... that's an awesome plan.


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

Kingo9 said:


> made voluntary." Biggest one I agree on this list. Think of how well we could retire if all your SS $ was going into your own 401k and not a system that millennials will never see a dime of.
> 
> "We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws."


So at what age are you drawing a line for people to not get what they think they have been working for 20-40 years for? 
Changing demography assures that there will be plenty of younger future workers. Put it all in a 401K? Sounds like perhaps you have not invested very much over the last 15 years?
Minimum wage should be tied to the inflation of household energy and internet cost. The internet is basically a must have utility like power and water. TV you can argue no. What would the minimum wage be if tied to the price of power ? Shit man, You are an UBER driver and you have a problem with minimum wage?


----------



## Kingo9 (May 20, 2015)

Gemgirlla said:


> And abolish the law that everyone has a right to education as well as funding for public education so we keep people stupid w/ no skills so they will work for cents on the dollar just like in 3rd world countries.... that's an awesome plan.


I said I didn't agree with all of them... Liked those three.



frndthDuvel said:


> So at what age are you drawing a line for people to not get what they think they have been working for 20-40 years for?
> Changing demography assures that there will be plenty of younger future workers. Put it all in a 401K? Sounds like perhaps you have not invested very much over the last 15 years?
> Minimum wage should be tied to the inflation of household energy and internet cost. The internet is basically a must have utility like power and water. TV you can argue no. What would the minimum wage be if tied to the price of power ? Shit man, You are an UBER driver and you have a problem with minimum wage?


I have accepted that I will not ever get SS when I retire. "_Sounds like perhaps you have not invested very much over the last 15 years?_" What? Your logic makes no sense. I have invested... because you have to. Especially those of us <40.

I believe minimum wage should be $0.01/hr.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Kingo9 said:


> I said I didn't agree with all of them... Liked those three.
> 
> I have accepted that I will not ever get SS when I retire. "_Sounds like perhaps you have not invested very much over the last 15 years?_" What? Your logic makes no sense. I have invested... because you have to. Especially those of us <40.
> 
> I believe minimum wage should be $0.01/hr.


You can't really pick and choose which things you want... An a la carte Libertarian just seems like a hypocrite to me.


----------



## Kingo9 (May 20, 2015)

Gemgirlla said:


> You can't really pick and choose which things you want... An a la carte Libertarian just seems like a hypocrite to me.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Kingo9 said:


>


LOL yup....


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

Kingo9 said:


> I said I didn't agree with all of them... Liked those three.
> 
> What? Your logic makes no sense. I have invested... because you have to. Especially those of us <40.
> 
> I believe minimum wage should be $0.01/hr.


Well you are certainly in the wrong job. You should be an investor adviser . Anybody who could have invested heavily pre-tech bubble and pre mortgage melt down melt down and did not lose anything is certainly a star. Don't worry you will get your money. Hispanic birth rate will more than cover your generation. Personally, I would be betting that the government promise is worth more than a Travis promise, and if you are worried about millenials getting their retirement while working UBER, please tell me you are also going to school or learning a trade!


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Kingo9 said:


> I said I didn't agree with all of them... Liked those three.
> 
> I have accepted that I will not ever get SS when I retire. "_Sounds like perhaps you have not invested very much over the last 15 years?_" What? Your logic makes no sense. I have invested... because you have to. Especially those of us <40.
> 
> I believe minimum wage should be $0.01/hr.


You think the stock market will help you? It's barely been regulated since WS nearly crashed the world economy.

Any idea how many people lost everything? Another bonus is a decade of near 0% interest rate on savings. No way to even save for retirement.


----------



## Kingo9 (May 20, 2015)

I'll save the political and economical stuff for another forum... this is going way over some heads.


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

Kingo9 said:


> I'll save the political and economical stuff for another forum... this is going way over some heads.


That is the problem. Both those hard left and hard right only talk differences where everybody believes the same thing. And you basically just said everybody who does not agree on the full libertarian platform, or has any compassion is an idiot. Thanks! This place has had the most diverse opinions on both sides of about every issue, with what appears to me ,oh so little moderation that I have ever seen in over 23 years. Some things might go a few posts too long, but then that goes away as well.
But I think politics does have an impact on drivers well being. Being discussed by Hillary in the way she did is only a good thing. Folks can worry about her coming for the guns and invading Texas later. YMMV


----------



## itsablackmarket (May 12, 2015)

It's amazing how distorted everything is. So many forces at work here colliding. Yet no one seems to understand the situation in full, each is magnifying one aspect and taking it out of context for their own gain. Misinformation abounding, media running with it, and hive minds jumping aboard whatever ideology they think will anger their "opponents", just for the sake of feeling they're affecting someone/something. So predictable. I do wonder if it's all a staged political show to usher in social acceptance of some gross form of oppression. Who's really siding with who? Are they all in it together, just playing us? They are all well connected with each other. Why wouldn't they collude? Why wouldn't they play the media and the public? It's easy enough to do, they have the public so obedient to them. It's like a big cult with one secret ideology and that cults followers band together at the end of the day for their greater cause, whatever that may be, all the while appearing to argue over "little" things so as to not be discovered. That's the theory I'm going with, because I know none of this is working in my favor and I'm not stupid enough to put my faith in some random politician/ceo/journalist/whoever looking out for me. I know better than that. It's not about competing with others, it's about finding harmony with others. Uber isn't trying to do that, their support base isn't trying to do that, and Hillary isn't trying to do that. Uber off, it's a trap.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Republicans hail Uber in bid for tech cred*
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...n-bid-for-tech-cred-120052.html#ixzz3ft5VBORx


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Republicans hail Uber in bid for tech cred*
> http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...n-bid-for-tech-cred-120052.html#ixzz3ft5VBORx


Boy I would like to be the driver picking up one of those candidates. I can't believe that the driver Jeb gets is not going to be a well vetted UBER lover. I am more willing to believe that Bernie and Hillary will be on the Drivers side more so than the other 15,16 people. This could be the tipping point that will actually bring driver wages and diminishing returns in relationship to its obscene IPO valuation out to the front of the discussion of UBER. Rather than the convenience.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Hillary Clinton has no 'beef' with Uber, aide says*
*http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0PO26S20150714?irpc=932*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)




----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Good Read:*
*It's Time To Talk About The 'Gig Economy'*
*Hillary Clinton says we need to look critically at companies like Airbnb and Uber. She's right.*
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/55a51147e4b0a47ac15d5540?


----------



## itsablackmarket (May 12, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> *Good Read:*
> *It's Time To Talk About The 'Gig Economy'*
> *Hillary Clinton says we need to look critically at companies like Airbnb and Uber. She's right.*
> http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/55a51147e4b0a47ac15d5540?


Yea but she's not going to help it. She's not pro-free market but will do everything in her power to appear that way this election cycle, which is why she will be the next president guaranteed.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*What I heard from Hillary about the sharing economy*
*By Stephanie Hannon*
* (CTO @HillaryClinton)*
*https://medium.com/@twephanie/hilla...g-economy-and-jobs-of-the-future-1df8fd9a7218*


----------



## ATX 22 (Jun 17, 2015)

Kingo9 said:


> That's the problem _most _libertarians run into. Many of us are not anarchists, but some people are and label themselves libertarians. I do agree with several items on this list, but also several I do not. Love these three.
> 
> "Immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission." ABSOLUTELY. Red and Blue work TOGETHER to not let third parties in!!
> 
> ...


If you're not being sarcastic, then you're a special brand of stupid.

Without the FEC, special interests and corporations would be able not only to run for office, but could simply buy their way in.

Social Security is only going bankrupt because every President since Reagan has borrowed from it and it's never been paid back. On top of that you somehow think your 401k is a better bet? Wall Street is rigged so the bigger investors make money at the expense of the smaller investors. Didn't you learn anything from the 2008 recession?

Repeal the minimum wage laws and every business will exploit workers far worse than Uber is exploiting drivers currently. Up to and including having children working in sweatshops instead of going to school.
Libertarianism is nothing more than a childish ideology that would lead to an idiocracy.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/12/clinton-uber/


^^^
Just one problem... even though a lot of people like this, including me. 
These political *****s of both parties will pander to every group that they can until they get elected, and then it's back to the same old same old... fighting with Congress, talking about compromise "across the aisle", and then the groups that they bent over for are just lost in the confusion. 
These stories have a half-life just like Plutonium of about 24 hours, and then they're just forgotten about. 
I don't expect any of these opportunist jerkoffs do actually do ANYthing once they're in office and are inundated with lobbyist money. 
They'll give billions to Boondoggles like Solyndra, but Uber drivers letters get found in the circular file.

The ONLY way to get anything done, and to exert any pressure on the Ride Shares, is a good old fashioned slow-down or strike... especially in a Golden market like Los Angeles. 
You gotta hit 'em where it hurts, but unfortunately I don't believe that drivers as a whole have actually 'grown a pair' to actually make it work.

If there is a 90% strike (A real phantasy, to be sure), there will be some dude looking at his app, and seeing 60 rides out there that are close to him, will get off the sofa and turn off The Simpsons and drive.

That's not the way to go for the jugular.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Republicans hail Uber in bid for tech cred*
> http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...n-bid-for-tech-cred-120052.html#ixzz3ft5VBORx


^^^
Hillary can't go for tech cred... she's the one who didn't know that you can have more than one email account on a cell phone and one of her assistants couldn't get her to learn how to use a fax machine because ole Hillz kept on asking where the phone receiver goes... something that you haven't had to do with fax machines for at least 30 years. 
But she sure did learn fast how to send a server to the crusher.


----------

