Uber invented a particular form of algorithmic wage discrimination; if its drivers are picky about which rides they accept, Uber will slowly raise the rates to entice those drivers—until they start accepting rides. Once a driver does accept a ride, "the wage starts to push down and down at random intervals in increments that are too small for human beings to readily notice". ...
As anyone with a technical background knows, "any task that is simple, but time-consuming is a prime candidate for automation". This kind of "wage theft" would be tedious and expensive to do by hand, but it is trivial to play these games using computers.
Technically you're right - it's price discrimination. But it's aimed at the workers, not for them.
Drivers who treat Uber like a real job and show up consistently end up making less than those who only drive when it’s lucrative. That’s not illegal, but it feels exploitative, especially when it's driven by opaque algorithms.
Imagine your salary dropping just because you showed up every day. Wouldn’t feel fair, would it?
I get what you're saying, and I agree that's how it feels but that doesn't necessarily mean that's how it is.
I guarantee you there are companies in the US right now paying their full-time employees who work 40+ hours less than they pay consultants who are also writing code who are working 30, 20, even 10 hours a week or less. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're taking advantage of their employees (though they may well be). Everyone agreed to do the thing they're doing knowing exactly what the terms were.
If I agree to do a job for $X that is otherwise "not exploitation" by whatever metric we choose to use, it doesn't suddenly become exploitation if I could have gotten 2X or 3X to do the same job.
