• Liz@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    It depends on whether your business accumulates assets of value. Uber drivers are functionally employees, and they really ought to be classified as such. They can’t sell their right to drive for Uber, their car wasn’t exactly a business asset before they started driving for Uber. The mere fact that we say “they’re diving for Uber” and not “they started an independent taxi service and have partnered with Uber” should really be all you need to know about the reality of the practical ownership and employee status when a person drives for Uber.

    Anyway, when you’re self-employed you should be building up assets, in part, because if things go tits up you can at least sell what’s left of your business. You’re right, self-employed does mean greater risk, but there’s also the potential for higher reward. As a society, we benefit from having a decent fraction of the population be self-employed, because smaller businesses can be more flexible and more innovative. That’s part of why it’s important to have strong social safety nets, so that the risk of self-employment is lower than it has to be.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      The problem with what you’re saying is that either you’re employed without any if the benefits of employment, or you are a capitalist.

      In either way you lose.

      On the other hand a company can be a cooperative or state owned.

      But in the US you hate the state, you are indoctrinated with individualism and you hate socialism. So it’s a lost cause.

      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I mean, there’s no reason you can’t structure your business as a cooperative (in fact, you probably should) but typically we use the term “self-employed” for one person businesses, where the distinction is kinda moot.