I see, so now Uber, who you basically just said yourself is *saving people from starvation and death* is a husband who beats his wife?
So what you are saying is that the wife that is being abused is actually unable to survive without the husband, is that what you are implying? So is it the economy that makes the wife unable to survive or is that only something that exists in her (your) head?
You are now comparing people, who are driving for Uber to wives that take a beating but cannot leave their husbands because *they believe* they cannot survive in the world without the husband?
You see, I wouldn't make claims similar to yours, so I wouldn't put myself in such a precarious position in a conversation.
I think that people driving for Uber are not on the brink of starvation and hunger death, they have other choices, *you* implied that they are starving and cannot survive without Uber.
I think that they are making a conscious decision to drive for Uber because it works for them better, maybe it gives them extra income, maybe it gives them the flexibility, maybe they like not going to an office and like being treated as independent adults who are perfectly capable of making their own life choices.
You, on the other hand, are implying all sorts of things about these people that I think cannot stand to any type of scrutiny. These are not starving people, they are driving cars, they wear clothes and they have mobile phones and they are able to afford all of that and still they can eat something (or they wouldn't be driving).
You should stop attacking companies simply because you think they are not providing the type of work conditions that you expect them to provide, instead maybe (if you think you can do it better) you should run a competitor to Uber or to WalMart or to McDonalds or to Apple or to whatever and see if you can do better and if you can provide those jobs under the conditions that you are promoting here.