The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/catherine-rampell-the-dark-side-of-sharing-economy-jobs/2015/01/26/4e05daec-a59f-11e4-a7c2-03d37af98440_story.html
6 comments
It reminds me of Dune, or more specifically, the allusions to the backstory of Dune, in which a religious jihad destroyed all computers and forbade their construction. Some relevant bits, from Dune and God Emperor of Dune:
"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."
"There's a lesson in that, too. What do such machines really do? They increase the number of things we can do without thinking. Things we do without thinking-there's the real danger."
"I point out to you...a lesson from past over-machined societies which you appear not to have learned. The devices themselves condition the users to employ each other the way they employ machines."
"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."
"There's a lesson in that, too. What do such machines really do? They increase the number of things we can do without thinking. Things we do without thinking-there's the real danger."
"I point out to you...a lesson from past over-machined societies which you appear not to have learned. The devices themselves condition the users to employ each other the way they employ machines."
I'm not as worked up about this as you are ("serfs" c'mon). The "machines" are mostly doing mind numbing clerical work which they are relatively better at performing after considering costs. And they are doing it at the direction of non-driver company employees.
These drivers will likely eventually be replaced by driverless cars when their cost declines below the cost of employing drivers. Will that that be better or worse?
Unlike real serfs Uber drivers can set themselves free at anytime (i.e. quit). Instead 40,000 more signed up last month alone[1].
[1] http://venturebeat.com/2015/01/22/inside-ubers-staggering-u-...
These drivers will likely eventually be replaced by driverless cars when their cost declines below the cost of employing drivers. Will that that be better or worse?
Unlike real serfs Uber drivers can set themselves free at anytime (i.e. quit). Instead 40,000 more signed up last month alone[1].
[1] http://venturebeat.com/2015/01/22/inside-ubers-staggering-u-...
> "Unlike real serfs Uber drivers can set themselves free at anytime (i.e. quit)."
I'm certainly not on the Uber-hating bandwagon that's been doing laps around HN lately, but this isn't always true. Some people drive an Uber car because they need a paycheck and a flexible schedule, not because they want to. There may not be many (or any) other opportunities ready available.
A serf could quit too, as long as he was willing to abandon everything he knew and set out on the road going far away from his old master. But he knew he'd probably end up destitute and serving a new master in a strange place, so he stayed.
People are risk averse. Some people do jobs that pay bills because they need them, not because they want them. Freedom to walk away from something doesn't imply a desire for that something.
I'm certainly not on the Uber-hating bandwagon that's been doing laps around HN lately, but this isn't always true. Some people drive an Uber car because they need a paycheck and a flexible schedule, not because they want to. There may not be many (or any) other opportunities ready available.
A serf could quit too, as long as he was willing to abandon everything he knew and set out on the road going far away from his old master. But he knew he'd probably end up destitute and serving a new master in a strange place, so he stayed.
People are risk averse. Some people do jobs that pay bills because they need them, not because they want them. Freedom to walk away from something doesn't imply a desire for that something.
The question to ask is, if Uber disappeared off the face of the earth one day, would these drivers be better off, or worse off? I claim they'd be worse off -- if there was a better job available, they'd already be doing that instead of driving for Uber.
In other words, Uber is a positive force in their lives, an employer who made them a better offer than any other, and they've getting shit for not making the drivers an even better offer?
In other words, Uber is a positive force in their lives, an employer who made them a better offer than any other, and they've getting shit for not making the drivers an even better offer?
That's what people say about sweatshops too.
> if there was a better job available, they'd already be doing that instead of driving for Uber.
So none of these people can currently do better than driving for Uber?
So none of these people can currently do better than driving for Uber?
No one is doing better than they are doing. If they can do better then they should do better weather or not Uber exists.
Ah, no, serfs didn't have the right to leave their manor. They could (and did), but they were breaking the law to do that. Serfdom is slavery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom
> Unlike real serfs Uber drivers can set themselves free at anytime (i.e. quit).
You've never needed to work, have you? And I don't mean "have a job to afford the lifestyle you prefer" I mean been poor, unskilled, and needed to work to put food on the table.
You've never needed to work, have you? And I don't mean "have a job to afford the lifestyle you prefer" I mean been poor, unskilled, and needed to work to put food on the table.
[deleted]
For anybody that still didn't read, that's "Manna"[1]
1 - http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
1 - http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
Yes, it is.
And just like Marshall Brain's story, we are also without laws protecting people of the right to live.
And just like Marshall Brain's story, we are also without laws protecting people of the right to live.
One issue, about Uber specifically, I thought this article would touch on is legal liability. Unfortunately, the only legal liability mentioned is AirBnB guest turning a rental into a brothel.
The reality is in many jurisdictions Uber drivers are violating criminal law [1], and Uber drivers have been arrested. I was personally informed by a driver in Houston that Uber actually pays for a driver's lawyer when arrested. Maybe that is a start-up itself...connect Uber drivers with Uber lawyers paid for by Uber; however, my prediction is there will eventually be a major class-action by drivers who have been arrested while a contract driver for Uber. While corporations will continue shifting from employees to contractors in their own interest, it is a matter of time before someone realizes Uber is liable for contracting people and paying them specifically for acts deemed criminal.
[1] I am not taking a position as to the morality of such laws or whether they are just, simply stating many jurisdictions have laws in place criminalizing operating taxi's without permits
The reality is in many jurisdictions Uber drivers are violating criminal law [1], and Uber drivers have been arrested. I was personally informed by a driver in Houston that Uber actually pays for a driver's lawyer when arrested. Maybe that is a start-up itself...connect Uber drivers with Uber lawyers paid for by Uber; however, my prediction is there will eventually be a major class-action by drivers who have been arrested while a contract driver for Uber. While corporations will continue shifting from employees to contractors in their own interest, it is a matter of time before someone realizes Uber is liable for contracting people and paying them specifically for acts deemed criminal.
[1] I am not taking a position as to the morality of such laws or whether they are just, simply stating many jurisdictions have laws in place criminalizing operating taxi's without permits
Unfortunately, this is how capitalism works. Currently the world wage median is $9733 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household...)
If you make more than that, you're being squeezed down to it. Below that wage, machines don't make sense, yet. And with the squeeze happening with all of the 'sharing' economy, your wages will go even lower.
In effect, capitalism has failed us, as a country and as a world. Do I know the answer? Nope. Some will say communism, socialism, anarchism, or some -ism. But something will need to be set up differently. Lest we will see the US come out as a 3rd world country. And I'm not entirely sure it's not a good way there.
If you make more than that, you're being squeezed down to it. Below that wage, machines don't make sense, yet. And with the squeeze happening with all of the 'sharing' economy, your wages will go even lower.
In effect, capitalism has failed us, as a country and as a world. Do I know the answer? Nope. Some will say communism, socialism, anarchism, or some -ism. But something will need to be set up differently. Lest we will see the US come out as a 3rd world country. And I'm not entirely sure it's not a good way there.
You've just treated the entire world economy as if every individual is fungible, all tasks are identical, and transaction costs are completely negligible.
The only thing that's failed here is your perspective. The world is a very complex place and the last thing it needs more of are people pondering half-thought "solutions" to problems they haven't given an iota of thought to.
The only thing that's failed here is your perspective. The world is a very complex place and the last thing it needs more of are people pondering half-thought "solutions" to problems they haven't given an iota of thought to.
Youre right. The world economy is a humongous place. However, what happens when there is 10% unemployment? What about 20 percent unemployment? Or what happens when the screws capitalism are turned and you see 90 percent unemployment? That is is the intended result of capitalism, is it not? To me that was a fail system. And communism and socialism have both proven to be failures.
now, what do we do about this? Honestly, I have no clue.
now, what do we do about this? Honestly, I have no clue.
Employment is a fairly broad solution. More fundamentally, if you don't give people something to do (i.e. purpose) they will probably just riot and start a revolution of some sort.
Where is the market for a driverless taxi if nobody can afford to catch one?
If you're an optimist, there will always be meaningful work to be done (for some kind of credit), supported by a government that knows to placate a society, they need to feel useful.
A pessimist on the other hand might subscribe to the cyclical nature of the rise and fall of civilisations. They catalyst this time being technological development moving faster than our ability to mentally and socially digest it.
We have only got about a billions years left. Let's make them count.
Where is the market for a driverless taxi if nobody can afford to catch one?
If you're an optimist, there will always be meaningful work to be done (for some kind of credit), supported by a government that knows to placate a society, they need to feel useful.
A pessimist on the other hand might subscribe to the cyclical nature of the rise and fall of civilisations. They catalyst this time being technological development moving faster than our ability to mentally and socially digest it.
We have only got about a billions years left. Let's make them count.
This guy proposes a thing. His background is Marxist, so, usual grain of salt going along with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guSdjsctrUQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guSdjsctrUQ
For those without the time (or grit) for Richard D. Wolff the idea is to replace the top-down autocratic organization of the corporate structure with a bottom-up democratic one of worker self-directed cooperatives. The idea being that risk and liability are spread across a large base of people - not unlike insurance. At the same time it fails to concentrate wealth in a few 'top dogs' and decisions made democratically are less likely to screw over workers 'for the good of stakeholders'. Wolff hopes that, as the decision makers of such a body are likely to live in the area their business affects, decisions made are less likely to pollute or otherwise externalize costs to the local area. For instances where individual decision making must be had (due to expertise or importance of swiftness) or where management of workers is needed - he refers to the successes of the Mondragon Corporation (where they, as laborers, hire and fire the managers that manage themselves based on how good they are).
Thanks. I was pressed for time when I made the comment and it's been a few months since I listened to the talk, so I didn't trust my ability to put together an accurate summary in the time I had available.
Yup, below $9733 USD per year is poverty in Mexico.
More than 50% of mexicans live with less than that.
That's why USA is so atractive to millions of inmigrants.
$4/day in Mexico vs $8/hr in the USA?!
It's a no-brainer.
More than 50% of mexicans live with less than that.
That's why USA is so atractive to millions of inmigrants.
$4/day in Mexico vs $8/hr in the USA?!
It's a no-brainer.
I happen to hate capitalism, but we need to pick the right target. Uber is crony corporatism and technical totalitarianism, quite unlike the imaginary concepts of theoretical capitalism.
How is Uber crony capitalism? Uber is capitalism working exactly as designed, workers are disposable and profit seeking is unregulated. The taxi services are closer to crony capitalism.
> How is Uber crony capitalism?
Because that is the phrase for extra bad capitalism, right? The regulatory capture of the rent seeking income inequality causing corporatism, occupy HN!
I'm seeing a lot of posts lately that remind me of Randian villains. Two dimensional characters who are uniformly ugly and buffoonish - so that the reader instantly knows the bad guys.
Because that is the phrase for extra bad capitalism, right? The regulatory capture of the rent seeking income inequality causing corporatism, occupy HN!
I'm seeing a lot of posts lately that remind me of Randian villains. Two dimensional characters who are uniformly ugly and buffoonish - so that the reader instantly knows the bad guys.
Interesting that this is the exact same article with Uber replacing the house cleaning service we had before. Basically the story is 'if you aren't an employee you don't get employee like protections'.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/10/a...
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/10/a...
It's a big story that is being replicated all across the economy. There are many parts to it, and many different aspects. So, you should be seeing a number of stories with some overlap.
This is a story about income inequality, and the forced assumption of liability by the weaker parties to an employment contract. It's also about the abject failure of regulators in the face of politically connected companies. It's about tilted playing fields where startups that work within the existing system fail; and startups that act like robber barons succeed.
It's about the psychopathic cult of "success" that says that making more money is always a supreme good; no matter the economic externalities you create for the rest of us.
We're on a path to becoming a third-world planet where the rich live lives of robot-pampered luxury and everyone else starves in favelas trying desperately to make a living by bartering on craigslist with their smartphones.
Oh, and do you think you're good enough and psychopathic enough to be living in a mansion in Atherton? The odds are against you. And that type of self-delusion is part of the story too.
This is a story about income inequality, and the forced assumption of liability by the weaker parties to an employment contract. It's also about the abject failure of regulators in the face of politically connected companies. It's about tilted playing fields where startups that work within the existing system fail; and startups that act like robber barons succeed.
It's about the psychopathic cult of "success" that says that making more money is always a supreme good; no matter the economic externalities you create for the rest of us.
We're on a path to becoming a third-world planet where the rich live lives of robot-pampered luxury and everyone else starves in favelas trying desperately to make a living by bartering on craigslist with their smartphones.
Oh, and do you think you're good enough and psychopathic enough to be living in a mansion in Atherton? The odds are against you. And that type of self-delusion is part of the story too.
I wonder if "sharing economy" should really be called "sweatshop economy."
[deleted]
Uber is similar. All the planning and deciding is done by computers. Failure to serve on demand three times costs them their jobs. The computer gives the orders and the serfs must obey.
It's not even a market system. Serfs can't bid on requests for rides. Uber sets the price.