Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Startups Are Making the Expensive Switch to Traditional Employment

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 60 posts

Re: Why Startups Are Making the Expensive Switch to Traditional Employment

#21

Post by nickff »

empthought wrote: post #9

"Under the contractor model, Lee says, the leaders at Luxe hadn’t been able to schedule workers for unpopular hours like late nights on Friday and Saturday; they could only bribe them to come online with higher rates of pay, as Uber does with surge pricing." That's not bribery; that's simple supply and demand.

You're right, but there is a large group of people who refuse to believe that employment is a functioning market like any other where a resource is bought and sold according to factors including scarcity, difficulty, and pleasantness. For these people, it is easier to describe employment negotiations in terms of exploitation, 'taking advantage', bribery, and power, than to acknowledge it is essentially the same as a business to business negotiation.

Re: Why Startups Are Making the Expensive Switch to Traditional Employment

#22

Post by tonyedgecombe »

nickff wrote: post #21
empthought wrote: post #9

"Under the contractor model, Lee says, the leaders at Luxe hadn’t been able to schedule workers for unpopular hours like late nights on Friday and Saturday; they could only bribe them to come online with higher rates of pay, as Uber does with surge pricing." That's not bribery; that's simple supply and demand.

You're right, but there is a large group of people who refuse to believe that employment is a functioning market like any other where a resource is bought and sold according to factors including scarcity, difficulty, and pleasantness. For these people, it is easier to describe employment negotiations in terms of exploitation, 'taking advantage', bribery, and power, than to acknowledge it is essentially the same as a…

Except it isn't like every other market because most people don't have a choice not to work, whereas they do have a choice not to buy a TV, phone, bigger house, etc.

Employers will exploit this fact and take advantage of people desperate to keep their job.

Re: Why Startups Are Making the Expensive Switch to Traditional Employment

#23

Post by nathas »

littletimmy wrote: post #14

> "Under the contractor model, Lee says, the leaders at Luxe hadn’t been able to schedule workers for unpopular hours like late nights on Friday and Saturday; they could only bribe them to come online with higher rates of pay, as Uber does with surge pricing." Seriously? If someone is working Friday nights or Saturday nights, he SHOULD have higher pay. What it is with CEOs that they feel they are entitled to their wo…

To me, that always smacks of profit margins that are so razor thin the business is having trouble staying afloat.

In this case it may just be poor wording. It doesn't say that they cared that they had to pay more, just that it was required to get people to work, which seems reasonable as you said.

Re: Why Startups Are Making the Expensive Switch to Traditional Employment

#24

Post by cortesoft »

empthought wrote: post #9

"Under the contractor model, Lee says, the leaders at Luxe hadn’t been able to schedule workers for unpopular hours like late nights on Friday and Saturday; they could only bribe them to come online with higher rates of pay, as Uber does with surge pricing." That's not bribery; that's simple supply and demand.

Right, and to get a worker to fill that demand, you can do a few different things. Yes, you could pay them more to incentivize them to work.... Or you give them something else valuable instead of more money... e.g. A regular job with the benefits of employment.

Just because the extra incentive the company supplies isn't money doesn't mean they aren't still operating in the world of supply and demand.

Re: Why Startups Are Making the Expensive Switch to Traditional Employment

#25

Post by huac »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #22
nickff wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, but there is a large group of people who refuse to believe that employment is a functioning market like any other where a resource is bought and sold according to factors including scarcity, difficulty, and pleasantness. For these people, it is easier to describe employment negotiations in terms of exploitation, 'taking advantage', bribery, and power, than to acknowledge it is essentially the same as a…

Except it isn't like every other market because most people don't have a choice not to work, whereas they do have a choice not to buy a TV, phone, bigger house, etc. Employers will exploit this fact and take advantage of people desperate to keep their job.

The market value of your time and energy is not well-defined, while the company has aggregated data so they can better price the value of '1 hour on Friday night' versus '1 hour on Tuesday afternoon'. This information asymmetry is not present when I go to the grocery store, especially with apps that can compare the price of an apple at Safeway vs Market Basket.

In technical terms, there should exist an intersection between your marginal propensity to spend and your marginal utility of leisure (i.e. not working). But if you can't determine your fair 'value' when working shitty hours, then your 'calculations' can't be correct.

Re: Why Startups Are Making the Expensive Switch to Traditional Employment

#26

Post by AnimalMuppet »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #22
nickff wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, but there is a large group of people who refuse to believe that employment is a functioning market like any other where a resource is bought and sold according to factors including scarcity, difficulty, and pleasantness. For these people, it is easier to describe employment negotiations in terms of exploitation, 'taking advantage', bribery, and power, than to acknowledge it is essentially the same as a…

Except it isn't like every other market because most people don't have a choice not to work, whereas they do have a choice not to buy a TV, phone, bigger house, etc. Employers will exploit this fact and take advantage of people desperate to keep their job.

No. But they have a choice to work elsewhere. Push them hard enough (like forcing them to take shifts that they hate), and they will take that choice.

Re: Why Startups Are Making the Expensive Switch to Traditional Employment

#27

Post by dasil003 »

nickff wrote: post #21
empthought wrote: post #9

"Under the contractor model, Lee says, the leaders at Luxe hadn’t been able to schedule workers for unpopular hours like late nights on Friday and Saturday; they could only bribe them to come online with higher rates of pay, as Uber does with surge pricing." That's not bribery; that's simple supply and demand.

You're right, but there is a large group of people who refuse to believe that employment is a functioning market like any other where a resource is bought and sold according to factors including scarcity, difficulty, and pleasantness. For these people, it is easier to describe employment negotiations in terms of exploitation, 'taking advantage', bribery, and power, than to acknowledge it is essentially the same as a…

I don't see those two ideas as incompatible in the least. Negotiation is all about power dynamics. A functioning market is amoral, whether something is a simple transaction or exploitation can only be judged in context. As technology continues enabling the replacement of labor with capital, the free market worshippers would be well-advised to come to terms with that nuance.

Re: Why Startups Are Making the Expensive Switch to Traditional Employment

#28

Post by empthought »

cortesoft wrote: post #24
empthought wrote: post #9

"Under the contractor model, Lee says, the leaders at Luxe hadn’t been able to schedule workers for unpopular hours like late nights on Friday and Saturday; they could only bribe them to come online with higher rates of pay, as Uber does with surge pricing." That's not bribery; that's simple supply and demand.

Right, and to get a worker to fill that demand, you can do a few different things. Yes, you could pay them more to incentivize them to work.... Or you give them something else valuable instead of more money... e.g. A regular job with the benefits of employment. Just because the extra incentive the company supplies isn't money doesn't mean they aren't still operating in the world of supply and demand.

Sure, that's fine, it's just the article prose struck me as particularly bogus. And if it's based on a quote from the Luxe CEO, that leads me to question his assumptions, priorities, and values.

Re: Why Startups Are Making the Expensive Switch to Traditional Employment

#29

Post by bmj »

littletimmy wrote: post #14

> "Under the contractor model, Lee says, the leaders at Luxe hadn’t been able to schedule workers for unpopular hours like late nights on Friday and Saturday; they could only bribe them to come online with higher rates of pay, as Uber does with surge pricing." Seriously? If someone is working Friday nights or Saturday nights, he SHOULD have higher pay. What it is with CEOs that they feel they are entitled to their wo…

Are you suggesting this to be the norm across industries? Like, the folks working the registers at Target on Friday night? What about Monday night? Or Wednesday night? How does that differ?

Re: Why Startups Are Making the Expensive Switch to Traditional Employment

#30

Post by ripter »

paulsutter wrote: post #16

The individual pays the cost. Today Uber drivers get like 80% of the fare. If Uber needed to pay benefits, give vacation time, etc, the pay rate would be much lower. That would all come out of the 80%. Just like how contract programmers bill a higher rate and get no benefits. Calling someone an employee doesn't suddenly create new money. I can't imagine uber drivers would prefer a lower rate of pay, but hey, I guess…

Where are you getting the 80% number? The drivers I talked to have told me it's much lower.
Post reply on HN