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

'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

truthdig.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 278 posts

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#61

Post by greeneggs »

carlmr wrote: post #19
gambiting wrote: post #3

I was mostly agreeing with the article until this part: "His medallion, once worth $1.1 million, had plummeted in value to $180,000. The dramatic drop in the value of the medallion, which he had hoped to lease for $3,000 a month or sell to finance his retirement, wiped out his economic security. He faced financial ruin and poverty. And he was not alone." The medalions are stupid and shouldn't exist. Relying on their…

Yes, the medallions were stupid, although I think they shouldn't have allowed Uber to operate without medallions, or get rid of the system in general. >Relying on their "value" for retirement is crazy. And like another commenter has said - if it was worth 1.1 million, why not sell it and retire Because he took out a loan of 1.1 million to buy it. It's not that he bought it for next to nothing and it rose to that pric…

> We're not talking about the smartest people here. Something that had a stable (and slowly rising) value for 100 years didn't seem like a gamble until the lobbyists came in and convinced the lawmakers to allow unfair competition.

This is not right. It was a bubble. Prices rose from ~$250K in 2001 to over $1.2 million in 2013 [1, 2]. That's a 13% growth rate.

It was obviously a bubble. Yet people were jumping on it, taking out big loans to buy more medallions. It had to burst at some point. Uber was the trigger, but this had to blow up at some point. The sooner the better.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-taxi-medallion-king/

[2] http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/march_2013_medalli...

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#62

Post by huffmsa »

rwc wrote: post #44
huffmsa wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's purely based on artificial scarcity. Which historical never lasts. PanAm went bust because they banked on price fixed airline tickets. USPS benefited from national mail logistics only being available to government level endeavors. DeBeers is about to get crushed by artificial diamonds which are both cheaper and "better diamonds" than the massive stockpile they've accumulated. The rocket industry has long la…

Lobbyist dinners are low on a politician's list, particularly because at the federal level ethics rules have become so ridiculous about what elected officials and staff can accept as gifts. Much more interesting to a politician is supporting the policies of well-organized trade/association groups that have the power, through their PACs or membership, to invest the resources necessary to make a difference in a campaig…

Dinners was a joking metaphor for organized support.

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#63

Post by cryoshon »

troupe wrote: post #21
WhompingWindows wrote: post #6

Serfdom is not a good comparison. Serfs were essentially slaves required to work the land, they did not choose to do so at hours that suited them, which is a key "feature" of the gig economy. They also were required to work mines, logging, or whatever service the lord of the manor wished. Let's say you worked for ride-shaes the same hours as a serf, something like sunrise to sunset. If you drove an Uber in my city fo…

Agreed. Some people are concerned with getting people out of absolute poverty. This includes things like access to clean water, a roof to sleep under, the ability to not die at 30, etc. Other people are concerned about the spread of income. They don't want to see someone making millions of dollars when someone else is making $20k. In the US, for the most part, people are not living in absolute poverty.

then why are 1 in 7 people food insecure in the US?

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#64

Post by tootie »

zackkatz wrote: post #43

I found the best quote from the article to be the last: > “Horses in Central Park are regulated,” he pointed out. “There’s 150 of them. They make a great living there, the guys on the horse and buggies. Say Uber comes in and says, ‘We want to bring in Uber horses. And we want to add 100,000.’ And let’s see how the market will handle it. We know what’s going to happen. No one will make money. They’re all around Centra…

Uber isn't the villain. The TLC regulated yellow cabs into oblivion. $1M for a medallion should have been a warning that they are issuing too few.

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#65

Post by wjnc »

wooter wrote: post #52
taneq wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, and that's my problem with ride sharing companies like Uber (or rather, with governments letting them operate as unlicenced taxis despite strict regulation of 'real' taxis). The government created an artificial monopoly, sold tickets to operate in that monopoly, and then failed to protect it. Medallions were a stupid idea but that doesn't mean the government should be able to just write them off and screw ov…

So it should be able to screw people not holding them? Or those who cant get a $1 Million dollar loan or pay 3k to drive a car? Car leases are easy at $150.

Any government policy has winners and losers. Literally any. All that's reasonable is that governments act in.good faith and with proper accounting of, say, time horizons. They should have figured out that medallions were unsustainable, what, in the low 100k's? Once it starts working as a pyramid scheme there are only losers from then on... Except the now retired taxi drivers, who banked 1M.

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#66

Post by [deleted] »

throwaaawayNNV wrote: post #10

I run a business where I hire remote people to do fairly basic tasks. I can pay them cheaply, replace them easily when they don't fit anymore. I am the "platform" and I extract the surplus. So I feel the article has very valid points... and I am on the "ruling capitalists" side of my little world. In order to sleep at night, I am just trying not to be an asshole, and to be decent in the way I pay and behave. But as a…

[deleted]

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#67

Post by reading-at-work »

"The reign of the all-powerful capitalist class has returned with a vengeance. The job conditions of working men and women, thrust backward, will not improve until they regain the militancy and rebuild the popular organizations that seized power from the capitalists."

...

"The ruling capitalists will be as vicious as they were in the past. Nothing enrages the rich more than having to part with a fraction of their obscene wealth. Consumed by greed, rendered numb to human suffering by a life of hedonism and extravagance, devoid of empathy, incapable of self-criticism or self-sacrifice, surrounded by sycophants and leeches who cater to their wishes, appetites and demands, able to use their wealth to ignore the law and destroy critics and opponents, they are among the most repugnant of the human species."

...

This article is just individual anecdotes mixed in with rants taken straight out of a socialist recruitment pamphlet. I'm open to different political opinions, but this is just ridiculous. Can anyone really take this seriously?

Additionally, I'm not convinced that regulating Uber and Lyft as heavily as we regulate taxi companies is a good idea. Taxis are a very entrenched industry buried in red tape, which is part of why they were so expensive and inconvenient. Uber and Lyft have been so successful because there was a desperate need for a ride-hailing solution that didn't suck.

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#68

Post by cryoshon »

douglaswlance wrote: post #28

It's never been easier to start a business. We need more CEOs and business owners, not more serfs. Lack of wage growth incentivizes people to find new, more value-producing work. Subsidizing low-income work is self-destructive.

nah

new business generation is way, way down.

the reason why is precariousness. if you don't have a margin large enough to risk starting a new business, a new business isn't started.

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#69

Post by amelius »

iliketosleep wrote: post #41

The underlying issue is that these VC backed companies break the law to gain a business advantage and face no real consequences, especially if they are successful. But if individuals and small companies attempt to break these very same laws they get crushed. It's almost as though if you've been to Stanford and are backed by well-connected VC's, you're able to recklessly break the law in the name of "disruptive" techn…

> The underlying issue is that these VC backed companies break the law to gain a business advantage and face no real consequences

You don't even need to break the law to gain a business advantage. Just making a large pile of money can be sufficient to start dominating a market.

Take for example Uber-eats. Small restaurant owners suddenly had to give up control over their sales channel to a big player, and are now forced to pay a large monthly fee just to stay in business, where the benefits don't outweigh the costs.

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#70

Post by autokad »

taneq wrote: post #32
carlmr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the medallions were stupid, although I think they shouldn't have allowed Uber to operate without medallions, or get rid of the system in general. >Relying on their "value" for retirement is crazy. And like another commenter has said - if it was worth 1.1 million, why not sell it and retire Because he took out a loan of 1.1 million to buy it. It's not that he bought it for next to nothing and it rose to that pric…

Exactly, and that's my problem with ride sharing companies like Uber (or rather, with governments letting them operate as unlicenced taxis despite strict regulation of 'real' taxis). The government created an artificial monopoly, sold tickets to operate in that monopoly, and then failed to protect it. Medallions were a stupid idea but that doesn't mean the government should be able to just write them off and screw ov…

it sounds like the cities should be forced to buy them back at the price they sold them
Post reply on HN