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

91–100 of 278 posts

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

#91

Post by bbddg »

api wrote: post #84
reading-at-work wrote: post #67

"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 obs…

"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 psychological shift toward delusio…

If that's true shouldn't we try to create an economy that doesn't actively reward those behaviors?

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

#92

Post by mpweiher »

shusson wrote: post #7

> Travis Kalanick, the former CEO of Uber and one of the founders, has a net worth of $4.8 billion. I agree that the working conditions of workers should improve but I never understand the comparison to the value of CEOs. Travis Kalanick isn't sleeping on $4.8 billion, it's in the economy.

Okay. I take away all your money and then invest it. Fine with you?

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

#93

Post by xvire »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #20
shusson wrote: post #7

> Travis Kalanick, the former CEO of Uber and one of the founders, has a net worth of $4.8 billion. I agree that the working conditions of workers should improve but I never understand the comparison to the value of CEOs. Travis Kalanick isn't sleeping on $4.8 billion, it's in the economy.

Is it though, or is it in stocks? And even if he cashed in on that 4.8 bln, what would he do with it? Surely not put it all as a bolus into the economy, no CEO does that, they'd place their funds into bonds or other stocks. He will likely still buy 1 pair of jeans, 2 pillows, and 1 ice cream like the rest of us. The true way to put that 4.8 billion into the economy is to give the consumers, the drivers and riders the…

Yes, but stocks/bonds is basically giving money to companies so they can do useful stuff with them. So, they are still in the economy.

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

#94

Post by GarrisonPrime »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #20
shusson wrote: post #7

> Travis Kalanick, the former CEO of Uber and one of the founders, has a net worth of $4.8 billion. I agree that the working conditions of workers should improve but I never understand the comparison to the value of CEOs. Travis Kalanick isn't sleeping on $4.8 billion, it's in the economy.

Is it though, or is it in stocks? And even if he cashed in on that 4.8 bln, what would he do with it? Surely not put it all as a bolus into the economy, no CEO does that, they'd place their funds into bonds or other stocks. He will likely still buy 1 pair of jeans, 2 pillows, and 1 ice cream like the rest of us. The true way to put that 4.8 billion into the economy is to give the consumers, the drivers and riders the…

Having your money in stocks is having it in the economy. Buying a stock is loaning your money to other companies who use it to get stuff done, which requires hiring people and paying them.

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

#95

Post by cptskippy »

huffmsa wrote: post #27
refurb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, I actually feel bad for medallion owners, even if the medallion system is a bad one. The gov't sets ups a system, tells you the rules and says "if you buy an expensive medallion, you can drive a cab and make a living". The value of the medallion is purely based on the gov't promise to maintain the system. So you buy one (or many) and a few years later someone does a work around and the gov't says "oh we…

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…

> USPS benefited from national mail logistics only being available to government level endeavors.

What Kool-Aid are you drinking? The Post Office didn't benefit from anything, it was mandated because no such service yet existed.

Prior to the Office of the Postmaster General being established, postal service was disjointed and limited at best in the colonies. In the 1600s you had 2 routes in the colonies, Boston to England and Boston to New York City. It was prohibitively expensive and limited largely to business and government communications. In the 1700s the Imperial Postal Service was extended to the colonies with fixed rates and taxes included, and it was incredibly unreliable.

The Post Office was born out of frustration, one of the founding fathers ran a news paper and the Imperial Post couldn't even deliver papers reliably. The Post Office was mandated by the founding fathers under the principle that everyone has the right to secure, efficient, reliable, and affordable mail service.

With the advent of the Interstate Highway System and many other technological advances over the prevailing 200 years, the Post Office was actually able to reduce costs and turn a profit.

During the civil rights movements of the 50s and 60s, the postal workers began protesting and striking because work conditions and compensation. They eventually won the right to unionized. In response to unionization the Postal Reorganization Act (PRA) of 1970 abolished the Post Office Department and turned the Post Office into an independent agency that was excluded from the US Budget.

One could argue that the PRA was the start of union busting tactics employed by the conservative government in power to bankrupt the post office. It doesn't help that every conservative government since then has enacted some sort of constraint upon the USPS that isn't mandated on private services. The most recent being the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 which required the USPS to switch from a Pay-As-You-Go to a Pre-Funded model for it's retirement plans. That's akin to your mortgage company calling you up and saying you'll need to pay off 100% of your principal next year.

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

#96

Post by p0wn »

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…

They allow non medallion cars aka the black private car service cars but I think you needed a medallion to pick up a person hailing a cab off the side of the road... ie you didn't call the car service to come pick you up.

With uber they're still not picking people up that are physically hailing them. They are relying on technology aka smartphones to get around this.

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

#97

Post by thedoops »

The gig economy has barely begun. It won't be in full force till I can see quest/gig markers in mixed reality. Ironically I think to implement a gig economy to this extent we'll have solved the problem of merit to the point money is much less influential. It could very well reverse the tide of egregious wealth inequality. The challenge is to build systems which can securely aggregate data on a person's subject matter expertise. The better we can estimate categorical competence the better we can make opportunities visible.

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

#98

Post by ben509 »

walterbell wrote: post #86
amelius wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 for…

What’s the fee? Can they advertise cheaper options, e.g. include a printed menu with each delivery?

Of course they can, there are several competitors in that space, and if you order from eat24 or ubereats, you'll often get a menu that directs you to their preferred service.

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

#99

Post by throwaaawayNNV »

bbddg wrote: post #87
avoutthere wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your workers are doing "fairly basic tasks", why should you be forced to pay them more than their work is worth?

He doesn't pay them how much their work is worth. He pays less, that's how he makes money.

Exactly. I make most of the money, not them. And the day I reduce their hours significantly because I bring AI into the platform -and one day I will-, I will make even more, and they will make even less.

I don't think I am individually wrong to pay market rate for their work, and keep the surplus, but the bigger question is, while nobody is wrong, including AI, where are we going as a society? What will be the consequences?

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

#100

Post by zip1234 »

fergie wrote: post #45
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…

There are many good reasons to licence taxi(driver)s, and cap their number. For example: - to keep traffic down - to ensure a minimum standard of vehicle - to ensure safe, well-trained and responsible taxi drivers. - to ensure a fair level of income - etc. However the main problem with the medallion system is that they can be traded, speculated on, and used to extract "rent" from workers further down the chain. This…

I agree that those are reasons for the INTENT behind regulating/licensing taxis. Certainly in the past those things may have been more important. However, with the improved access to information that people now have through their phones it seems a lot less necessary.

- to keep traffic down I don't know if limiting taxis actually ends up limiting cars, but limiting cars is certainly the definition of keeping traffic down. - to ensure a minimum standard of vehicle I've actually been surprised but the people driving Uber X usually have nicer vehicles than most taxis I have taken. - to ensure safe, well-trained and responsible taxi drivers. Licensing drivers provides responsible taxi drivers? Yes, tell that to the people that have to pay cash because the credit card machine is 'broken'. - to ensure a fair level of income As far as the fair level of income, taxi companies are taking their cut. How much do the drivers actually end up with?

Post reply on HN