Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back • Hacker News Board

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#141

Post by renewiltord » Fri, Jul 05, 2024, 4:26 PM UTC

mistrial9 wrote: post #105

theptip wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you ideally want all the jobs to be good That is… exactly the point I made, when I said: > you don’t want jobs that are strictly better Preference optionality is widely stated to be one of the features that gig workers like about the arrangement. The options you suggest are also valid ways of homogenizing the jobs to reduce variance. > Gamifying peoples livelihood is the problem To be clear Game Theory applies to a…

applied Game Theory in real human history a.k.a. wealth-building, has shown that the biggest empires with the most wealth and the best armies are built with slavery. So slavery did win, again and again and again. I don't think most modern people have any idea how deep and wide the history of slavery is .. Game-theory is fun when you get good at it for designing markets and products, but let us not lose sight of the c…

Obviously bullshit since the US has no slavery and became a world empire 100 years after abolishing slavery.

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#142

Post by renewiltord » Fri, Jul 05, 2024, 4:30 PM UTC

alwa wrote: post #95

demondemidi wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to fly into Pittsburg and take an Uber to my grandparents house 40 miles away. For years I could always get an Uber but then after the pandemic my trip was rejected so frequently that I had to start renting a car. So basically no one wanted the gig and Uber never told me my ride was unreasonable. Something changed in the algorithm to benefit drivers, Uber, or both, at the expense of the customer, and that info…

I’m curious: would you have felt better if Uber had just rejected your ride request upfront (“Sorry, we can’t offer rides that far” or something)? Or is this attitude of “hey, it’s a long shot, but let’s give it a try and see if anybody takes the job” closer to the attitude you’d like to see? If the latter, how would you communicate that to the users? I had an occasion a long time ago where I needed to request an Ube…

Overall, I just want a good estimate. Uber will frequently say 3 min and then run a search that takes a long time.

Ideally, of course, I can up my price and so on but even absent that I frequently choose Waymo or an ebike because they're more reliable.

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#143

Post by mistrial9 » Fri, Jul 05, 2024, 6:37 PM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #141

mistrial9 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

applied Game Theory in real human history a.k.a. wealth-building, has shown that the biggest empires with the most wealth and the best armies are built with slavery. So slavery did win, again and again and again. I don't think most modern people have any idea how deep and wide the history of slavery is .. Game-theory is fun when you get good at it for designing markets and products, but let us not lose sight of the c…

Obviously bullshit since the US has no slavery and became a world empire 100 years after abolishing slavery.

pre-Industrial revolution .. miraculously, formal slavery was disbanded widely only after industrial production and agricultural labor was industrialized.. no?

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#144

Post by casercaramel144 » Fri, Jul 05, 2024, 7:01 PM UTC

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #24

casercaramel144 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Just listen to yourself. You’re arguing that it’s sometimes legitimate to hide payment information. So I can hire someone for a job, and only I know what the job is worth. The worker just has to try it out and see if their valuation of the job is the same as my valuation? The fact that some, maybe most, are making more money is irrelevant. The organisation can change the value of a particular job at any time and simp…

But the worker knows exactly what the job is worth at the point of acceptance. Did you actually read the article? The issue is that the offered amount is decided algorithmically through an opaque process not that the worker doesn't know how much they will get paid for it.

A specific user can decide whether or not to take a specific delivery with full information. Following your analogy, it'd be like using some opaque algorithm to set the offer amount when hiring for a job, which is pretty much what happens today.

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#145

Post by casercaramel144 » Fri, Jul 05, 2024, 7:03 PM UTC

Herrum wrote: post #23

casercaramel144 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't think the reasons you are listing are valid at all. 1. If they can game it, they should. If that's a problem, then Shipt should fix their algorithm. 2. It's fine to data wrangle your way to an automated model for e.g. your company's growth projection or for predicting where you can best expand to find more customers. It's not okay to use it to unilaterally change pay agreements with your workers or "contracto…

Why is this the case? It's well known that ML models are almost always gameable if you know the weights. What right do you have to their algo?

Why not? The contractors know before directly accepting a contract it's value, they can choose to not accept it if they think they're being underpaid?

Except this is how things work at basically all companies? Compensation decisions are secret and only known at offer time, I don't think I've worked for a single company where the specific executive decision reasoning for an offer is given.

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#146

Post by casercaramel144 » Fri, Jul 05, 2024, 7:06 PM UTC

Brian_K_White wrote: post #32

casercaramel144 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Not one of those reasons constitutes a valid excuse. Holy cow. "Surely in a hotly competitive market" there is no need to hypothesise about what "surely" would happen according to some wishful thinking. We know from countless past observation exactly what happens in any market of low skill low investment labor, wages go straight to the level of the most desperate willing to be slaves and make nothing at all, because…

This is straight up an unfair characterization. It's not "slaves making nothing at all", its fair value for their labor as decided by supply and demand. The issue you're highlighting shouldn't be solved by trying to legislate the market to oblivion which always introduces side effects. Just hand everyone a UBI payment a month and be done with it.

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#147

Post by russdill » Fri, Jul 05, 2024, 7:25 PM UTC

robocat wrote: post #126

russdill wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are entering an era where corporations have perfect data. They can charge each customer exactly the maximum amount possible, and pay each worker the exact minimum amount possible

> They can charge each customer exactly the maximum amount possible The company captures the consumer surplus. Generally currently we often get way more value than we pay for. We hate having that surplus taken away from us and we hate being charged what something is worth to us. Two questions: How do we fight back? Is it unfair that we pay the amount that something is worth to us individually? Currently think of any…

Strong privacy and data collection laws would be a good start.

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#148

Post by theptip » Fri, Jul 05, 2024, 9:04 PM UTC

robocat wrote: post #126

russdill wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are entering an era where corporations have perfect data. They can charge each customer exactly the maximum amount possible, and pay each worker the exact minimum amount possible

> They can charge each customer exactly the maximum amount possible The company captures the consumer surplus. Generally currently we often get way more value than we pay for. We hate having that surplus taken away from us and we hate being charged what something is worth to us. Two questions: How do we fight back? Is it unfair that we pay the amount that something is worth to us individually? Currently think of any…

Who captures the surplus is dependent on how competitive the market is.

In highly competitive markets, any substantial profits get competed away, and captured by the consumer.

In monopolistic / uncompetitive markets, profits are captured by the monopolist.

Of course, this is a spectrum not a dichotomy. Last I tried to quantify this, I got numbers like 50-60% of the US economy is at least somewhat uncompetitive. But I’d like better numbers. (It’s easy to come up with examples on both sides, IMO)

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#149

Post by robocat » Fri, Jul 05, 2024, 9:09 PM UTC

blackbear_ wrote: post #137

robocat wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They can charge each customer exactly the maximum amount possible The company captures the consumer surplus. Generally currently we often get way more value than we pay for. We hate having that surplus taken away from us and we hate being charged what something is worth to us. Two questions: How do we fight back? Is it unfair that we pay the amount that something is worth to us individually? Currently think of any…

If every product/service has exactly zero consumer surplus, then consumers won't have any reason to prefer product/service A at price p over product/service B at price q, or even over not spending money at all. This will kill innovation, since business competition is based on providing a higher consumer surplus (better quality for the same amount of money, or same quality for less money). This is a clear market failu…

I'm not sure you should be mixing perfectly rational buyers and imperfect markets together and then hypothesizing A therefore B from those assumptions.

Are there better economic theories than traditional microeconomics? Something that (a) models information asymmetry, (b) models measurement risk/variability of expectations versus actual reward, (c) doesn't assume a perfectly rational consumer or producer - instead follows what we see in the world better?

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#150

Post by robocat » Fri, Jul 05, 2024, 10:17 PM UTC

theptip wrote: post #148

robocat wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They can charge each customer exactly the maximum amount possible The company captures the consumer surplus. Generally currently we often get way more value than we pay for. We hate having that surplus taken away from us and we hate being charged what something is worth to us. Two questions: How do we fight back? Is it unfair that we pay the amount that something is worth to us individually? Currently think of any…

Who captures the surplus is dependent on how competitive the market is. In highly competitive markets, any substantial profits get competed away, and captured by the consumer. In monopolistic / uncompetitive markets, profits are captured by the monopolist. Of course, this is a spectrum not a dichotomy. Last I tried to quantify this, I got numbers like 50-60% of the US economy is at least somewhat uncompetitive. But I…

Yes, for commodity goods there is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus

However for most goods/services there is variability in multiple dimensions. And we are irrational buyers and we poorly measure our +ve/-ve utility on multiple dimensions into dollars. And we poorly choose between different options. Plus there is variation.

I would love to meet a rational consumer - their purchasing habits would be interestingly abnormal!

The only thing that seems to protect us from corporate abuse currently is the information gap - we poorly measure our preferences and lack product/service knowledge so producers struggle to measure our preferences and so they struggle to discriminate. If those information asymmetries decrease (especially if they know us better than we know ourselves) then we are in trouble.