The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs
washingtonpost.com
The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs
1–10 of 36 posts
Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs
#2Unfortunately, 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.
Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs
#3Unfortunately, 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…
This guy proposes a thing. His background is Marxist, so, usual grain of salt going along with that.
Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs
#4Uber is another example of "machines should think, people should work". The previous example I used was Amazon's fulfillment operation, where the planning and deciding is done by computers, which run the robots and give orders to the serfs to take things out of one bin and put them in another.
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.
Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs
#5Interesting 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...
Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs
#6[deleted]
Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs
#7Unfortunately, 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…
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
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).
Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs
#8Uber is another example of "machines should think, people should work". The previous example I used was Amazon's fulfillment operation, where the planning and deciding is done by computers, which run the robots and give orders to the serfs to take things out of one bin and put them in another. Uber is similar. All the planning and deciding is done by computers. Failure to serve on demand three times costs them their…
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-...
Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs
#9Unfortunately, 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…
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.
Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs
#10Uber is another example of "machines should think, people should work". The previous example I used was Amazon's fulfillment operation, where the planning and deciding is done by computers, which run the robots and give orders to the serfs to take things out of one bin and put them in another. Uber is similar. All the planning and deciding is done by computers. Failure to serve on demand three times costs them their…
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…
> "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.