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

The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 36 posts

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#21

Post by khuey »

cousin_it wrote: post #20
Meekro wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question to ask is, if Uber disappeared off the face of the earth one day, would these drivers be better off, or worse off? I claim they'd be worse off -- if there was a better job available, they'd already be doing that instead of driving for Uber. In other words, Uber is a positive force in their lives, an employer who made them a better offer than any other, and they've getting shit for not making the drivers…

They'd be better off. The existence of Uber is what causes these other "better jobs" to disappear.

and the evidence for that is?

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#22

Post by kefka »

john_b wrote: post #9
kefka wrote: post #2

Unfortunately, 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.

Youre right. The world economy is a humongous place. However, what happens when there is 10% unemployment? What about 20 percent unemployment? Or what happens when the screws capitalism are turned and you see 90 percent unemployment? That is is the intended result of capitalism, is it not? To me that was a fail system. And communism and socialism have both proven to be failures.

now, what do we do about this? Honestly, I have no clue.

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#23

Post by sogen »

Hasu wrote: post #12
Animats wrote: post #4

Uber 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…

It reminds me of Dune, or more specifically, the allusions to the backstory of Dune, in which a religious jihad destroyed all computers and forbade their construction. Some relevant bits, from Dune and God Emperor of Dune: "Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them." "There's a lesson in that, too. What do…

"The devices themselves condition the users to employ each other the way they employ machines."

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#24

Post by sogen »

kefka wrote: post #2

Unfortunately, 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…

Yup, below $9733 USD per year is poverty in Mexico.

More than 50% of mexicans live with less than that.

That's why USA is so atractive to millions of inmigrants.

$4/day in Mexico vs $8/hr in the USA?!

It's a no-brainer.

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#25

Post by oalders »

Meekro wrote: post #18
john_b wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 wi…

The question to ask is, if Uber disappeared off the face of the earth one day, would these drivers be better off, or worse off? I claim they'd be worse off -- if there was a better job available, they'd already be doing that instead of driving for Uber. In other words, Uber is a positive force in their lives, an employer who made them a better offer than any other, and they've getting shit for not making the drivers…

> if there was a better job available, they'd already be doing that instead of driving for Uber.

So none of these people can currently do better than driving for Uber?

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#26

Post by civilian »

john_b wrote: post #10
spikels wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

Ah, no, serfs didn't have the right to leave their manor. They could (and did), but they were breaking the law to do that. Serfdom is slavery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#27

Post by kefka »

marcosdumay wrote: post #14
Animats wrote: post #4

Uber 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…

For anybody that still didn't read, that's "Manna"[1] 1 - http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

Yes, it is.

And just like Marshall Brain's story, we are also without laws protecting people of the right to live.

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#28

Post by infectoid »

kefka wrote: post #22
john_b wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Youre right. The world economy is a humongous place. However, what happens when there is 10% unemployment? What about 20 percent unemployment? Or what happens when the screws capitalism are turned and you see 90 percent unemployment? That is is the intended result of capitalism, is it not? To me that was a fail system. And communism and socialism have both proven to be failures. now, what do we do about this? Honestl…

Employment is a fairly broad solution. More fundamentally, if you don't give people something to do (i.e. purpose) they will probably just riot and start a revolution of some sort.

Where is the market for a driverless taxi if nobody can afford to catch one?

If you're an optimist, there will always be meaningful work to be done (for some kind of credit), supported by a government that knows to placate a society, they need to feel useful.

A pessimist on the other hand might subscribe to the cyclical nature of the rise and fall of civilisations. They catalyst this time being technological development moving faster than our ability to mentally and socially digest it.

We have only got about a billions years left. Let's make them count.

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#30

Post by disputin »

Meekro wrote: post #18
john_b wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 wi…

The question to ask is, if Uber disappeared off the face of the earth one day, would these drivers be better off, or worse off? I claim they'd be worse off -- if there was a better job available, they'd already be doing that instead of driving for Uber. In other words, Uber is a positive force in their lives, an employer who made them a better offer than any other, and they've getting shit for not making the drivers…

Is that the question to ask? Isn't the question to ask where is this headed, on a grander scale?
Post reply on HN