The Modern Workforce • Hacker News Board

Re: The Modern Workforce

#51

Post by mc32 » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 8:58 PM UTC

I think this is a double edged sword. On the one hand things/resources can be easily shared among many people. This is good, fewer resources into supporting a population. It also allows people who seek marginal income increase to do do on a part time basis.

This I not good if the economy evolves to make this marginal income system into the main and default way foe people to engage into the economy -"a race to the bottom". It also puts son pressure on producers who must now adapt to the new status where big ticket items can be shared among many (vehicles, mowers, etc). Perhaps a move to higher quality higher priced lower volume.

The labor unit granularity would make these workers, on average, less valuable. And the advantage goes to the educated, more skilled.

This devolution into a person to person economy where the main beneficiary is the "platform" will not bode well for the average person.

Re: The Modern Workforce

#52

Post by maceo » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 8:59 PM UTC

Before the industrial revolution we had serfs and artisans. As the factories absorbed both the serfs and the artisans, the serfs saw it as an upgrade, while the artisans resented the new way of life. Through workplace organization, which usually involved serious risks, working conditions improved for everybody and reached a certain equilibrium by the 1950's.

The lessons learned through workplace struggles in the last 150 years have been forgotten. The notion that "you should feel lucky just to have a job" has such a firm grip on the imagination of the American worker, that we've lost all sense of class consciousness and are accepting a return to serfdom without even putting up a fight. Today you might be an engineer with a comfortable job, but the 'modern workplace' will soon eat you up just like it did the artisans.

The Luddites of industrial England were not afraid of new technology. They smashed machines in the workplace to gain a better bargaining position and prove a point to capital. And today, being against the sort of arrangement that's sprung up around the on-demand workforce doesn't mean that you're against technology. For me, it means that I am for respecting the dignity of the worker and ensuring that the sacrifices our forefathers made were not done in vain. If technology can develop within those constraints, I'm all for it. Otherwise, I say smash the machines.

Re: The Modern Workforce

#53

Post by mtbcoder » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 9:00 PM UTC

colechristensen wrote: post #15

doki_pen wrote: post #9

Turning ordinary employees in to independent contractors is a disturbing trend that is eliminating traditional workers rights. Although some new companies have legitimate reasons for hiring contractors, for most it's not part of some new amazing model of labor, it's simply a way to save money. Usually it's illegal, but the IRS is being destroyed by budget cuts and can no longer enforce the law. Filing against your em…

It depends on the relationship, being an actual independent contractor is truly liberating. Choosing your own hours, working only on things you want to, setting your own salary based on how much you want to t work. There is real freedom in that as long as you get paid appropriately and actually get that freedom. Companies wanting to save money on benefits while having 9-5 workers with no freedom of choice of when or…

> Choosing your own hours, working only on things you want to, setting your own salary based on how much you want to t work.

I've said this a few times before, but to pull this off takes a tremendous amount of work, effort and luck. Finding work and marketing yourself is another job in its own right that you have to do on top of existing client work. Furthermore, all of the risks that were once handled by the employer are now on the contractors shoulders. For most people, all this simply isn't realistic or sustainable.

Re: The Modern Workforce

#54

Post by bryondowd » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 9:02 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #39

trhway wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(2) profit-maximizing companies have every obligation to act in their shareholder's best interests, within the bounds of the law. is profit-maximization a law? because i don't see why for example a company can't be formed for the purpose of "betterment of humanity" and if it earns some profit on the way - great - and if not - it is ok too. As long as shareholders agree to that, ie. buy shares of such a company.

How many companies are you putting money into month after month that aren't turning a profit or providing you any sort of return? I say month after month because if the company is not turning a profit, someone has to keep the lights on.

Not maximizing profit doesn't mean you need to be in the red. You could break even, or just profit less. You still keep the lights on yourself, or even turn some profit, without 'maximizing' profit.

Re: The Modern Workforce

#55

Post by paintrayne » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 9:06 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #48

jjoonathan wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It depends on the relationship No, it depends on leverage. If you've got the most leverage, the relationship will be pleasant. If you don't, the relationship will be abusive. Just like everything else in capitalism. Supply/demand balance and friction matter far more than how "nice" your customer/employer is. The distinction is crucially important: if relationship quality were an independent variable, everyone would…

> No, it depends on leverage. If you've got the most leverage, the relationship will be pleasant. If you don't, the relationship will be abusive. Just like everything else in capitalism. Exactly. And it's not for nothing that "Workers of the world, unite!" is included in the Communist Manifesto, as uniting themselves against their employers was one of the few methods of gaining leverage for 19th-century workers. If i…

>not sure why it couldn't happen again.

Drones. And you better believe the powers that be will criminalize any movement that might level the playing field. The window of opportunity for change is closing.

Re: The Modern Workforce

#56

Post by Spooky23 » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 9:18 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #11

bernardlunn wrote: post #10

Can we please call BS on the sharing economy name. It is is the "squeeze cash out of spare personal resources economy" (resources being time, car, house etc).

It's also the screw-your-neighbour economy. If your little AirBnB money-spinner increases wear-and-tear on the common areas of the building, it's the other tenants who will pick up the costs of the extra maintenance. In time it will come to be seen as profoundly anti-social. Not to mention, if you're running a business you should be paying business rates and taxes... Remind me where is the "sharing"?

You get to share authentic experiences with your hotel guest neighbors! Think of the opportunity!

Uber and similar services raise it to another level. Things like auto liability insurance are very 20th century.

Re: The Modern Workforce

#57

Post by jjoonathan » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 9:19 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #48

jjoonathan wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It depends on the relationship No, it depends on leverage. If you've got the most leverage, the relationship will be pleasant. If you don't, the relationship will be abusive. Just like everything else in capitalism. Supply/demand balance and friction matter far more than how "nice" your customer/employer is. The distinction is crucially important: if relationship quality were an independent variable, everyone would…

> No, it depends on leverage. If you've got the most leverage, the relationship will be pleasant. If you don't, the relationship will be abusive. Just like everything else in capitalism. Exactly. And it's not for nothing that "Workers of the world, unite!" is included in the Communist Manifesto, as uniting themselves against their employers was one of the few methods of gaining leverage for 19th-century workers. If i…

My hope is that we'll see some kind of market inversion when rent-seeking grows to a large enough part of the economy that the ever-falling inefficiency of distributed production becomes reasonable in comparison. Like communes, but without an anti-tech focus (progress in distributed production technology is what will turn them from bad ideas into good ideas, after all).

I just hope it happens before the violence starts in earnest.

Re: The Modern Workforce

#58

Post by whyaduck » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 9:22 PM UTC

Delmania wrote: post #6

p0cket wrote: post #2

Great read. Although services like Uber and Lyft are getting more popular, I didn't know the freelance/part-time market as a whole was growing.

In various business publications, it's referred to as the "sharing economy".

It's not a euphemism, it's a crowd-sourced renaming.

Re: The Modern Workforce

#59

Post by gaius » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 9:23 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #41

alexqgb wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you trolling again, yummy? Or are you honestly too thoughtless to recognize that a stream of people who have no long-term stake in a building do not conduct themselves in the same community-oriented way that's normal among those who do?

I prefer to believe that most people do not treat common areas of buildings like garbage. There are exceptions, of course, but it's not like having an apartment that you rent out a few weeks a year will throw the apartment building into a constant state of disrepair.

In a hotel, its "someone else's problem" for the guest, why would they behave any differently if their hotel happens to also be the home of people who never signed up to this deal?

Re: The Modern Workforce

#60

Post by crpatino » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 9:41 PM UTC

rogerbinns wrote: post #47

doki_pen wrote: post #9

Turning ordinary employees in to independent contractors is a disturbing trend that is eliminating traditional workers rights. Although some new companies have legitimate reasons for hiring contractors, for most it's not part of some new amazing model of labor, it's simply a way to save money. Usually it's illegal, but the IRS is being destroyed by budget cuts and can no longer enforce the law. Filing against your em…

The core underlying problem is traditional society benefits have been pushed onto employers in the US. This is absurd and hurts everyone. Employers don't have the same societal incentives, are less efficient at delivering them, it isn't part of their business anyway, and puts them in a position of power. Workers have a choice of not much of a safety net, or having to pick the least worst employers. If those benefits…

The problem is that businesses want to both not pay direct benefits for their workers and not pay taxes to fund government controlled benefits.

How about having unions, guilds and professional organizations provide the social safety net you cherish so much in the abstract. I am sure there would be many problems but at least there would be no doubt where the funding would come. "You deal with one of us, you deal with all of us. And if you play dirty we will make sure you don't get the service we provide at ANY price on this side of bankruptcy"