The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs • Hacker News Board

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#11

Post by olefoo » Tue, Jan 27, 2015, 9:35 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #5

Interesting 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...

It's a big story that is being replicated all across the economy. There are many parts to it, and many different aspects. So, you should be seeing a number of stories with some overlap.

This is a story about income inequality, and the forced assumption of liability by the weaker parties to an employment contract. It's also about the abject failure of regulators in the face of politically connected companies. It's about tilted playing fields where startups that work within the existing system fail; and startups that act like robber barons succeed.

It's about the psychopathic cult of "success" that says that making more money is always a supreme good; no matter the economic externalities you create for the rest of us.

We're on a path to becoming a third-world planet where the rich live lives of robot-pampered luxury and everyone else starves in favelas trying desperately to make a living by bartering on craigslist with their smartphones.

Oh, and do you think you're good enough and psychopathic enough to be living in a mansion in Atherton? The odds are against you. And that type of self-delusion is part of the story too.

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#12

Post by Hasu » Tue, Jan 27, 2015, 9:36 PM UTC

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 such machines really do? They increase the number of things we can do without thinking. Things we do without thinking-there's the real danger."

"I point out to you...a lesson from past over-machined societies which you appear not to have learned. The devices themselves condition the users to employ each other the way they employ machines."

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#13

Post by will_brown » Tue, Jan 27, 2015, 9:39 PM UTC

One issue, about Uber specifically, I thought this article would touch on is legal liability. Unfortunately, the only legal liability mentioned is AirBnB guest turning a rental into a brothel.

The reality is in many jurisdictions Uber drivers are violating criminal law [1], and Uber drivers have been arrested. I was personally informed by a driver in Houston that Uber actually pays for a driver's lawyer when arrested. Maybe that is a start-up itself...connect Uber drivers with Uber lawyers paid for by Uber; however, my prediction is there will eventually be a major class-action by drivers who have been arrested while a contract driver for Uber. While corporations will continue shifting from employees to contractors in their own interest, it is a matter of time before someone realizes Uber is liable for contracting people and paying them specifically for acts deemed criminal.

[1] I am not taking a position as to the morality of such laws or whether they are just, simply stating many jurisdictions have laws in place criminalizing operating taxi's without permits

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#14

Post by marcosdumay » Tue, Jan 27, 2015, 9:40 PM UTC

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

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#15

Post by quadrangle » Tue, Jan 27, 2015, 9:40 PM UTC

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…

I happen to hate capitalism, but we need to pick the right target. Uber is crony corporatism and technical totalitarianism, quite unlike the imaginary concepts of theoretical capitalism.

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#16

Post by BrainInAJar » Tue, Jan 27, 2015, 10:18 PM UTC

spikels wrote: post #8

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…

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).

You've never needed to work, have you? And I don't mean "have a job to afford the lifestyle you prefer" I mean been poor, unskilled, and needed to work to put food on the table.

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#17

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 27, 2015, 10:24 PM UTC

spikels wrote: post #8

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…

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…

[deleted]

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#18

Post by Meekro » Tue, Jan 27, 2015, 10:28 PM UTC

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…

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 an even better offer?

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#19

Post by BrainInAJar » Tue, Jan 27, 2015, 10:31 PM UTC

quadrangle wrote: post #15

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…

I happen to hate capitalism, but we need to pick the right target. Uber is crony corporatism and technical totalitarianism, quite unlike the imaginary concepts of theoretical capitalism.

How is Uber crony capitalism? Uber is capitalism working exactly as designed, workers are disposable and profit seeking is unregulated. The taxi services are closer to crony capitalism.

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#20

Post by cousin_it » Tue, Jan 27, 2015, 10:33 PM UTC

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…

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