Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it's purely based on artificial scarcity. Which historical never lasts. PanAm went bust because they banked on price fixed airline tickets. USPS benefited from national mail logistics only being available to government level endeavors. DeBeers is about to get crushed by artificial diamonds which are both cheaper and "better diamonds" than the massive stockpile they've accumulated. The rocket industry has long la…
Regarding DeBeers I heard they already control most of production capacity for artificial diamonds. So the price difference is not as much as many hoped between natural and artificial diamonds.
'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom
131–140 of 278 posts
Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom
#132I was mostly agreeing with the article until this part: "His medallion, once worth $1.1 million, had plummeted in value to $180,000. The dramatic drop in the value of the medallion, which he had hoped to lease for $3,000 a month or sell to finance his retirement, wiped out his economic security. He faced financial ruin and poverty. And he was not alone." The medalions are stupid and shouldn't exist. Relying on their…
Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heard of the blockchain recently? Money used to be backed by naturally scarce resources. An ounce of gold is an ounce is an immutable portion of some finite limit of gold until we get alchemy rolling. But yes, fiat currencies based on the promise of government protection are very susceptible to being popped.
Blockchain is based on artificial scarcity too.
Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be honest, I actually feel bad for medallion owners, even if the medallion system is a bad one. The gov't sets ups a system, tells you the rules and says "if you buy an expensive medallion, you can drive a cab and make a living". The value of the medallion is purely based on the gov't promise to maintain the system. So you buy one (or many) and a few years later someone does a work around and the gov't says "oh we…
There are reportedly about 14,000 medallions. At $1,000,000 a pop, it would not be too terrible to have a one-time buyout paid over several years as a compromise to ending the system.
Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be honest, I actually feel bad for medallion owners, even if the medallion system is a bad one. The gov't sets ups a system, tells you the rules and says "if you buy an expensive medallion, you can drive a cab and make a living". The value of the medallion is purely based on the gov't promise to maintain the system. So you buy one (or many) and a few years later someone does a work around and the gov't says "oh we…
Rent Seeking sometimes creates losers.
Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
He doesn't pay them how much their work is worth. He pays less, that's how he makes money.
Exactly. I make most of the money, not them. And the day I reduce their hours significantly because I bring AI into the platform -and one day I will-, I will make even more, and they will make even less. I don't think I am individually wrong to pay market rate for their work, and keep the surplus, but the bigger question is, while nobody is wrong, including AI, where are we going as a society? What will be the conseq…
Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom
#137In 1575 the Danish king gave Tycho Brahe an island and funding for an observatory in order to keep him in Denmark. This transformed the land from a Crown property to a feudal domain, of which Brahe was the lord. Tycho took control of agricultural planning, requiring the peasants to cultivate twice as much as they had done before, and he also exacted corvée labor from the peasants for the construction of his new castl…
Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom
#138How can you write an article like this without bringing up self driving cars? The end game for Uber is to get drivers out of the loop completely. So, this is just a temporary problem. It's going to get a whole lot worse if your plan in life is to drive vehicles around to make money. This is not about the gig economy but simply about a lot of jobs becoming commodities before being automated away completely. Anyone wit…
1) You enter into perhaps the most capital-intensive business of all time and buy a fleet of these new self-driving cars. This would be a humongous cash raise; NYC alone would likely need $1B in vehicles to match current coverage levels. You'd also need service and maintenance facilities (or pay for someone else to handle it)
2) You wait for enough of these vehicles to be bought by consumers to create a ride share network akin to the current one, except without the drivers
Option 1 is likely a non-starter. Uber-style businesses are popular with investors precisely because they avoid this business model. Buying the vehicles and facilities to maintain current US coverage would probably run $100B or more. That's not really feasible.
Option 2 saves Uber from that awful capital raise, but means they're waiting for self-driving cars to reach high enough saturation within the broader vehicle fleet that they can use as rideshares during owners idle periods. Based on what Google suggests for a typical car upgrade cycle, this would be 5 years or more. It also probably doesn't improve their margins enormously, because they're still licensing the car from an owner who will demand a cut of fares (whether it be directly or as an hourly lease fee). The assumption is that fee is materially lower than what drivers want for their car and time, but there's no reason to believe that's true (especially given, as many studies have suggested, drivers in most markets currently lose money on a per-mile basis). During the initial period of self-driving adoption, owners fees will be higher, as there are fewer of these vehicles available and owners will have better bargaining power via their scarcity.
But while Uber waits for adoption in scenario 2, their first-mover advantage in rideshare erodes. If you're GM or Mercedes, this looks like a pretty high-margin business, and it looks really tempting to use the self-driving tech you're already putting into these vehicles to spin-up a competitor, and right now there's nothing on the books saying you can't simply lock Uber out of it.
Long-term, that's my expectation: that self-driving cars will exist and Uber will die to competition from OEMs (or some kind of alliance between OEMs and Waymo).
[e]fixed some formatting.
Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The underlying issue is that these VC backed companies break the law to gain a business advantage and face no real consequences You don't even need to break the law to gain a business advantage. Just making a large pile of money can be sufficient to start dominating a market. Take for example Uber-eats. Small restaurant owners suddenly had to give up control over their sales channel to a big player, and are now for…
Restaurants don't pay a large up-front cost to be on these food delivery services. All of the services make money by taking a percentage of the revenue (generally 15-30%) from the orders they fulfill. As long as the revenue from delivery exceeds the food cost (marginal cost of preparing an order) it is beneficial for restaurants to be on AS MANY of these delivery services as possible. This is why you'll walk into som…
Exactly. Drivers are getting the short end of the stick. Restaurants are affected but given the exposure they get, it might be worth it.
Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom
#140I found the best quote from the article to be the last: > “Horses in Central Park are regulated,” he pointed out. “There’s 150 of them. They make a great living there, the guys on the horse and buggies. Say Uber comes in and says, ‘We want to bring in Uber horses. And we want to add 100,000.’ And let’s see how the market will handle it. We know what’s going to happen. No one will make money. They’re all around Centra…
I'm genuinely curious, have you taken a cab lately? Can you honestly say you prefer that experience to what Uber or Lyft provides? I understand what that quote is saying, but I feel it's a false equivalency. There are already cars on the road in NYC. It's not like adding 10,000 horses to Central Park. Overall, the regulations on the taxi industry are the reason Uber and Lyft have been so successful - because they ski…
One could make the argument / defense that the driver chose to, nobody made him, and that he has nothing else though. In which case anything is better than nothing. Both are IMO regulatory problems, which a government should do something about.