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

'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

truthdig.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 278 posts

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#221

Post by deft »

reading-at-work wrote: post #160
deft wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think everyone is well aware of that. In a successful socialist state neither party elites or bureaucrats should exist. In a capitalist state or authoritarian system those are designed and necessary groups. Most people's objections to socialism are exactly what socialism is attempting to remove. Lenin, Stalin etc. did a terrible job.

"In a successful socialist state neither party elites or bureaucrats should exist." So to paraphrase, there has never been a successful socialist state.

Exactly, read the essay length comment above from another user. They explained it well. The USSR was the only country that made a legitimate attempt at implementing it. Once Stalin got rid of the people interested in that idea it was all downhill.

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#222

Post by jonhendry18 »

bbddg wrote: post #193
reading-at-work wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Capitalism in America might not have even been possible without the extensive use of slave labor and the genocide of an entire continent of people" Rolling my eyes pretty hard at that one. Can you elaborate? Do you really think the whole system would have failed without slave labor? How was the capitalist economy different back then, such that free labor was absolutely necessary for it to be sustained? "There is suc…

There's a difference between saying "Capitalism in America" vs the whole system of capitalism. That aside it's probably hyperbolic for me to claim that it "might not have even been possible." My point is that people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism. I'm sure there's equally biased pro-socialist rhetoric but since we live in a capitalist society the scale is…

"My point is that people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism."

I think that's because people tend to blame the uglyof capitalism on particular businesses, like Triangle Shirtwaist, or individuals like the golden age robber barons, without considering them as components of a whole flawed system.

On the other hand, socialist systems get treated as flaws in the entire system. Yes, the governments have more control, but the ugly parts of capitalist systems also come about due to government action or inaction.

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#223

Post by ric2b »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #207
jumbopapa wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. The whole article is basically saying that it's unfair that they have competition now. Sure, cab drivers may not be making as good of a living as before, but in general everyone else has gained a lot in regards to lower fares.

This isn't so much about competition. It is about unfair competition. One side has rules and regulations they need to abide by. Many are simply there to make things fair (like meters). Some are safety (not mentioned, but requiring a different class of drivers license). Some are things that obviously should be changed (car models, for example, or the medallion system). Some things are probably a mixture of safety and…

> Not everyone gains by having lower fares if you need to get to work during a busy hour, as mentioned in the article. Surge pricing and weird pricing schemes makes it difficult to plan when money is tight.

Surge pricing makes sense. It encourages people to choose different hours to travel and drivers to drive more during those times, which in the long run can lead to a much better experience for most users as it ensures that more people can use the service.

Yes, it may hurt some people that would prefer a constant price, but overall it seems like a net benefit to me.

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#224

Post by erik_seaberg »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #162
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if we get a universal basic income, all prices will just increase to compensate. I don't believe it'll be possible. It would need to be at or above minimum wage. It would have to be adjusted to location, so someone in SF would make $100K / year off basic income. And that in turn would cause fraud, e.g. registering you're living in SF while living somewhere cheap. It's some weird Star Trek utopic vision, but I…

A lot of the problem could be solved with public provision in such a way as to force the price down. A "national housing service" charging break-even rents would make it impossible for private landlords to capture UBI with a raised rent, for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_S... has a bad track record. Hard to say how much basic income might reduce crime, though.

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#225

Post by deft »

throwaaawayNNV wrote: post #147
deft wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at history. One day people will have had enough and they're going to go after you and people like you.

That's very possible. The hard question is "then what?" If you remove the market economy and ability for people to make money, take initiative and be rewarded for it, and go instead to a pure socialist model/goal, that goes so much against so many human instincts, that it will be hard to have people buying into it. As history shows. And it won't remove AI. What new system do we propose, or how do we modify the curren…

Well, considering socialist thought has always relied on automation getting rid of menial, dangerous and other similar jobs, probably socialism. There are many schools of thought for how a market can/could/would work under socialism. Being rewarded for your effort is not outside of that. Instead of using AI to benefit the people at the top (apparently you), an equitable system where AI actually helps humanity as a whole would be required.

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#226

Post by deft »

zanny wrote: post #198
deft wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely. Many modern workers are in worse standing than serfs or slaves. At least they had something to fall back on a protection.

Another thing to remember is that serfs and slaves had large collective families of blood and coworkers. You might work oppressive hours and suffer for it, but you aren't doing it alone. Most gig workers are going to job to job in isolation because they don't want to be homeless. They always live with other people, but its not a relatable cohabitation and they arne't working together to ease one anothers burdens. Its…

Beyond that the exploitation actually increases as people get more desperate. Lack of education on how to manage money etc. leads to people spending more money in these gig jobs than they could ever make back. Uber is a good example, most drivers are unprofitable.

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#227

Post by deft »

troupe wrote: post #21
WhompingWindows wrote: post #6

Serfdom is not a good comparison. Serfs were essentially slaves required to work the land, they did not choose to do so at hours that suited them, which is a key "feature" of the gig economy. They also were required to work mines, logging, or whatever service the lord of the manor wished. Let's say you worked for ride-shaes the same hours as a serf, something like sunrise to sunset. If you drove an Uber in my city fo…

Agreed. Some people are concerned with getting people out of absolute poverty. This includes things like access to clean water, a roof to sleep under, the ability to not die at 30, etc. Other people are concerned about the spread of income. They don't want to see someone making millions of dollars when someone else is making $20k. In the US, for the most part, people are not living in absolute poverty.

You don't understand the economic situation for most of the states, probably hard to see from your ivory tower. The UN recently toured Louisiana due to poverty concerns. Many places in the states are at or below 3rd world countries in terms of living conditions. People are dying of starvation in the US, unable to access ANY health care that in some countries would be free due to aid (that ironically the US is funding).

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#228

Post by deft »

douglaswlance wrote: post #28

It's never been easier to start a business. We need more CEOs and business owners, not more serfs. Lack of wage growth incentivizes people to find new, more value-producing work. Subsidizing low-income work is self-destructive.

"let's just all be CEOs!" "If you're poor you have more motivation to innovate so get off your ass". Get some perspective and life experience. Maybe a basic understanding of how the current system is designed would help too.

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#229

Post by DoreenMichele »

vinceguidry wrote: post #102

In 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…

Gig workers wish they could be serfs.

I do gig work. My experience of it has been positive. It has allowed me to work when I choose to and to relocate someplace cheaper so I could get back into housing. It has allowed me latitude about some things that you typically only see in very privileged groups, like the Jet Set or well off retirees.

I know this isn't true for a great many gig workers. But I wish we would focus on ways to make it a positive for most workers rather than just talking about it in damning terms as if it can't be a positive.

See also my thoughts here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16689589

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#230

Post by troupe »

cryoshon wrote: post #63
troupe wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Some people are concerned with getting people out of absolute poverty. This includes things like access to clean water, a roof to sleep under, the ability to not die at 30, etc. Other people are concerned about the spread of income. They don't want to see someone making millions of dollars when someone else is making $20k. In the US, for the most part, people are not living in absolute poverty.

then why are 1 in 7 people food insecure in the US?

Have you actually talked to some of these people who are food insecure? I have yet to find any that are going hungry because of total lack of resources. I've talked to one family who said they never have enough to eat with their $400 per month SNAP benefits. I showed them how they could make sure they had food for every meal with a fraction of their budget and then use the rest for variety and to take advantage of what happens to be on sale. They said, "Yeah but my family doesn't like to eat rice or beans or oatmeal. The stuff we will eat costs about $300 per week."

Other families send their kids to school hungry, but yet have money to spend on lots of other recreational uses (both legal and non-legal). I personally know a family that didn't have enough money for food because they had just spent hundreds of dollars on a new dog and dog food.

If you give people the right to spend their resources as they see fit, some people will spend those resources in ways that prioritize purchases other than food. In other words, if everyone is food secure then it means at least some people are not deciding how to spend their resources for themselves. If you think people should be able to make their own decisions, then you have to accept that some people are going to run out of money for food from time to time.

That isn't to say that there isn't anyone in the US with hard situations that are out of their control, but I have yet to find a family who consistently has no food where it isn't directly related to how they are prioritizing what they do have. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they are a very very small fraction of the numbers you are citing.

Post reply on HN