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

251–260 of 278 posts

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

#251

Post by Fins »

bbddg wrote: post #169
Fins wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't it at least a little bit curious that any and everyone trying to implement it did an equally terrible job?

Back when people were trying to overthrow monarchies to introduce democracy and capitalism it didn't exactly go smoothly either. 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. There is such an ahistorical bend to anti-socialist rhetoric that is so pervasive in our society it's nearly impossible to see.

Isn't this a rather classic "whataboutism"? I don't think anybody here (not me, certainly) is arguing that capitalism is perfect and without a single flaw. But nevertheless any real-world implementations of socialism always ended up being far worse than of capitalism. And communists never were particularly shy about using slave labor or genociding people either.

There is a reason why that anti-socialist rhetoric exists.

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

#252

Post by Fins »

zanny wrote: post #191
Fins wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't it at least a little bit curious that any and everyone trying to implement it did an equally terrible job?

I'm not a fan of the argument that since the Soviet Union and its derivative states (including China) failed that there is no way to accomplish that Marxist utopic vision or that any variation on socialism has to fail. Russia was the only real attempt. The 1917 revolution was about it, and then the coup by Stalin to overthrow Lenin and Trotsky threw out any shred of attempt to reach any kind of utopia and just turned…

It's a fair point, but there were quite a few countries (starting with China) that that refused Soviet influence (often, because they considered it not sufficiently communist) and went their own way. They didn't succeed at building the workers' paradise any better than USSR did.

Communism does (well, can...) work just fine. Just not with the actual, real people that exist in this world.

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

#253

Post by sokoloff »

Bartweiss wrote: post #173
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, in this case I'd be inclined that on the one side, the government dropped the ball by not banning Uber / "black market taxis" outright; on the other, they created artificial scarcity with the medallion system, creating a trade product that only the super rich could afford to own, which they could in turn lease out to make a profit over decades. I can see why they needed the system though, to prevent a flooding o…

> I can see why they needed the system though, to prevent a flooding of taxi drivers. And they were proven right, because now with gig economy drivers, the floodgates have been opened and the market has been flooded with drivers in a race to the bottom. I'm not convinced this is true, except in the short term. Plenty of service industries maintain a reasonable number of providers, and many even pay reasonable wages t…

> Uber rides can't stay so cheap forever; either prices go up and riders leave, or prices stay low and drivers leave.

I think there's plenty of market for an Uber-like experience at $1.00-$1.75/mile. That's well above covering the all-in cost of the car and well within the range of what riders will pay. I see no reason to think that Uber can't make a profitable business, where drivers are also making a profit, and riders are willing to pay in a range of amounts near the current rates.

I wouldn't be surprised if Uber is already profitable in cities where they have achieved scale.

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

#254

Post by fergie »

spacehome wrote: post #101
fergie wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many good reasons to licence taxi(driver)s, and cap their number. For example: - to keep traffic down - to ensure a minimum standard of vehicle - to ensure safe, well-trained and responsible taxi drivers. - to ensure a fair level of income - etc. However the main problem with the medallion system is that they can be traded, speculated on, and used to extract "rent" from workers further down the chain. This…

None of your reasons besides keeping traffic down necessitate restricting the number of licenses. And a "fair" wage will be determined by the market.

Nope and nope. A guild of taxi drivers prevents a "race to the bottom", which does, in fact lead to the benefits I describe. Its not an issue of "fair" wages (although I did use that word), its an issue of _good_ wages. If you want a decent service, you have to attract good providers by paying decent money (and its here that Ubernomics falls down).

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

#255

Post by TheCoelacanth »

taneq wrote: post #32
carlmr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the medallions were stupid, although I think they shouldn't have allowed Uber to operate without medallions, or get rid of the system in general. >Relying on their "value" for retirement is crazy. And like another commenter has said - if it was worth 1.1 million, why not sell it and retire Because he took out a loan of 1.1 million to buy it. It's not that he bought it for next to nothing and it rose to that pric…

Exactly, and that's my problem with ride sharing companies like Uber (or rather, with governments letting them operate as unlicenced taxis despite strict regulation of 'real' taxis). The government created an artificial monopoly, sold tickets to operate in that monopoly, and then failed to protect it. Medallions were a stupid idea but that doesn't mean the government should be able to just write them off and screw ov…

A medallion was never necessary to run a car service. There were tons of other car services operating in New York without medallions prior to Uber.

The medallions were required to be able to pick up street hails. Uber does not and never has accepted street hails. They operate more like the other car services where you request a car from a central dispatcher, and then that car comes and picks you up at a location that you requested.

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

#257

Post by scarecrowbob »

vinceguidry wrote: post #249
scarecrowbob wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the brief history. I'm in the middle of reading "Caliban and the Witch" and it's nice to have additional ideas about the motion from feudalism to the newer systems.

Looking that book up reminded me of an easy-to-read history with a strong focus on women, taking us from the 19th century to after WW2. https://www.amazon.com/Servants-Downstairs-History-Britain-N...

Thank you; I'll take a look.

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

#258

Post by fruitzome »

itchyouch wrote: post #238
humanrebar wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably full-time employment is: * more like serfdom than having several bosses you can replace as needed * historically more of an anomaly than juggling a few side hustles like fishing and delivering mail and giving boat tours Besides, it seems like employment law is more to blame for the lack of full time jobs. At least more to blame than companies that hire part time workers. If, economically, we want more full t…

Perhaps tax law could penalize part-time work while rewarding full-timers? Maybe companies have to pay into a health-care tax for part-time workers that would get covered by medicaid, plus a part-time worker fee/tax. I wonder what the unintended ramifications of this would be. People end up working as full-timers for a contracting company that gigs out its individuals like current employment agencies? Companies try t…

>Perhaps tax law could penalize part-time work while rewarding full-timers?

Translation: steal more aggressively from people choosing to work less, than we steal from full time wage slaves.

I love my gigs and the freedom of doing freelance web, software, uber driving and also small sales.

I only work 20-30 hours per week as I see fit and can choose who I report to and when I take time off.

Why should the government steal more from me for that?

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

#259

Post by JulianMorrison »

icebraining wrote: post #168
JulianMorrison wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're returning it to different people though. At least if you have the common sense to tax the rich. And in fact, that money is likely to be more economically useful in the hands of ex-poor-now-comfortable people (who will use it to study and start their dream small businesses) than being frittered or sat upon by the very wealthy.

You're returning it to different people though. At least if you have the common sense to tax the rich. The rich would still get $30k, like everyone else. It's just that their increase in taxes would be bigger than that.

Yes, exactly.

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

#260

Post by meowfly »

fruitzome wrote: post #258
itchyouch wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps tax law could penalize part-time work while rewarding full-timers? Maybe companies have to pay into a health-care tax for part-time workers that would get covered by medicaid, plus a part-time worker fee/tax. I wonder what the unintended ramifications of this would be. People end up working as full-timers for a contracting company that gigs out its individuals like current employment agencies? Companies try t…

>Perhaps tax law could penalize part-time work while rewarding full-timers? Translation: steal more aggressively from people choosing to work less, than we steal from full time wage slaves. I love my gigs and the freedom of doing freelance web, software, uber driving and also small sales. I only work 20-30 hours per week as I see fit and can choose who I report to and when I take time off. Why should the government s…

Taxes are not theft. They aren't even remotely close to theft. Steal is the wrong verb here. I'd agree that income taxes aren't great ways for the government to raise revenue but calling it "stealing" is a dishonest portrayal of the relationship we have with our government.

I do agree though that a tax system that punishes people who for working less hours is essentially a regressive tax and thus a poor idea.

Post reply on HN