'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by JulianMorrison » Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 1:13 PM UTC

345655433 wrote: post #165

sokoloff wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's a living wage? $30K/yr? How many Americans are there (or just American adults)? 325M / 250M What's those two figures multiplied together? 9.8T / 7.5T What's the total federal tax revenues in 2016? 3.5T To what multiple would we need to raise taxes to pay for such a program? Raise to 3.8x current taxation levels / raise to 3.1x current taxation levels. All that assumes that basic prices wouldn't rise in an envi…

Some quite simplistic assumptions here. Obviously anyone making more than say, $150K would be taxed around $30K more (5% of US income tax payers). They would be net-net no worse off than before, but wouldn't add to the cost of this. Most of the burden would fall on even richer people. There aren't many of these, but they make a lot of money. But UBI would replace a lot of things currently funded mainly by rich people…

Right now the way society is organized, you can cut costs by becoming impersonal and standardized. Like McDonalds has lower cost per sandwich than a mom-n-pop shop. But this is being subsidized by effective slavery of the working classes. If they weren't coerced by starvation, they'd walk off the job.

But the job they'd walk onto instead, is quite likely to be a return to personal food, retail, etc.

Like, Amazon might have trouble finding warehouse workers, but owner-operated bookshops would boom. McDonalds would have to go robot, but the cooks would be working at Mom's Diner.

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

#262

Post by WhompingWindows » Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 1:26 PM UTC

GarrisonPrime wrote: post #94

WhompingWindows wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it though, or is it in stocks? And even if he cashed in on that 4.8 bln, what would he do with it? Surely not put it all as a bolus into the economy, no CEO does that, they'd place their funds into bonds or other stocks. He will likely still buy 1 pair of jeans, 2 pillows, and 1 ice cream like the rest of us. The true way to put that 4.8 billion into the economy is to give the consumers, the drivers and riders the…

Having your money in stocks is having it in the economy. Buying a stock is loaning your money to other companies who use it to get stuff done, which requires hiring people and paying them.

Okay, you claim that companies will use cash to hire new employees. Well, let's look at a real case. The recent bolus of cash from the tax bill: how much of that went for new hiring, vs paybacks to stock holders or bonuses/raises for CEOs? I'm not an economist but my understanding is that it is a mixed report, many of the companies have NOT helped their workers, though a few have. Relative to the long-term debt-busting nature of the recent bill, it seems this is not a fair recompense for the pain that will come in the 5-year time frame, when middle-class tax cuts evaporate and we're left with just the tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, yet no budget balancing.

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

#263

Post by WhompingWindows » Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 1:30 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #30

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…

Do you realize how obnoxiously condescending the line "look how good you have it over the people a few hundred years ago" is? How about we give that line to people who already have a lot but always want more? No, it's only used against the little guy who dares to want a decent life.

kdamken nails it. I'm responding to the author's hyperbolic use of the word serfdom, which carries with it an actual historical set of facts. Do I agree with the current distribution of income/wealth in the economy? No, in another thread I'm speaking about the low chances of companies using cash to hire new people, vs. paying off CEOs or stockholders. Yet, to compare Uber or Lyft workers to serfs is not historically valid.

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

#264

Post by taneq » Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 1:37 PM UTC

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #255

taneq wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah, but not really. In the days before mobile phones, street hails were a huge majority of a taxi's fares. Your only other choices were to call from home, find a pay phone, or find a cab rank (or does a cab rank still count as a street hail?)

Apps like Uber let people effectively "street hail" while sidestepping the legalities, which were written before mobile phones became available.

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

#265

Post by Fins » Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 3:19 PM UTC

Method-X wrote: post #151

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?

Exactly. Almost like it's a problem with the fundamentals of the system itself.

Interestingly, it is always assumed that problems with capitalism are systemic, but communism... they just didn't try quite right.

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

#266

Post by Bartweiss » Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 3:40 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #253

Bartweiss wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ri…

I do expect Uber (or Lyft, or...) will turn a profit eventually. There's a substantial gap between Uber prices and cab prices at the moment, and while prices probably have to rise I expect demand will be inelastic enough to keep some ride service alive.

The unique mechanics of ride-hailing apps, like having a demand-responsive workforce and not relying on dedicated vehicles, seem like basically sustainable cost reductions.

The non-unique mechanics like having a good app are also sustainable, but Uber has already provoked most taxi companies to catch up on that. And we'll see how the regulatory bit shakes out - either crackdowns on ride hailing drive prices back up, or cabs lose out because they've got much higher government-imposed costs.

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

#267

Post by eganist » Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 5:13 PM UTC

troupe wrote: post #234

eganist wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they did not choose to do so at hours that suited them Aside from being particularly banal, the assertion that employees partaking in a gig economy can reasonably choose their own hours is provably false. People relying on gigs to make a living are effectively obligated to follow demand; choosing your own hours is only an option when the revenue is no longer necessary for sustenance. Don't take my word for it -- th…

> the assertion that employees partaking in a gig economy can reasonably choose their own hours is provably false Having talked with a number of Uber drivers, I know that many of them like Uber specifically because they can choose their own hours. Of all the things they have told me they DON'T like, choosing their own hours is the one thing they all DO say that they like. Some take off when their kid has a baseball g…

That's all well and good, but policymaking doesn't hinge on anecdotes.

Surge wouldn't be a thing if Uber really subscribed to the idea of letting drivers choose their own hours.

As an aside: your example is in theory no different than what unlimited leave allows you to do, but we know how broken that system is in the bay.

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

#268

Post by MrFantastic » Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 9:13 PM UTC

lr4444lr wrote: post #57

refurb wrote: post #14

Earlier 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.

Paid by whom? We only bail out bankers.

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

#269

Post by MrFantastic » Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 9:14 PM UTC

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #135

MrFantastic wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent Seeking sometimes creates losers.

Yes - this reminds me of my state where there is a requirement that between bars and breweries there has to be a middle man that resells the booze, because its safer or something stupid. The middle man is enshrined in law. When we wanted to change the state liquor laws, the middle men said I should always be here in the middle, it's my right. That really made me angry.

The middle man uses his free $peech to speak to the local politicians.

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

#270

Post by MrFantastic » Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 9:17 PM UTC

autokad wrote: post #70

taneq wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

it sounds like the cities should be forced to buy them back at the price they sold them

Private profits and subsidized losses?

Capitalism requires bankruptcy.