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

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#31

Post by seanflyon » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 2:47 AM UTC

oalders wrote: post #25

Meekro wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> if there was a better job available, they'd already be doing that instead of driving for Uber. So none of these people can currently do better than driving for Uber?

No one is doing better than they are doing. If they can do better then they should do better weather or not Uber exists.

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#32

Post by jacalata » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 3:03 AM 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…

That's what people say about sweatshops too.

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#33

Post by woodman » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 5:01 AM UTC

BrainInAJar wrote: post #19

quadrangle wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> How is Uber crony capitalism?

Because that is the phrase for extra bad capitalism, right? The regulatory capture of the rent seeking income inequality causing corporatism, occupy HN!

I'm seeing a lot of posts lately that remind me of Randian villains. Two dimensional characters who are uniformly ugly and buffoonish - so that the reader instantly knows the bad guys.

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#34

Post by saraid216 » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 6:13 AM UTC

sogen wrote: post #23

Hasu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"The devices themselves condition the users to employ each other the way they employ machines."

Yay! Job creators!

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#35

Post by saraid216 » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 6:19 AM UTC

disputin wrote: post #30

Meekro wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is that the question to ask? Isn't the question to ask where is this headed, on a grander scale?

This.

And the answer, frankly, is that they'll all be out of jobs when Uber moves over to a fully autonomous fleet.

Re: The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs

#36

Post by saraid216 » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 6:22 AM UTC

xnull4guest wrote: post #7

saraid216 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guy proposes a thing. His background is Marxist, so, usual grain of salt going along with that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guSdjsctrUQ

For those without the time (or grit) for Richard D. Wolff the idea is to replace the top-down autocratic organization of the corporate structure with a bottom-up democratic one of worker self-directed cooperatives. The idea being that risk and liability are spread across a large base of people - not unlike insurance. At the same time it fails to concentrate wealth in a few 'top dogs' and decisions made democratically…

Thanks. I was pressed for time when I made the comment and it's been a few months since I listened to the talk, so I didn't trust my ability to put together an accurate summary in the time I had available.