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

The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

#31

Post by Shivetya »

deegles wrote: post #8

I don't see anyone besides Uber winning in the Uber economy. It's right in the name. Forcing Uber and other ride-sharing companies to classify their resources as employees will only give them further incentive to automate. Once that happens (5 years, 10 max) it will be a moot point how a driver would be classified. Very few people wake up in the morning and say "Gee, I'm so excited to drive for Uber today! I don't ne…

The sharing economy is not caused by income equality, it is caused by entrepreneurs doing new things, finding ways around regulation which normally prevents competition and protects established business, and finally because many people are always looking for a means to supplement their income. That last point is usually most important as many tend to over extend their resources let alone many who do operate as uber drivers are not poor considering they own and insure a car

Re: The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

#32

Post by collyw »

omonra wrote: post #17
deegles wrote: post #8

I don't see anyone besides Uber winning in the Uber economy. It's right in the name. Forcing Uber and other ride-sharing companies to classify their resources as employees will only give them further incentive to automate. Once that happens (5 years, 10 max) it will be a moot point how a driver would be classified. Very few people wake up in the morning and say "Gee, I'm so excited to drive for Uber today! I don't ne…

What % of jobs do you think people would do even if they didn't need the money?

I spoke with an old friend from university recently.

Apparently his younger brother (also at university with us in the late 90's) struck it lucky with a company he helped start up, and is now rich enough that he doesn't need to work. He is planning on consulting part time, as he wants something to fill his days (other than just kayaking - we all met through the university kayak club).

Re: The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

#33

Post by SlashmanX »

natrius wrote: post #14
littletimmy wrote: post #3

Is this a joke? We do not need a new category of worker just because a few corporations decide that they do not want to provide their workers with benefits. The benefits that come with the employee designation are the bare minimum . A company that cannot afford to provide those to employees should not exist.

Imagine that we could eliminate Uber and connect drivers directly to riders with the same experience as Uber's app. Nothing has changed about the nature of the driver's work, but there's no entity to be an employer in the first place. Employee benefits for this kind of work just won't exist. Technology is making it easier for people to provide services for a wide pool of individuals without needing a company to emplo…

> Imagine that we could eliminate Uber and connect drivers directly to riders with the same experience as Uber's app.

Hailo.

Re: The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

#34

Post by tracker1 »

littletimmy wrote: post #15
natrius wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine that we could eliminate Uber and connect drivers directly to riders with the same experience as Uber's app. Nothing has changed about the nature of the driver's work, but there's no entity to be an employer in the first place. Employee benefits for this kind of work just won't exist. Technology is making it easier for people to provide services for a wide pool of individuals without needing a company to emplo…

I've been thinking along those same lines. Is Uber the corporation in any way essential to Uber the service? I have a feeling this can be done via a worker's coop. But someone will need to take the initiative to start.

There's also the overhead, but a $x fee/year for each driver/user (as part of the first ride fee) would probably cover that pretty easily...

Re: The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

#36

Post by bryanlarsen »

dylanjermiah wrote: post #27
deegles wrote: post #8

I don't see anyone besides Uber winning in the Uber economy. It's right in the name. Forcing Uber and other ride-sharing companies to classify their resources as employees will only give them further incentive to automate. Once that happens (5 years, 10 max) it will be a moot point how a driver would be classified. Very few people wake up in the morning and say "Gee, I'm so excited to drive for Uber today! I don't ne…

People work for money, not a shocking revelation. >'Tiny drip of income into the drivers wallets' 80% goes to drivers.

80% of revenue and 99.9% of the expenses go to the drivers. So it's quite probable that Uber gets most of the profits.

Re: The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

#37

Post by onion2k »

natrius wrote: post #14
littletimmy wrote: post #3

Is this a joke? We do not need a new category of worker just because a few corporations decide that they do not want to provide their workers with benefits. The benefits that come with the employee designation are the bare minimum . A company that cannot afford to provide those to employees should not exist.

Imagine that we could eliminate Uber and connect drivers directly to riders with the same experience as Uber's app. Nothing has changed about the nature of the driver's work, but there's no entity to be an employer in the first place. Employee benefits for this kind of work just won't exist. Technology is making it easier for people to provide services for a wide pool of individuals without needing a company to emplo…

One difference would be that Uber wouldn't be taking a 20% cut of the money involved. That 20% is what people believe pays for the benefits Uber ought to be providing.

Re: The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

#38

Post by jacquesm »

I'm of two minds about all this.

From a European perspective Uber, AirBNB and so on are a setback.

But in some (not all) cities taxi services are ridiculously expensive.

Some regulation of this industry is good, if Uber (and AirBNB for that matter) are willing to get their drivers/vehicles on the same footing as the competition and if they ensure that their contractors are not going to skip out on paying taxes and background checks then I'm fine with it.

The thing that bugs me is that the way both these entities position themselves they essentially leave others to hold the bag while they rid to riches and that's an issue. The new middle men are in that sense not better or worse than the old middle men, they're just different people.

Re: The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

#39

Post by natrius »

onion2k wrote: post #37
natrius wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine that we could eliminate Uber and connect drivers directly to riders with the same experience as Uber's app. Nothing has changed about the nature of the driver's work, but there's no entity to be an employer in the first place. Employee benefits for this kind of work just won't exist. Technology is making it easier for people to provide services for a wide pool of individuals without needing a company to emplo…

One difference would be that Uber wouldn't be taking a 20% cut of the money involved. That 20% is what people believe pays for the benefits Uber ought to be providing.

That surplus wouldn't go entirely to the driver. Competition would drive down prices. Drivers will make more, but not the whole 20%.

Re: The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

#40

Post by Altay- »

littletimmy wrote: post #3

Is this a joke? We do not need a new category of worker just because a few corporations decide that they do not want to provide their workers with benefits. The benefits that come with the employee designation are the bare minimum . A company that cannot afford to provide those to employees should not exist.

My company cannot afford benefits at the moment. It may one day, but not today. I very much like its existence.

It should not be a company's job to take care of an employees general welfare. Other developed countries seem to have a more elegant solution to this issue...

Post reply on HN