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

How Much Are People Making from the Sharing Economy?

priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 104 posts

Re: How Much Are People Making from the Sharing Economy?

#81

Post by 4c2383f5c88e911 »

rtx wrote: post #78
4c2383f5c88e911 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans shouldn't have less rights than workers.

So let's fight for that and not for discrimination between workers and humans.

You seem to imply that some people are fighting for discrimination between workers and non-workers. This is a weird point of view because most people fighting for worker rights are also sharing the fight for non-workers rights. But it happens to be very hard politically as the current political trend is to destroy social infrastructure and dismantle any kind of safety net and capital redistribution.

Re: How Much Are People Making from the Sharing Economy?

#82

Post by michaelt »

KaiserPro wrote: post #57

In the UK at least, the "sharing" economy is basically a way of paying employees less. There are two types of employment, contracted employees (that is employees that are directly employed by a company) and "self employed" (where the employee creates a single person company, which the employer then contracts) the reason why "self employed" is popular amongst the gig employers is not because its "flexible" its because…

  not because its "flexible" its because its cheap.
"Flexible" means the same things as "cheap" for any company where the workload is hard to predict.

Maybe I work for a food delivery company, and order levels will depend on how a local sports team does, or something like that. Let's say there's a 33% chance I'll need 4 workers, a 33% chance I'll need 5 workers, and a 33% chance I'll need 6 workers.

If I have hourly-paid employees, I gotta have 6 of them on shift just in case - and if we only have 4 employees worth of orders, it'll be me, the owner, who goes home empty-handed.

But if I can pay the employees by the order? I can ask 6 of them to turn up, and if demand is low they all go home having made 33% less than they usually do (or two of them go home empty handed). I, the owner, make the same as if I'd predicted demand perfectly and only had 4 guys come in.

In other words, by having 'flexible' employees I can transfer risk from myself to my employees, thereby saving myself money.

Re: How Much Are People Making from the Sharing Economy?

#83

Post by jahaja »

rtx wrote: post #75
jahaja wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the wages of the poor is dynamic, but the profit margins etc are static by some force of nature?

Yes, because capital is more fluid.

There's clearly more instruments for affordable produce than lower wages for the poor. I'm from a Scandinavian country and we've had it pretty good compared to countries with less wages and workers rights.

Re: How Much Are People Making from the Sharing Economy?

#84

Post by sattoshi »

bko wrote: post #79
KaiserPro wrote: post #57

In the UK at least, the "sharing" economy is basically a way of paying employees less. There are two types of employment, contracted employees (that is employees that are directly employed by a company) and "self employed" (where the employee creates a single person company, which the employer then contracts) the reason why "self employed" is popular amongst the gig employers is not because its "flexible" its because…

Employers can't be forced to hire workers, so I don't think "worker's rights" is the right term. What restrictions to employment such as holidays, sick pay and maternity care actually mean is that workers are unable to negotiate on those grounds. For instance, if a single female in her early 30s is interviewing for a position, she is unable to tell waive her right to maternity care by telling her employer that she do…

Okay what should we call fundemental and federally enforced privileges granted to individuals by the state that cannot be disregarded by anybody?

Ah.. rights.. that's basically what they are.

Nobody is forced to listen to you, yet you cannot waive you rights to free press or whatever.

Re: How Much Are People Making from the Sharing Economy?

#85

Post by rtx »

4c2383f5c88e911 wrote: post #81
rtx wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let's fight for that and not for discrimination between workers and humans.

You seem to imply that some people are fighting for discrimination between workers and non-workers. This is a weird point of view because most people fighting for worker rights are also sharing the fight for non-workers rights. But it happens to be very hard politically as the current political trend is to destroy social infrastructure and dismantle any kind of safety net and capital redistribution.

No people are asking for more rights for workers. Workers aren't any more disadvantaged than a farmer, homemaker or the unemployed. If you think people deserve paternity leave ask that from the government not the companies. So that everyone gets it not just the people with jobs.

Re: How Much Are People Making from the Sharing Economy?

#86

Post by dalbasal »

jahaja wrote: post #71
dalbasal wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the gig economy is just a modern addition to day labouring, peacmeeal work and such. These segments have always existed. In many cases, they have played a positive role. When "Labour" (unions and political movements) get heavy handed, they try to kill off these segments. They don't fit into the model. They want to promote job stability above all else, where workers have a right to their job in as close to per…

> They want to promote job stability above all else No, please no. The labour movement want(ed) good living conditions for the majority rather than for the few. And yes, to not be fired by the whim of the bosses daily feeling is part of that, but not "above all else". And ofc these kind of jobs is the enemy of the labour movement, because it's exactly the opposite of what's been fought for in the last ~150 years.

I suppose we disagree, somewhat.

In my view/experience labour movements have generally pursued job stability as a primary instrument (for worker rights), even if it was not formally a goal in itself. This may be somewhat at odds with solidarity, but every movement deals with some internal contradiction.

There a multiple reasons for the focus on permanent employment. One is the labour union history of labour movements. Unions represent members and their interests, which are protecting their jobs, not jobs in general. Another reason is practical: it's almost impossible to unionize and hard to apply protections to a casual workforce. Labour movements (esp unions) are empowered by permanent workforces. Another reason (possibly the dominant one) is simple practical politics: people want a guarantee of permanence.

I believe that casual employment types have a role, in many cases one that permanent employment struggles to fill. From the worker perspective, this has to do with the low commitment, low barriers to entry, and relative absence of gatekeepers. Historically, when labour movements have tried to regulate casual labour they have tried to turn it into permanent labour.

In my view this is misguided. They should try to insert worker rights into the class while maintaining the casual noncommittal aspects of it.

For a practical example, I recently talked to some squatter/anarchists. They're hardly a major group, but weird and marginal enough that they're good at illustrating a point. Many of them work in the Gig economy (bike delivery). No Gatekeepers is what makes it work for them.

Re: How Much Are People Making from the Sharing Economy?

#87

Post by atemerev »

WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #59
atemerev wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low wages are the result of competition. If nearly everybody can be a waiter, and the demand is limited, there are two options: the salary would be very low, OR: there will be very few jobs (the imposed minimum salary case). This is mathematics, you can't change that. You can subsidize these low-income jobs, but this is expensive and unsustainable (by definition, there are a lot of low-income people who need to be su…

It's not a matter of subsidizing. We all need a base from where to work. There was a time when people worked 7 days a week, were forced to work over 40 hours a week without additional compensation, no vacations, no health insurance and work safety was iffy. Thanks to unions and an improving economy things changed. The gig economy is bringing some of us back to that. Where is the improvement we hoped tech was supposed…

The "jobs" economy is over. It felt good while it lasted (about 140 years), when the economic output was mostly measured in material goods, and jobs were organized around large factories (either belonging to corporations, like in the US or Europe or Japan, or directly to the state, like in the USSR). Now in the post-industrial world, when the material goods production is mostly saturated, still believing that jobs can provide economic sustenance is about as realistic as believing that everybody can work as a farmer and live a good life producing food.

Today in developed countries, only about 3% of population work as farmers. Soon, only about 3% of population will have jobs — the rest will have to do something else (like be employed in the sharing economy gigs). This is inevitable, and there is no way to reverse this. Government regulations can't do anything to oppose these immense natural forces, nor they will need to.

Or rather there is a way to reverse the trend and provide the need for immense material economic output: a war. A world war — because warring parties quickly lose the economic edge in a peaceful economy, and it's either everyone's in, or nobody goes. There are no unemployed at wartime.

Re: How Much Are People Making from the Sharing Economy?

#88

Post by jahaja »

dalbasal wrote: post #86
jahaja wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They want to promote job stability above all else No, please no. The labour movement want(ed) good living conditions for the majority rather than for the few. And yes, to not be fired by the whim of the bosses daily feeling is part of that, but not "above all else". And ofc these kind of jobs is the enemy of the labour movement, because it's exactly the opposite of what's been fought for in the last ~150 years.

I suppose we disagree, somewhat. In my view/experience labour movements have generally pursued job stability as a primary instrument (for worker rights), even if it was not formally a goal in itself. This may be somewhat at odds with solidarity, but every movement deals with some internal contradiction. There a multiple reasons for the focus on permanent employment. One is the labour union history of labour movements…

I'm not sure why your definition of labour movement is so local rather than national/global? It seems like a strange premise to your whole reply.

Causal employment doesn't have to mean worse worker rights.

We don't seem to disagree that much, I'm just questioning that you think it's the top priority.

I'm surprised by your bike delivery claim because I've recently seen exactly the opposite; the organizing of strikes in Berlin: https://deliverunion.fau.org/2017/06/27/riders-unite-protest... (syndicalist/anarchist union too)

Re: How Much Are People Making from the Sharing Economy?

#89

Post by jaclaz »

I cannot understand the putting all together in a basket.

AirBnB revenue is essentially "return on investment" and very little "labour" (you have paid the house/apartment/room you are offering, the maintenance, cleaning and laundry work is connected to just a trifling part of the income).

Uber, Lyft, and similar is half and half (you have to buy a car AND put hours of work in the service)

Fiver and similar is ONLY work.

Re: How Much Are People Making from the Sharing Economy?

#90

Post by Eridrus »

WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #59
atemerev wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low wages are the result of competition. If nearly everybody can be a waiter, and the demand is limited, there are two options: the salary would be very low, OR: there will be very few jobs (the imposed minimum salary case). This is mathematics, you can't change that. You can subsidize these low-income jobs, but this is expensive and unsustainable (by definition, there are a lot of low-income people who need to be su…

It's not a matter of subsidizing. We all need a base from where to work. There was a time when people worked 7 days a week, were forced to work over 40 hours a week without additional compensation, no vacations, no health insurance and work safety was iffy. Thanks to unions and an improving economy things changed. The gig economy is bringing some of us back to that. Where is the improvement we hoped tech was supposed…

The gig economy gets a lot of hate, but it is successful because it is better than the alternative for both sides.

Uber competes with McDonald's for workers, but no one really thinks about whether workers are better off than at McDonald's.

With the fight for 15 and other minimum wage increases, many people argue that increasing wages will not substantially effect demand for labor, but it's sort of hard to make the case in the taxi space since reduced price has clearly led to an explosion of demand.

Post reply on HN