
“Side Hustle” as a Sign of the Apocalypse - electic
https://medium.com/sandpapersuit/side-hustle-as-a-sign-of-the-apocalypse-e7027a889fc2#.jzo52x72g
======
whack
Call me a crank, but personally, I'm getting annoyed by people who love to
blame tech companies for everything. _" This unending hamster wheel of
capitalism and technology is driving us all to the brink of insanity"_ Maybe
that's true, but instead of blaming tech companies and brogrammers, maybe try
taking a look in the mirror. You want to escape the rat race? Pack up your
bags, move to bumfuck nowhere, and spend all your time reading medium blog
posts. I guarantee you, you don't need a whole lot of money to do that. Or if
that sounds too drastic, just sit at home for the holidays, take the subway,
cook your own meals, and clean your own house.

Personally, that sounds like hell to me. I like traveling to other cities and
staying in people's homes. I like taking an uber to get around sometimes. I
like ordering food on seamless and hiring house cleaners on Handy, so I'll
have more time to do the things I actually enjoy. And if you don't want to do
any of the above, that's fine too. Just pretend all of the above companies
don't exist and do what you want with your life, instead of complaining about
tech companies and "brogrammers" providing services that cater to other people
besides yourself.

~~~
bsder
> I like <lots of serfdom economy stuff elided>

The point isn't preventing _YOU_ , the consumer, from doing this.

The point is that most people _as the supplier_ aren't doing Uber, AirBnB, etc
because they _like_ it. They're doing it because they don't have any other
good alternatives.

Most of the people on the supply side of the serfdom economy are gaining very
little benefit. This is a real problem.

~~~
whack
> _They 're doing it because they don't have any other good alternatives._

So champion proposals that would grow the economy, create more jobs, increase
the median hourly wages, and/or improve the social safety net. I don't see how
vilifying Uber or AirBNB is going to help accomplish any of the above.

P.S. There is no way for you as an individual to be a _supplier_ on the
Seamless, but that still hasn't spared them the author's wrath. I don't think
the author really has a clear idea of what he's complaining about.

~~~
ithinkinstereo
> I don't see how vilifying Uber or AirBNB is going to help accomplish any of
> the above.

These companies are part of a greater force eroding the role and rights of
labor. I think it's right to vilify the "sharing" company - especially with
the type of "this is great for the world" propaganda that they spew out.

If we accept these conditions as the norm, they will only continue to slide.
We have laws and regulations for a reason. Bypassing said laws with billions
in 1%, connected money, should rightfully be called out. Conveniences for the
noble class aside, this is just part of a larger scheme to transfer capital
from the poor/middle class into the pockets of the existing wealthy. It's a
bit tone-deaf of you not to see the other side of the picture. Next time
you're in an Uber, talk to the driver. You'd be surprised how many are doing
this full-time because they can't find employment elsewhere... and even more
when you discover how many actually understand the underlying economics of
their "side hustle" (aka side-scammed).

~~~
mkolodny
> You'd be surprised how many are doing this full-time because they can't find
> employment elsewhere...

Isn't it a good thing that companies like Uber are creating jobs? Particularly
for people who can't find employment elsewhere.

~~~
mehwoot
_Isn 't it a good thing that companies like Uber are creating jobs?_

Are they, overall? Are they expanding the total amount of money paid out to
workers in this industry? I'm not so sure that's the case.

------
dvt
What the article misses is that consumers drive startups like Seamless and
Uber up the totem pole. Sure, some have more money than others, but clearly,
if Seamless is succeeding then it must've hit a nerve.

I mean I don't live in NYC, but whenever I'm there, I honestly hate it. It
feels like the biggest concentration of assholery in the entire US. And I'm
not saying this like some hippie pot-smoking LA liberal (because I adore LA),
but as a European that is used to the hustle and bustle of city life. I was
born in a small European city where people greeted each other and the streets
were busy, etc. I grew up in Romania in the late 80s/early 90s.. I'd prefer
living in the dilapidated _Eastern Bloc_ to living in New York. Unless I was
Donald Trump or something, but that misses the point.

If people are riding in Ubers and if people are working for Uber, then, hey,
maybe it's not such a terrible "soul-sucking" idea. I mean God knows I'm no
Uber fanboy (I think their skirting of regulations and squeezing out markets
is pretty dodgy at best), but maybe something needed to wake up the taxi
companies and make cities take a serious look at their public transit systems.

Silicon Valley may not always be a beacon of hope and joy, but Uber and
Seamless are hardly the problems. If the author argued against companies like
Theranos, he'd have a much better argument imo.

~~~
timr
_" It feels like the biggest concentration of assholery in the entire US."_

I guess you haven't been to San Francisco. Take what you hate about New York,
and wrap it with a thick layer of smug, futurist, "we're saving the world"
self-adulation. At least in the 80s, the leveraged buyout assholes weren't
trying to convince people that they were making the world a better place.
Gordon Gekko was a _satire_. Now he's a "growth hacker" at a unicorn.

I have never in my life met so many people who are _excited_ about the idea of
creating systemic unemployment as I have since living in bubble SF. Self-
driving cars? Man...when Uber can fire all of those profit-sucking drivers,
we'll be living the dream, won't we? And anyone who questions the premise of
our glorious, pure capitalist future gets:

 _" If people are riding in Ubers and if people are working for Uber, then,
hey, maybe it's not such a terrible "soul-sucking" idea."_

OK seriously, dear HN: just because consumers _want something_ doesn't make it
good. Consumers want dirt cheap electronics, but don't want to think about the
Chinese kid who is getting lead poisoning from his "side hustle" of pulling
e-waste apart with his teeth. Consumers want to pay a bit less for their
burrito, but not worry about the illegal immigrants who cooked it, and are
being evicted from their five-man hovel in the Mission to make room for luxury
condos. Capitalism doesn't optimize for "good". It optimizes for profit.

Shitty jobs have always existed. These "gig economy" companies are
_celebrating_ this lifestyle, and trying to make it more prevalent and less
lucrative for the labor. That's what sucks.

~~~
dvt
> OK seriously, dear HN: just because consumers want something doesn't make it
> good. Consumers want dirt cheap electronics, but don't want to think about
> the Chinese kid who is getting lead poisoning from his "side hustle" of
> pulling e-waste apart with his teeth. Consumers want to pay a bit less for
> their burrito, but not worry about the illegal immigrants who cooked it, and
> are being evicted from their five-man hovel in the Mission to make room for
> luxury condos. Capitalism doesn't optimize for "good". It optimizes for
> profit.

I think that's really worth thinking about. And I guess that was kind of my
original point. Startups like Seamless are around because everyone in NYC is
kind of a dick, maybe self-absorbed, etc. We should focus fixing that root
problem, instead of solving it with some panacea.

~~~
SomeStupidPoint
We also have regulations because consumers _do_ care about that kid, they just
don't have the resources to care every time they make a purchase.

Which is why it's so problematic corporations violate regulations, either by
outsourcing the violation or outright flouting the law.

It's literally exploiting the limited computational resources of consumers to
bypass their expressed wishes.

------
jly
This article is spot on, in my view.

More technology in our current economic system only reduces the overall number
of 'good' jobs available, creating more inequality and increasing the divide
of the haves and have-nots. Technology may not be inherently a bad thing, but
when you combine it with an open global economic model built on unchecked
capitalism, it will eventually create a distressing situation for many.

~~~
ComradeTaco
I personally enjoy uber and use it frequently.

However, after reviewing my Uber receipts, I realized how awful the drivers
side of the deal was. Take gas, car milage, Ubers cut and then you have
literally a fraction of minimum wage with no health insurance or 401k.

Then I start to think, well heck, if this kind of gig economy displaces
traditional employment, a lot of people will be one crisis from poverty.

The future is really exciting, but unless we proceed carefully, we could end
actually making things worse for the working class than they were decades ago.

~~~
alphonsegaston
It's already the case that things are far worse for the working class. The
precipice we're on is creating a "nothing to lose" permanent underclass, with
all the instability and desperation that entails.

------
iamdave
The take-away about Seamless I overheard in real time in a frightening way.
Sitting in the smoking area, waiting for a coworker to come grab me for work,
two of my neighbors were talking about how they actively avoided becoming
friends with other neighbors, they just didn't want that kind of connection
and preferred that neighbors just stayed in their lane as people who
ostensibly share a dwelling in the same high-rise.

And it wasn't the first time I'd heard people expressing that viewpoint. In a
completely different part of town when I rented an apartment I hard that same
conversation.

Maybe I'm overly sentimental or looking at the idea of 'neighborhoods' and
'communities' with rose-tinted glasses but that shook me, it bothered me to my
core-deeply. I've always looked at neighborhoods as the bedrock of citizenry,
the most basic form of what it means to be among people who shared your at
least some of your interests of home and hearth _because_ of said proximity.

People now _actively_ avoid those kinds of relationships. I still think about
it to this day, despite having walked to pubs with the very people I heard
talking about this. Maybe I'm thinking too much about it.

~~~
littledude
I think this tends to happen once density of the place people live goes above
a certain threshold. People don't have to rely on their neighbours because
they know so many people (friends/family/coworkers) close by they can contact
if they need help with anything.

On the flip side your neigbours are most likely potential see you arguing with
a partner, coming home drunk late at night, going out after calling in sick
etc. See things that tarnish your reputation, more downside than upside if you
find out you have connections and potential gossip.

------
pnathan
Most of the "mom-tech" could also be described as "nobility-tech", which
allows the old services for the nobility to be bought at a fee. Anyway...

> Mommy used to clean my room. A: Handy.

> Mommy used to do my laundry. A: Flycleaners.

You'd be surprised how desirable this is when you have Significant Life Issues
and you don't want your home to be a disaster.

While the "side hustle" being mandatory is not a good place to be, having
services which make your life easier is a good thing.

~~~
jay_kyburz
I'm not sure what life issues you are referring to, but I sometimes find that
when things are crazy in my working life, it helps to just switch it all off
and do the laundry and clean the house.

Standing out in the yard, pegging my shorts to the clothes line, surrounded by
leafy trees and chirping bird can be nice.

~~~
pnathan
> sometimes find that when things are crazy in my working life, it helps to
> just switch it all off and do the laundry and clean the house.

I'm not talking about work.

Keeping my personal life off the InterTubes, let's say your aging parent is in
hospice, and you spend most of your non-work time visiting them and ensuring
their last days on earth are as comfortable as possible. That occurred for an
extended family member recently. Other scenarios are quite plausible as well.

------
temp99
Uber's not really viable as a part-time job. In LA, I've driven 20 hours this
week and grossed $12.25/hour. Plus a $65 35-ride bonus, it comes to about
$16/hour. If you miss the ride bonuses (offered Mon-Fri morning, Fri-Sun), you
can't make any money.

If you drive enough, you should be able to earn $19-20 an hour, minus gas
(e.g. $3/hour), car and insurance. Your net profits will be around $12 to
15/hour.

As a side job, it's probably better to get a flexible 1-2 day shift at a
restaurant.

------
arjie
Whatever, man. Personal autarky is as inefficient an endeavour as the type
practised by nations. Each man is as subject to the law of comparative
advantage as a nation is.

This disparagement of 'mom-tech' is the nth iteration of the same anti-trade
nonsense that people have tried to peddle since before we had economists we
called economists.

My time is worth more to me than the other guy's time is to him. Stopping me
from paying him is going to make both of us worse off.

------
Animats
For a better take on this, see "Hyper-reality".[1] (If possible, at 1080 line
resolution.) This is augmented reality for the job monkey.

It's not that far to this from the apps that tell the drones of Uber,
TaskRabbit, and DoorDash where to go and what to do.

 _Machines should think. People should work._

[1] [https://vimeo.com/166807261](https://vimeo.com/166807261)

------
wallacoloo
This is driving me up the wall: why do people use pull quotes in this manner?
What does it accomplish, besides tricking me into thinking that I'm
accidentally re-reading the paragraph I just read, and thereby interrupting
the flow of the article?

Pull quotes are a technique designed for print! You use them in magazines that
have tens of articles and you want to grab the attention of somebody browsing
the articles so that they read _yours_. But here on the web, I'm already
reading your article! There's nothing else on the page - you already have my
attention.

Just look at the way this article ends:

This unending hamster wheel of capitalism and technology is driving us all to
the brink of insanity. “These days, everyone needs a side hustle.” Now that I
think about it, that should be Elizabeth Warren’s campaign slogan in 2020.
“These days, everyone needs a side hustle.” Now that I think about it, that
should be Elizabeth Warren’s campaign slogan in 2020.

Why not just say that last part once? Literally JUST present it in the fancy
pull-quote "this is important" format, instead of once as normal text and
immediately again as fancy text. _Why are you having me read this twice_?

~~~
anonred
My guess is that it's designed to provide visual landmarks for (most) people
who skim articles.

~~~
wallacoloo
I don't deny that stylizing text like this can be useful for people who skim.
My proposal doesn't prevent that: _only_ present those select bits of
information in the big front-and-center style that grabs people's attention,
and _don 't_ repeat them in the normal flow of text.

------
jMyles
I... don't really think this is a good read, for a few reasons. Let's look at
(what I think is) the thesis:

> Unfettered capitalism doesn’t give you time back or freedom or relaxation.
> It drills every orifice you have until a few more pennies drop out so the Q4
> numbers look good for shareholders.

The article then moves on to (albeit articulately) name "gig economy"
companies as the vehicle for this exploitation.

But are they? Without even thinking too hard, I think can of monstrous
entities which are _enemies_ of any notion of free market and which are far
more easily understood as the machina of this phenomenon:

* We have 2 million people in prison in the United States. Many of them have done nothing wrong, at least in any common sense set of definitions. It's not a stretch to say that many of them, while in prison, are victims of torture and intentional emotional and mental destruction. Even those that aren't are marked with a scarlet letter essentially for life. And thus they are left unable to be anything but victims of this corpratocratic predation upon their release.

* The "health care" industry, empowered (in fact sustained almost entirely) by state-enshrined gatekeeper complexes and IP holdings, restrains these same people who "need a side hustle" from becoming healthy and independent of pharma, insurance, and hospitals.

* The US government debt is about to hit $20 trillion, leaving these folks holding a bag they never agreed to pick up.

* People are afraid to protest, much less disrupt, the above treatment. Police brutality, endemic and senseless state surveillance, the (accurate) sense that action in the streets is typically fruitless - these and other causes have people feeling lonely at home instead of realizing how common their dreams are.

I just don't think that the gig economy is any harbinger of horror, not does
it exist today in an environment of "unfettered capitalism" \- not that I
advocate such a thing.

Nevertheless, with the elements I've named (and a dozen more like them)
removed, these people looking for a "side hustle" might also be able to enjoy
the fruits of the labor pool of which they're a part.

I'm actually quite optimistic that that insurgent companies and methodologies
are a sign that we will overcome these hardships. We have an utterly impotent
incoming president, faith in government nearly nonexistent, and at the same
time, incredible innovation and radical thinking. This doesn't seem like a
formula for continued exploitation to me.

~~~
kem
I probably agree with the essay's argument that the gig economy (or maybe,
more specifically, a particular set of dystopian ads for it) is a _sign_ of
the apocalypse. It's just that, as you say, I don't think the gig economy is
_causing_ it.

~~~
jMyles
I'm disputing more. I'm saying:

1) There is no apocalypse (and if there were, it'd be climate change or
antibiotic-resistant bacteria, not side hustles)

2) "Unfettered capitalism" is not a sufficiently broad or complex boogeyman to
blame what ills we do have in society

3) The gig economy is probably not a particularly accurate sign of #1 or #2,
and if it were, it's more a sign that things are going in a better direction.

------
diyorgasms
I just took an uber ride where the driver told me she left her granddaughter's
birthday party to drive people. Maybe she has different priorities than I
would, but I think it's more likely that she's economically desperate enough
that she has to miss those moments to make ends meet. As much as I like the
service uber provides, I don't think we should pretend people are working for
uber without duress.

~~~
ardivekar
I mean, sure, but how is that Uber's fault? The same lady would have to have
otherwise worked at McDonalds if Uber didn't exist. And if Uber paid its
drivers more, it wouldn't be able to hire as many drivers, which means that
the lowest level of worker has an implicit denial of a job.

Minimum wage sucks, but when there's an excess of supply, it's the unfortunate
truth.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
> Next, we’ll just start saying bipolar people have a side personality.

…is this drawing an analogy between periods of mania and depression being like
a change of personality, or is the author confusing bipolar disorder for
dissociative identity disorder?

It seems like a cheap joke in either case.

------
_andromeda_
>This unending hamster wheel of capitalism and technology is driving us all to
the brink of insanity

Things have gotten so much better over the years because of capitalism and
more so because of technology. Without capitalism and technology, I dare say
that majority of the 7 billion of us who are alive now would be dead. No
jokes. Dead.

There'd be no antibiotics, sufficient food production, infrastructure to move
produce efficiently, and the list is unending.

This article leaves a lot to be desired.

~~~
kordless
> I dare say that majority of the 7 billion of us who are alive now would be
> dead. No jokes. Dead.

This is an illogical statement which rationalizes utilizing technology and
capitalism to achieve greater numbers of instances of people. If we didn't
have the resources/medicine/tech to support the 7.5B people here, then a lot
of us wouldn't have been born. Jokes or not, if you aren't born, you can't
die. ;) I suppose you are technically dead if you are never born, but nobody
cares if they aren't ever born (or we can't tell, which is the same thing).

I do acknowledge people don't want to suffer greatly and causing suffering
either passively or actively in others is wrong. Technology reminds me of
sugar in the days of low fat diets. Yes, technology can help reduce suffering,
but at what cost does it do that and is it worth it in the long run?

I could rationalize that the supreme pinnacle of human civilization will be
perfect capitalism and technology that is beyond comprehension, enabling
quadrillions of us to live here in this solar system and in good harmony with
each other. Who's to say if more people/entities aren't a _good_ thing why
aren't there more of us? Surely not me!

~~~
_andromeda_
> If we didn't have the resources/medicine/tech to support the 7.5B

The obvious implication from my statement is that if you took it away right
now... You and I both know what I mean.

Edit: Didn't mean to be rude, just got a tad frustrated

------
RichardHeart
That feeling when you realize that without the side hustle, you'd have even
less, because the rich get richer and the poor, well, they don't have cars.

------
m0llusk
That a few companies use investor capital to screw customers and service
providers alike says pretty much nothing about Silicon Valley. It is sad this
guy saw an ad that offended him but why did he watch it in the first place?

~~~
ohnotthatguy
One of the innumerable problems with advertising is that you can't "unsee" it.
For instance: can you unread this reply to your comment? To suggest that it is
the responsibility of an individual to ignore advertising in their
environment, is to suggest that it is their responsibility to not pay
attention to their surroundings, or read any signs. I think it is a perfectly
natural reaction to see something that you understand to be a sardonic
misrepresentation of a reality, and respond negatively.

------
Clubber
Anyone who needs a title as dramatic as that is trying to sell you something.

~~~
pasquinelli
sell you something as persuade you? is this a bad thing?

~~~
Clubber
I'm almost certain the Apocalypse isn't happening this time.

------
gweinberg
I think the fundamental premise of this article is wrong. The author seems to
assume that the "side hustle" is on top of a full time job. But I think the
intended implication is that uber drivers are for the most part people who do
not have a full time job. They are semi-retired, or only working part time at
another job, or between "real" jobs and working at uber to help make ends meet
until they can find a new "real" job, or they're mostly househusbands or
something like that.

------
BadassFractal
What exactly is the alternative? What's the proposed solution? Agrarian
utopia? Creating artificial jobs for people whose skills are no longer needed
by society? Basic income?

------
cryoshon
it's the economy, stupid.

normal people have so little income that working multiple jobs to get by is
mainstream.

this is a bad thing. it means that the people of our country are poor. defend
it however you want.

------
ohnotthatguy
Great post.

I had been working on a pitch for Uber for Wet Nurses but didn't realize my
target demographic was actually 20's to 30's white males. Maybe I should
crunch the numbers again.

Now to counteract the 'Seamless effect', we should build an Uber for
Companionship & Human Contact, you know.. like an Uber for 'Dating'. We can
reap a percentage of the income the companion makes from the date...

~~~
edoceo
Yea, like a pimp!

~~~
ohnotthatguy
If only there was a way to pimp people who were providing a legal service,
like giving people rides, or delivering food, or providing lodging...

------
aswanson
Uber would have been great for me in college. I had a ton of free time, a good
driving record, a car, and no money. This post is silly.

------
marisa_kirisame
The author of this piece seems to be blaming tech companies for things that
have existed for far longer than the Internet has.

>Mommy used to pick me up from soccer practice. A: Uber.

>Mommy used to do my laundry. A: Flycleaners.

>Mommy used to clean my room. A: Handy.

>Mommy used to buy me groceries. A: Blue Apron.

>Mommy used to cook me food. A: Seamless.

Uber did not invent taxis. Seamless did not invent food delivery.

Laundry service has been available for centuries. Cleaning services likewise.
Grocery stores have offered delivery service for ages. Restaurant delivery
service has probably existed since shortly after the restaurant itself was
created.

I don't even understand the argument that we should hate "brogrammers" who
create apps to do "what mommy used to do". I use Uber because I don't have a
car. I use Seamless because I'm not much of a cook. I drop my laundry off at
the local laundromat because it's convenient. Should I buy a car, a
washer/dryer, and culinary classes instead?

------
dsfyu404ed
The author needs to get outside of the SV bubble. The proletariat generally
don't need two jobs to eek out an existence except in handful of expensive
cities on the coast.

~~~
ithinkinstereo
Not sure it's that much better off outside SV. Drive thru eastern Kentucky or
anywhere in WV. High unemployment and opiate addiction rates are the norm.
This will of course intensify as technology progress marches forward, though
we might see a slowdown with the incoming administration's rejection of
globalism.

------
kosei
My mommy used to go to the store for me: Amazon My mommy used to do errands
for me: Task Rabbit My mommy used to sell my stuff at garage sales: OfferUp

------
GBond
My prediction is Uber et al will take notice of this HN thread and address it
by coming out with ads on how their drivers are treated well.

------
jsz0
I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to be upset about here. Working more to
make more money isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's certainly the most
realistic option available for people who want or need more money. Money
solves a lot of problems in life. Money can make your life better. If there
was a $30 minimum wage or universal income many people would still choose to
work more if the option was available. You shouldn't assume the hamster on the
wheel isn't enjoying the experience.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> You shouldn't assume the hamster on the wheel isn't enjoying the experience.

Where to begin to describe how out of touch this comment is with working class
America.

