
A Driver’s Suicide Reveals the Dark Side of the Gig Economy - monsieurpng
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/nyregion/livery-driver-taxi-uber.html
======
imgabe
You don't see a lot of elevator operators anymore. That used to be a job. It
became "deprofessionalized" as now anyone with a finger can operate an
elevator. Should we have erected a wall of legislation to protect their jobs?

> For taxi drivers staring down an even bleaker future of driverless cars

These are not "taxi drivers". They are human beings. They are not single-
purpose machines who are incapable of doing anything else. Humans are capable
of learning a variety of different skills, even if they have already learned
one. Articles like this treat them like specially made parts that are only
suited for one thing.

~~~
ghostbrainalpha
Humans are capable of learning new things, but in general they don't like to.
And they HATE when learning new things is not optional and is a requirement
for continued employment.

Just because we can adapt doesn't mean this transition won't be extremely
difficult for society and have major consequences. Just look at the riots in
Greece when people were told the age of retirement eligibility for state
pensions was going from 61 to 63.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" Humans are capable of learning new things, but in general they don't like
to. And they HATE when learning new things is not optional and is a
requirement for continued employment."_

The attitude towards learning really depends on what one is learning, what the
experience of learning is like, and why one is learning it.

People tend to view learning very positively when they are learning something
they are intensely interested in, that they feel is very important, and when
the process of learning feels effortless and fun.

When learning is painful and frustrating, when it's learning of something one
is not at all interested in, that one feels indifferent or even hostile
towards, that one thinks is unimportant, and when one feels forced to learn
because of economic or other considerations where the power dynamic is highly
skewed against the learner, and where the learner has little control over what
and how they learn, yes, people tend not to like that.

~~~
ghostbrainalpha
That's exactly what I was trying to say, but you said better. People LOVE
learning skills in certain environments like a video game. But I think the
serious consequences of NOT learning when you lose your job tends to make
learning more difficult.

So even though you want what you are learning to be important. If it is TOO
IMPORTANT the scale tips in the opposite direction.

~~~
candiodari
I feel like there is much psychological research that concludes the opposite
of this. People love learning new things, if there's a clear reward, for
instance being jobless and finding a new job because of a new skill. By
contrast, people in a cushy job "settle in", and learn nothing, or even
unlearn things over time.

In addition to the research, one seems to find many stories of exactly this
happening.

Quite the opposite is true: people don't like learning UNLESS there is a clear
reward. That's even true for the video game case, where it's simply that the
reward is social rather than economical.

~~~
socrates666
I disagree. I was unemployed for a few months and I could not get myself to do
the things I needed to in order to get the jobs I was interested in. There was
so much anxiety associated with this that it triggered avoidance anxiety. What
saved me is that studying the things I am naturally drawn to that have a lot
of tangential offerings. My advice: find the biggest tree of knowledge that
you're interested in and hope that the branches that you can reach will take
care of you.

------
habosa
Most of the comments in here are along the lines of "are we expected to
protect the outdated taxi driver? Let them drive for Uber or get a new job!"

In a vacuum, that logic holds. But remember that the government has made taxi
driving very regulated for a long time. To become a driver you had to buy
their medallion and follow all of their regulations. These regulations imposed
a high fixed cost and many recurring costs on taxi drivers. Yes of course
these regulations were also beneficial to taxi drivers by restricting their
competition, but the point is that this deal was struck between the industry
and the government and a lot of individuals staked their livelihood on the
details here.

Now the same city governments are basically saying "thanks for all that
investment, we are deleting it" when they let Uber and Lyft come in. The city
officials also did this with an uncharacteristic speed, basically capitulating
immediately in a world where it takes years and years to get anything done.
Taxi drivers were rightly surprised and individually harmed, they played by
the rules as they were written and were told to fuck off by a bunch of VC-
funded engineers with big lawyers and bigger budgets.

This is not a good precedent.

~~~
joeblau
> This is not a good precedent.

If you're only analyzing this from the side of the drivers, I would agree. As
someone who has used public transpiration my whole life, the service that
taxis provide has been average to blatantly discriminatory.

I have stories from Washington D.C., New York City, Chicago, and L.A. where
I've not been able to get a ride because of how I look. In some cases I've
been denied rides at cab stands and been forced to walk to a friends house
(over a mile). I've had to ask caucasian women to hail a cab and then do a
quick swap to get a ride. I've been asked "where I'm going" and then been told
"no sorry I'm not going there." I've been given a joy ride around a city,
using my iPhone to realize that the driver is doing loops and taking me out of
the way to run up the fare.

Not all taxi drivers were like this, but I have real experiences that make it
difficult for me to empathize with a community that really didn't care about
my dollar in the first place. I can't speak for riders that never had problems
getting a cab, but the traditional U.S. taxi market was barely accessible to
me; Uber and Lyft were _never_ like that.

~~~
thebigspacefuck
What about you caused them to do that? Just skin color? Sorry if it's rude to
ask, I'm white and definitely sheltered so I'm just curious.

~~~
joeblau
Honestly, I don't know — but I'm sure there is some history or context to
their actions. I'm actually mixed — Dad is caucasian/Austrian and mom is
African/Sierra Leonian. I grew up in a mixed race household and lived in 5
countries on 4 continents before I was 16. I don't really try to guess
people's motivation for their actions, I would rather someone be overt and
tell me what's going on. What I can say is that the taxi industry did
absolutely nothing to attempt to improve its product for customers like
myself.

I'll also say that I work at Uber now. Part of my motivation for working here
is motivated by my personal experiences and a desire to improve transportation
for everyone.

------
beisner
I wish people would stop blaming companies for doing exactly what they are
designed/incentivized to do. That is the capitalist system. We should be
blaming the system that allows for the circumstances that many people being
displaced by technology are experiencing. Individuals should not have their
financial viability completely compromised by shifts in technology or society.
Sure, I feel for the existential problems that shifts cause (e.g. seeing your
life’s work commoditized), but the material, economic harm that comes from it
is entirely systemic. Is not Uber’s fault that taxi drivers are becoming
homeless. It is the government’s fault for not providing an adequate social
safety net.

~~~
peacetreefrog
It sounds like a cliche, but capitalism = freedom. People can choose whether
or how they want to get around -- whether it's calling an uber, hailing a
taxi, or walking -- and whether the cost of doing so is worth it to them.
Similarly, people can decide whether the money they'd make ($69k annually
according to this article) driving a taxi is worth it to them, and if not, do
something else. There are alternatives.

Capitalism is just the aggregation of all these micro-transactions. Most of
the time, intervening in this system means preventing win-win transactions
between consenting adults.

~~~
AstralStorm
You cannot choose options in a monopoly or when a major player uses dumping
prices and worker churn to force out competition.

The natural end state of capitalism is an efficient and aggressive monopoly or
cartel. (Including a cartel with the government.)

How is lack of proper options freedom?

~~~
peacetreefrog
Simultaneously complaining about monopoly, which allows firms to keep prices
artificially high, and "price dumping" makes little sense.

I have issues with both. It's obviously not a monopoly. Apart from Uber AND
Lyft, you have regular taxi's, public transit, personal cars, bicycles and the
ability to walk.

As for price dumping, again -- if rich VC's want to compete with each other to
subsidize my rides and my drivers wages -- I'm not going to complain about it.
Uber and Lyft are the epitome of options vs what was going on in the NYC taxi
scene before them.

~~~
AstralStorm
Not at all. Price dumping (also loss leading) is a tactic to build a monopoly
or a dominant position on the market. Once competition is driven out, raise
prices and barriers to entry to cement the advantages.

Those rich VCs get their money from somewhere. Usually us poor suckers who do
not get paid the proper wage. Even a free taxi does not offset it.

------
turc1656
_" He blamed politicians — mayors Michael R. Bloomberg and Bill de Blasio,
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo — and their acquiescence to the rich for permitting so
many cars to flood the streets."_

Sounds like this guy didn't really believe in a free market and wanted the
politicians to make sure supply was tightly controlled so that he could profit
from reduced competition. I'm sorry but I can provide no sympathy for someone
with this mentality because I'm quite sure he saw no issue with restricted
competition and a very, very significant barrier to entry when he was able to
profit from it (those medallions cost more than most people's houses in NYC).

~~~
djsumdog
To be fair, there is no such thing as the free market. Markets only exist
thanks to States. They have never existed independently of a state (I
recommend the book _Debt: The First 5,000 Years_ ).

Now back to the free market, Uber is operating at a loss. They're undercutting
Taxis and taking huge hits to keep their business running. That kind of
pricing is illegal, and we've seen companies like airlines get into huge
trouble for operating at a loss to try to kill smaller airlines. It's
literally anti-competitive.

If the playing field were fair, it'd be different. But it's not. Uber
constantly ignores laws on an international scale, under the name of
"disruption." They might be laws you don't like, but they do exist for a
reason, and somewhere you have to draw a line.

~~~
turc1656
Agree 100% on Uber's anti-competitive practices and pricing structure. Amazon
does the same thing - it's retail business which is what Amazon is famous for
produces a substantial loss every quarter (and it's increasing). They have
been subsidizing their losses with the profits from the high margin cloud
business. This is supposedly a very serious felony when you have
pricing/market power (and obviously Amazon does have that), yet Jeff Bezos and
his executive team remain handcuff-free.

I haven't read that book, but your statement about markets only existing with
the state strikes me as very odd. Conceptually, no government is required for
a simple barter system - you and I can simply agree to trade X for Y. Perhaps
that is key point - if you want to use "money", then the state is required.
Although even then you can theoretically just use gold/silver coins.

~~~
djsumdog
> no government is required for a simple barter system

Ah but we never started with barter. That's the myth the book goes into. The
very earliest systems of money were all credit based. Money came about through
war (you conquer an area, leave a garrison, force people who have never used
coins to pay taxes, coins they only get from soldiers) and barter only
appeared when a state failed.

Barter only exists in the void left by states. There is no evidence trading
oxen for grain every existed. It's too small scale. Early pre-historical
civilizations were more likely to be communistic where everyone helped
everyone else (native american tibes were like this .. more like ant
colonies).

Even when a barter market emerged, it semi-state like thing had to rise with
it. It's a really good book; highly recommended.

------
GuiA
Technological disruption can often be a good thing - more/better
product/services can be had for less money - I don’t think the HN crowd needs
to be convinced of this.

However, it also means that in the short term, the people doing the work that
has been disrupted are going to be impacted. And while a few Stanford grads
can push an app at the click of a button, it takes humans much longer to adapt
to the changes engendered, particularly if they’ve been doing the same job in
the same city for 30 years, supporting a family with that income, and all of a
sudden that job only generates a fraction of the money it once did.

Ideally, the society in which this occurs would have a number of safety nets
(public healthcare, housing/food assistance, cheap/free education, reliable
and affordable public transportation, etc) to ensure that those people do not
suffer too much because of the transition.

Put simply, the US does not have many of these safety nets. Labor protection
laws are a joke - the US still has no laws mandating paid maternity leave, for
one example amongst many. Healthcare is a disaster, meaning that if you are
unemployed and get seriously sick, it could literally spell the end of your
life. Education is very expensive, making a professional reconversion hard to
fathom for most. And housing prices in large cities are spiraling out of
control, meaning that if you can’t make rent, homelessness is often the next
step.

Uber, and so many companies like it, are improvements in some ways - who knows
how long it would have taken for taxi companies to let people summon a car
from a tap of a button on their phone. But in doing so, they’re also
destroying the livelihoods of many. If the taxes that Uber paid were put to
good use by the US government to offer support in all the ways we’ve seen
above to those affected, it wouldn’t be as much of a problem. But here we are.

~~~
hmschreck
I can agree with most of this - the taxes of the disruptors destroying an
industry should absolutely be used to help those displaced. At the same time,
people affected need to be realistic. There is no protection for them, so
complaining about the changes while doing nothing to help yourself is just a
losing game.

~~~
coolaliasbro
Complaining draws attention which can lead to interest and eventually
actionable conditions for a greater group of individuals than just the
affected.

Also, when one is scrambling to make ends meet, it's not always so easy to be
more proactive. Surviving in such situations consumes a lot of mental,
emotional, and temporal resources.

------
johnsushant
What would all these drivers do once self driving taxis become the norm?

They would instantly go from severely underpaid to completely unemployed.
Considering that a market disrupter like Uber has affected them to this
extent, do people honestly believe 100,000 new jobs would be available once
automation takes their jobs?

~~~
martin1975
Airplanes do in fact have the capability to complete a flight from point A to
point B without a pilot. Yet, we still embed pilots in the cockpit. Cars might
be simpler, but there's way too many gotchas while driving a computer cannot
be programmed to handle that a human driver can intuit or defend against.

A completely driver-less future might happen, but it won't be with the current
infrastructure. IMHO, you'd need to isolate self-driving lanes from human
driver lanes completely before it can become a reality, and slowly phase out
driver-only cars with self-driving cars/lanes. Even at that rate, I'm still
not certain it would work better than what we have now...

~~~
coolaliasbro
>...but it won't be with the current infrastructure... slowly phase out
driver-only cars with self-driving cars/lanes.

Upvoted!

I've posted it before and I'll post it again: what advantages does driverless
car-based transportation infrastructure offer over a rail system of the same
scale? I am genuinely interested to hear counter arguments since, to my mind,
well planned/maintained rail systems can better leverage centrally generated
power, have better driver (conductor) : passenger ratios, are easier to
maintain in aggregate (ie. tracks vs. roads, total number of train cars <
total number of motor vehicles, etc.), and so forth.

What am I missing?

~~~
zolthrowaway
The last mile problem [0]. A rail system could work for a very densely
populated area, but there is way too much sprawl. It's part of the reason why
cars are basically seen as a necessity in the US.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_mile_(transportation)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_mile_\(transportation\))

~~~
AstralStorm
Come on. Make those trolleybusses (which share most advantages of rail if they
get dedicated driving space) and infrastructure problem almost disappears if
they have proper batteries to drive like buses through less dense areas.

The problem is not last mile. It idea that last 30 miles are not viable to run
extended routes through as it gets too slow to follow the winding paths as
plain buses.

The solution is actually pedestrian traffic and biking optimization for last
few miles access, not tossing more cars at the problem. Not building areas in
cities with crummy access to public transport. Making it less necessary to
carry heavy loads personally relying on improved delivery systems instead.
(Which should also create some jobs.)

------
jgoodhcg
Universal Basic Income would have saved him, and help all the other people in
an unstoppable disruption.

~~~
martin1975
Only temporarily. Without true job creation to sustain things like UBI,
welfare, unemployment insurance, etc - you're just living on borrowed dollars
and hoping for a better future. Of course, we could always print some dollars
and quantitatively ease them into the economy ;)

~~~
jgoodhcg
Idk, no stats or data to back this up but...

I really believe that UBI would be sustainable by tapping into the
concentrated wealth that arises as an unfortunate and unfair side effect of
the economic rules we put in place.

------
calvinbhai
Taxi and Limo drivers were setting themselves up for such disruption for quite
some time. Forget the cost of the ride, if only they (as in, all drivers) had
provided respectful and quality service without denying rides or throwing a
tantrum for those who chose to pay by card, Uber and Lyft wouldn't have
benefited from such anti-incumbency sentiment.

During the pre Uber/Lyft days, a driver himself told me how he worked:
Basically, give enough rides till he get's his next meal's money or a bit
more. Thats the kind of job security they had. Of course, they were benefiting
from the regulatory bubble before Uber and Lyft deflated it instead of popping
it.

I feel bad for those who joined the taxi industry just before Uber/Lyft
juggernaut started, and were probably singed the worst.But I guess such things
happen for those who join industries that are about to be disrupted..

The incumbent Taxi and Limo drivers didn't realize that with Uber and Lyft,
they (cab drivers) had lesser political clout, to get favorable terms in
regulations.

------
chrischen
What’s stopping them from switching to driving for Uber and Lyft? Whether or
not those are devasting to Taxis the fact still remains those systems are
superior to traditional Taxis.

~~~
cwyers
Taxi medallions are hellishly expensive. Most of the time, you have a loan to
purchase your medallion, that you then spend a long, long time paying off.
It's essentially a form of indentured servitude. You can switch to Uber/Lyft.
But you still have to pay off that loan for your medallion. And if Uber/Lyft
aren't paying the same rate as driving a cab used to, you can find yourself
without the money to pay your medallion loan and still make ends meet.

That said, I disagree with the headline blaming this on the gig economy.
There's lots to blame the gig economy for, but this is pretty squarely showing
the flaws in the old medallion system -- that you need a crippling amount of
financial debt in your name to participate in the system.

~~~
Domenic_S
I thought taxi companies owned the medallions -- hoarding them like gold coins
-- and charged the driver what amounted to a "rental fee" for using them. IIRC
it's unusual for a single driver to own their own medallion.

I could be misremembering though.

~~~
noxToken
Basically. From Wikipedia[0]:

 _> Over the years, many medallions once owned by individual drivers were sold
to large taxi fleets. As of 2012, about 18% of all taxis were owner operated,
while the rest were leased; this is a decline from the 29% ownership rate in
2006._

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City#Logi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City#Logistics)

------
gist
I am surprised that most comments here have zero empathy for a worker in that
age group that had been (for lack of a better way to put it) 'put out to
pasture'.

Under the same type of thinking (and I wouldn't say that I am a union
sympathizer in any way) there would be little use for unions since there will
always be a large group of people that are willing and able to take the job at
a vastly lower pay rate (for many union jobs).

There has to be a balance but the balance isn't simply removing all
restrictions and letting people loose their living.

And no when you are in your 60's you are not going to simply learn and pursue
a new career either everything becomes harder and your obligations are such
that many times it's simply not practical.

~~~
lagadu
There is: in significant chunks of the world we call that "social security".

------
southphillyman
Sucks for who ever invested in the medallions at the wrong time. Other than
that I find it hard to feel sorry for the taxi industry.

Cabs refusing to pick people up based on race, refusing to go to certain
areas, flat out cheating people by manipulating routes, some times not showing
up if called. I've seen it all. Uber seems to eliminate all of those issues as
far as I can tell.

------
kisstheblade
I don't like it that uber is coming to my country also and taxis are being
deregulated. Until now you could make a decent living driving a cab, and all
the cab drivers were skilled and professional and trustworthy. If you forgot
your wallet in the cab you could be sure to pick it up at the lost and found.
It just isn't possible to operate a quality servicde with uber's model and
prices. You will have unskilled labour for less than minimum wages, ie. they
won't be able to afford to buy a home for themselves driving for uber.

This is key from the article: "Implicit in his testament was the anger he felt
over the de-professionalization of his life’s work"

Somebody here compared this to elevator operators. Come on, what a silly
comparison. Driving optimally in a city and finding your way and not crashing
is actually a job that takes skill and practice.

------
pweissbrod
Adding the link to Doug Schifter's Facebook post before committing suicide in
protest

[https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1888367364808997...](https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1888367364808997&id=100009072541151)

------
Sohcahtoa82
Taxi drivers can cry me a river.

Maybe if they didn't provide shitty service and lobby for self-serving, anti-
consumer laws to limit how many taxis can be on the road, I'd have some
sympathy, but no.

They shit their own bed, now they get to sleep in it.

------
neo4sure
One question no one explains is since the value of a medallion is obviously
lower now why doesn't the commission have some kind our revaluation and give
back money to the people who purchased it at a higher price.

~~~
djsumdog
Because our baking system is hopelessly corrupt and doesn't favor the
struggling US citizen. Look at the 2008 financial collapse.

Banks were bailed out, the US government buying debt $1 for $1 (instead of for
cents on the dollar like they should have). They could have, instead of
bailing out the banks, forced those banks to sell debt (their mortgages) back
to consumers at fractions of a dollar. Most people struggled and fought to get
basic loan adjustments. The smart ones walked away from their houses.

The reality is, yes the State needs to step in and adjust the medallion prices
and cut the independent owners a break. But only a fraction are owned by
individuals. Most are owned by the big companies, which many would argue
shouldn't get a break.

Plus it's not like the city of NY has a lot of money to even suggest this.
They can't even keep transit funded enough to maintain MTA and keep Penn
Station from falling apart.

------
peacetreefrog
It's a sad story and an unfortunate part of capitalism. But the alternative is
worse. You don't (or shouldn't) have a right to make people purchase your
product or service at whatever price you want.

------
civilian
One of my close friends killed himself. I don't wish suicide on anyone.

I'm sure Doug Schifter's fallacies are obvious to us. He was committing the
CBT cognitive distortions of "Personalization" and "magnification". He failed
to recognize that his taxi job was an ill-gotten gain, gotten through
lobbying, government control, and harming consumers.

Our species is built around the principle of adaptation. When the world
changes, you must change with it. Or you die.

~~~
ohyes
Eh, Uber is driving taxi companies out of business with billions of dollars in
VC money. Offering a dramatic discount in a unsustainable way to ruin your
competition is anti-competitive and pretty unethical.

In NYC 88,000 is a livable wage. NYC metro is a very expensive place to live.
Calling a livable wage for a weeks work “ill gotten gains” is a bit far
fetched. Unions and state controlled monopolies exist for a reason, not the
least of which is protecting the broader workforce who don’t have leverage
against their wealthy employers otherwise.

~~~
dcow
I find it hard to blame Uber for doing something that companies have done for
hundreds of years in the US. So what if it's 2018 and a venture capital backed
tech company is at the center of it this time? Unions don't prevent new
competition, otherwise they'd be rather unethical themselves..one (with a
capitalist mindset) might argue.

This is capitalism and if it's too emotionally painful to watch disruption
unfold then as a society we need to find a different mode of operation. Why
get distracted by the players when the game is the problem?

I've been largely okay with capitalism I guess because I've benefitted from
it. But human lives have decreased in value. In a society where making $500,
literally, is more valuable than a human life, we'll choose the money every
time. That's the game.

Of course I have no idea what to do, in the face of this almost existential
crisis, but getting mad a Uber for disrupting an industry is wasted effort.

