
The dark side of ‘sharing economy’ jobs - muzz
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/catherine-rampell-the-dark-side-of-sharing-economy-jobs/2015/01/26/4e05daec-a59f-11e4-a7c2-03d37af98440_story.html
======
Animats
Uber is another example of "machines should think, people should work". The
previous example I used was Amazon's fulfillment operation, where the planning
and deciding is done by computers, which run the robots and give orders to the
serfs to take things out of one bin and put them in another.

Uber is similar. All the planning and deciding is done by computers. Failure
to serve on demand three times costs them their jobs. The computer gives the
orders and the serfs must obey.

It's not even a market system. Serfs can't bid on requests for rides. Uber
sets the price.

~~~
spikels
I'm not as worked up about this as you are ("serfs" c'mon). The "machines" are
mostly doing mind numbing clerical work which they are relatively better at
performing after considering costs. And they are doing it at the direction of
non-driver company employees.

These drivers will likely eventually be replaced by driverless cars when their
cost declines below the cost of employing drivers. Will that that be better or
worse?

Unlike real serfs Uber drivers can set themselves free at anytime (i.e. quit).
Instead 40,000 more signed up last month alone[1].

[1] [http://venturebeat.com/2015/01/22/inside-ubers-
staggering-u-...](http://venturebeat.com/2015/01/22/inside-ubers-staggering-u-
s-growth-40000-drivers-joined-in-december-and-average-19-per-hour/)

~~~
john_b
> _" 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 willing to abandon everything he knew
and set out on the road going far away from his old master. But he knew he'd
probably end up destitute and serving a new master in a strange place, so he
stayed.

People are risk averse. Some people do jobs that pay bills because they need
them, not because they want them. Freedom to walk away from something doesn't
imply a desire for that something.

~~~
Meekro
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 an _even better_ offer?

~~~
cousin_it
They'd be better off. The existence of Uber is what causes these other "better
jobs" to disappear.

~~~
khuey
and the evidence for that is?

------
will_brown
One issue, about Uber specifically, I thought this article would touch on is
legal liability. Unfortunately, the only legal liability mentioned is AirBnB
guest turning a rental into a brothel.

The reality is in many jurisdictions Uber drivers are violating criminal law
[1], and Uber drivers have been arrested. I was personally informed by a
driver in Houston that Uber actually pays for a driver's lawyer when arrested.
Maybe that is a start-up itself...connect Uber drivers with Uber lawyers paid
for by Uber; however, my prediction is there will eventually be a major class-
action by drivers who have been arrested while a contract driver for Uber.
While corporations will continue shifting from employees to contractors in
their own interest, it is a matter of time before someone realizes Uber is
liable for contracting people and paying them specifically for acts deemed
criminal.

[1] I am not taking a position as to the morality of such laws or whether they
are just, simply stating many jurisdictions have laws in place criminalizing
operating taxi's without permits

------
kefka
Unfortunately, this is how capitalism works. Currently the world wage median
is $9733 ([http://www.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-
household...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household-
income-000.aspx))

If you make more than that, you're being squeezed down to it. Below that wage,
machines don't make sense, yet. And with the squeeze happening with all of the
'sharing' economy, your wages will go even lower.

In effect, capitalism has failed us, as a country and as a world. Do I know
the answer? Nope. Some will say communism, socialism, anarchism, or some -ism.
But something will need to be set up differently. Lest we will see the US come
out as a 3rd world country. And I'm not entirely sure it's not a good way
there.

~~~
john_b
You've just treated the entire world economy as if every individual is
fungible, all tasks are identical, and transaction costs are completely
negligible.

The only thing that's failed here is your perspective. The world is a very
complex place and the last thing it needs more of are people pondering half-
thought "solutions" to problems they haven't given an iota of thought to.

~~~
kefka
Youre right. The world economy is a humongous place. However, what happens
when there is 10% unemployment? What about 20 percent unemployment? Or what
happens when the screws capitalism are turned and you see 90 percent
unemployment? That is is the intended result of capitalism, is it not? To me
that was a fail system. And communism and socialism have both proven to be
failures.

now, what do we do about this? Honestly, I have no clue.

~~~
infectoid
Employment is a fairly broad solution. More fundamentally, if you don't give
people something to do (i.e. purpose) they will probably just riot and start a
revolution of some sort.

Where is the market for a driverless taxi if nobody can afford to catch one?

If you're an optimist, there will always be meaningful work to be done (for
some kind of credit), supported by a government that knows to placate a
society, they need to feel useful.

A pessimist on the other hand might subscribe to the cyclical nature of the
rise and fall of civilisations. They catalyst this time being technological
development moving faster than our ability to mentally and socially digest it.

We have only got about a billions years left. Let's make them count.

------
ChuckMcM
Interesting that this is the exact same article with Uber replacing the house
cleaning service we had before. Basically the story is 'if you aren't an
employee you don't get employee like protections'.

[1]
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/10/a...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/10/at-
the-uber-for-home-cleaning-workers-pay-a-price-for-convenience/)

~~~
olefoo
It's a big story that is being replicated all across the economy. There are
many parts to it, and many different aspects. So, you should be seeing a
number of stories with some overlap.

This is a story about income inequality, and the forced assumption of
liability by the weaker parties to an employment contract. It's also about the
abject failure of regulators in the face of politically connected companies.
It's about tilted playing fields where startups that work within the existing
system fail; and startups that act like robber barons succeed.

It's about the psychopathic cult of "success" that says that making more money
is always a supreme good; no matter the economic externalities you create for
the rest of us.

We're on a path to becoming a third-world planet where the rich live lives of
robot-pampered luxury and everyone else starves in favelas trying desperately
to make a living by bartering on craigslist with their smartphones.

Oh, and do you think you're good enough and psychopathic enough to be living
in a mansion in Atherton? The odds are against you. And that type of self-
delusion is part of the story too.

------
analog31
I wonder if "sharing economy" should really be called "sweatshop economy."

