
The Gig Economy’s False Promise - kawera
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/opinion/the-gig-economys-false-promise.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&pagewanted=all
======
enraged_camel
The Gig Economy represents the decline of the American Middle Class, as people
who would have been able to find white-collar work or stable and well-paying
blue-collar work 15-20 years ago now have to enter the service economy and
perform low-level jobs, many of which require little or no specialized skills.

For some reason we celebrate this trend as a society and laud its positives
(e.g. being able to determine one's own work schedule), but in a decade or two
the problems will become obvious and hard to ignore, as many gig workers find
themselves too old to work but with no retirement savings, for example.

~~~
pnathan
Why does everything that might be flawed about the economy have to tie into
the "American Middle Class". It seems almost this fabulist's position of
Things Were Better Back Then, And Can't We Make America Great Again?

~~~
alejohausner
Things _were_ better "back then". Wages for bottom 90% have not risen, in real
terms, since the 1970s. Income for the top 10% has gone up a lot, by contrast.

Union jobs raised wages for everyone: even though only a third of private-
sector jobs were unionized, the threat of unionization pushed most employers
to pay well.

In the 1960s, one person could get a blue-collar job and keep a family going
in a suburban house, with a car. This was all due to unions.

We have been subjected to thirty years of propaganda about how unions kill
jobs, how regulation is bad for jobs, how you should have "freedom to invest
your money" (ie a 401-k rather than a company pension). This propaganda is now
taken as gospel, and we don't realize it's just a ploy by those with inherited
wealth to get a bigger share of the wealth.

BTW, that's how we ended up with Trump. Yes, he's a narcissistic windbag, but
people who voted for him had real grievances.

~~~
pnathan
A major part of the 50s & 60s boom was the fact that most of the industrial
nations had been turned into rubble in the 40s and the US hadn't. Once the 70s
rolled around, the US manufacturers came to grips with serious competition.
Some did better than others.

Further, housing for GIs in the 40s and 50s was subsidized, thus changing the
entire housing equation, _and_ , further, women had not entered the workforce
in large numbers, _and_ , further, we require many more safety features on
cars.

These factors all are major portions of the story when comparing against your
prototypical factory worker story, and mean that a simple narrative of Unions
=> Better Life doesn't work. Although unions _do_ need to become much stronger
in American life, they won't unspool us back to the prior era.

and, tacking a paragraph on in my edit: probably want to talk to some black
people about how great those years were. It's entirely plausible that some of
the White American prosperity was due to heavily underpaying the Black
Americans and treating them very poorly.

~~~
Apocryphon
Well, what about the post-Cold War prosperity of the '90s then?

~~~
pnathan
That's a good question, and I haven't really read enough history/economics
regarding that time period to piece together an intelligent answer with the
nuances needed. Among other things, I think it's too soon to really look back
and see how the threads connected and disconnected with any dispassionate
analysis. Once the signal figures of the era die off with their passions, we
can start taking breaths that aren't colored by their factions.

That said:

 _one_ factor is that computers started really becoming available to
businesses, so you really had an automation boom.

 _one_ factor is the cold war ended, which changed... a lot of things,
including capital flows. That capital shuffling may have helped prosperity.

 _one_ factor is the boomers hit their financially most productive years.

------
moonka
>Since workers for most gig economy companies are considered independent
contractors, not employees, they do not qualify for basic protections like
overtime pay and minimum wages.

It concerns me how eager we are to be to roll back the hard won protections
that our forefathers fought for. Time and again we see that the vast majority
of businesses only look towards maximizing the short term, and exploit any
loopholes that allow them to.

~~~
brudgers
My great grandmother worked in a Manhattan button factory at age 8. It made
her mean.

It's more than just overtime and minimum wage.

~~~
cm2012
Sorry to hear that, meanness and hate reverberates through generations.

------
malandrew
I find it funny that the news media treats working for yourself as a new
relatively phenomena fueled by a few companies when Daniel Pink (and others)
were thoroughly documenting the shift from salaried to self-employed as far
back as 2002.

[http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/165415.Free_Agent_Nation](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/165415.Free_Agent_Nation)

All the current crop of companies did is reduce the transaction costs low
enough to democratize working for yourself just about anything can
participate. Once anyone can participate, it's a natural outcome that earnings
in these markets will deflate and stabilize around the price that the least
skilled/educated are willing to work for.

The biggest irony is that without these companies, a lot of the people doing
this kind of would probably be unemployed or underemployed. There was a LOT of
latent demand that went unsatisfied.

Transportation network companies haven't just taken away some of the demand
from existing options like taxies and livery companies, but have increased the
size of the market by at least one other of magnitude in terms of rides and
miles driven. AirBnB enabled people to capitalize on under-utilized real
estate assets that they own or rent with a little administrative overhead as
the only labor input.

The real failure isn't the gig economy, but government economic policy that
drives some aspects of living costs higher while real income drops. The
biggest culprit here are housing costs. Deflation in real income isn't a
problem if there is a corresponding deflation in cost of living expenses as
well.

~~~
cmahler7
I agree, gig economy is just a symptom. College grads aren't working as
baristas and Uber drivers by choice, it's because the economy is absolute
garbage and has been for nearly a decade now.

~~~
smsm42
Or because they got a garbage degree because they bought into an idea that
getting an overpriced useless degree is the only entry way to the job market.

~~~
John23832
That's not necessarily their fault though. These people were sold a dream, and
they did what they thought they had to do to enter the market.

I'm sure their parents weren't great forward thinkers either, it just so
happened that the (blue collar job) dream they were sold worked for them until
recently.

~~~
smsm42
It's not their fault maybe but selling not only continues but actually
increases. We are learning nothing from it. Now we're being sold that if we
make all that scheme taxpayer-financed and produce even more degree-holders,
no matter what that degree actually does or whether the market needs it, the
situation somehow would become much better because statistics looking 30 years
behind says going to college back then increases potential earnings now.

It's like saying if we see that CEO earns much more than janitors, then
calling janitors "CEO" would make them millionaires. Pure magical thinking.

~~~
John23832
I guess what I'm saying is that we should hold the influencers responsible,
not those that were influenced.

------
xanderstrike
What's weird to me is the addictive qualities of "gig economy" jobs. I have
friends who had real jobs and could have them again, but continue to drive
full time for uber/lyft/postmates/whatever because they insist it's better.
They're working 80+ hour weeks and still never have money for anything, but
that's okay because they don't have time to go out either. Being able to set
which hours you work is meaningless if all you can do with your time off is
sleep.

~~~
FilterSweep
Have you asked them over other intangibles that may be driving them to choose
80 hours of lower pay over 40? Some may find the corporate environment so
emotionally taxing that the alternative is still a better solution.

~~~
gutnor
Being your own boss and not a wage slave anymore, having the chance to make it
big. The 9-5 worker has been demonised in the media - but in the Gig Economy
you can be proud to be a hard worker. You are part of the next revolution, you
are the future of work, pioneers, ...

~~~
xanderstrike
Yeah but there's no chance to make it big driving for Uber/Lyft. You're just
letting other skills you might have wilt while you wait for your job to be
automated out of existence.

------
brettproctor
If only we could somehow prevent Uber from forcing people to drive for them,
we could solve this problem once and for all...

I really just can't understand the mentality of "These people are too stupid
to realize they're being taken advantage of, let's write opinion pieces to
enlighten these poor simple minded masses to the errors of their ways."

It just feels so condescending and elitist to me to take this viewpoint.

If it really is a bum deal, people will figure it out and quit. Uber will
either go out of business or work harder to retain drivers. Or if customers
get too upset at always having a new driver they'll seek other options.

~~~
untog
> I really just can't understand the mentality of "These people are too stupid
> to realize they're being taken advantage of, let's write opinion pieces to
> enlighten these poor simple minded masses to the errors of their ways."

The good news is that you don't have to understand that mentality, because no-
one has it. At no point does the article suggest that Uber drivers are stupid.
It suggests that they have fewer options than other Americans, and are driven
into these jobs by a lack of alternative. The article even mentions an effort
by these drivers to unionize - hardly the actions of a bunch of stupid idiots.
They know what they are doing, but their unionization effort was blocked by a
federal judge.

> It just feels so condescending and elitist to me to take this viewpoint.

Frankly, to me, the condescending and elitist viewpoint is the one that
assumes no-one really needs employee protections (while you enjoy them) and
assumes that jobs are so plentiful that anyone doing a job they don't like is
surely a fool who can't take control of their own life. Or that "the market"
will fix all of this, when we now have decades of evidence showing "the
market" failing to do so.

~~~
brettproctor
"Uber losses expected to hit $3 billion in 2016 despite revenue growth"
[https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/21/uber-losses-expected-to-
hi...](https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/21/uber-losses-expected-to-
hit-3-billion-in-2016-despite-revenue-growth/)

So Uber lost ~$3 billion in 2016, yet in 2017 they're supposed to start paying
drivers more or providing more benefits? You know what happens to businesses
that are losing money when they're required to start spending more money? They
lose even more money. And the rate of loss has only been increasing for them,
not decreasing.

If you want to impose more cost on them, it might help some drivers in the
short run but in the long run it will kill jobs and likely kill the company,
assuming the company doesn't already implode on its own.

We all need to remember no one is forcing anyone to be an uber driver. If we
impose restrictions on a company that is already hemorrhaging money, it is
absolutely going to kill jobs. If these people had a better alternative to
uber they'd be doing it already, so when the uber jobs are gone they'll be
forced to take even _worse_ jobs.

If these folks really are being underpaid, another company can come in, pay
them better, have better drive retention and satisfaction, and beat uber at
their own game. Assuming that isn't happening, then drivers are in fact being
paid the correct price, and any action to alter that price will lead to job
options being reduced.

I think _that_ is the ultimate elitist mindset, that these jobs are simply too
wretched for anyone to do voluntarily. And for those poor souls that are being
"forced" to do them, we should protect them from their terrible decisions by
imposing extra costs. This makes people feel good by claiming to look out for
those less fortunate, while ignoring the economic reality that it will reduce
options and opportunities.

~~~
untog
Couldn't you apply this logic to absolutely any regulation? A company is
losing money, yet you expect them to pay _minimum wage_? You expect them to
provide _health benefits_?

Right now, Uber customers have a very affordable ride. And Uber's drivers
suffer from their "gig economy relationship" that does not offer the same
benefits as a full time job. If Uber were forced to employ them properly, the
price customers pay will go up. If the product is good enough, people will
continue to pay, and Uber will be fine. If it becomes unaffordable for
customers, then maybe it wasn't _actually_ affordable at all in the first
place, it was just that the unaffordability cost was placed on the drivers,
not the customers.

~~~
brettproctor
So given their current losses, I think we can agree that at their current
revenue - costs the business model isn't sustainable.

We can also agree that these aren't exactly great jobs, and that they provide
no benefits.

I don't think your first scenario is likely, where the added costs from driver
benefits are passed onto consumers and the business remains successful, given
it already isn't successful. I think we can also agree that if uber were to do
this they would indeed lose even more money.

So then we're left with your second scenario being most likely, that we add
the benefits but that it turns out this simply isn't affordable at all, at
which point the company goes under and all these jobs are lost.

At this point, do the drivers somehow find better jobs that they had been
passing up this whole time, now that they are relieved of the burden of being
forced to work for uber?

I'd contend that the drivers are better off having the option, and that
destroying these jobs won't magically create other better jobs that the
drivers can then flock to.

~~~
Paul-ish
I'm not the person you are responding to. I see where you are coming from, but
I have a hard time seeing things like unionization resulting in this. I think
the drivers are likely to advocate for their own interests, and would probably
not try to negotiate for things that would hurt Uber so significantly that the
company would go under. And if they do, wouldn't that just be the free market
at work?

~~~
peacetreefrog
People can easily (and rationally) advocate for things that are in their own
interest individually, but ultimately lead to them being worse off when
everyone acts similarly. See the prisoner's dilemma.

What's "free market" and what isn't is subjective, but I don't think labor
unions nec are. It's basically a cartel, but from the worker's side. If I had
to describe a true free market for the gig economy, it'd be: every driver has
full information about their wage, and can take it or leave it. Uber can set
the wage at whatever they want, with the full understanding they won't have
enough drivers if it's too low.

When you add in union or government mandated benefits I'd argue it's NOT a
free market because there very well could be drivers willing to drive at some
wage or rate who wouldn't be allowed to per the union or gov rules.

~~~
Paul-ish
> People can easily (and rationally) advocate for things that are in their own
> interest individually, but ultimately lead to them being worse off when
> everyone acts similarly. See the prisoner's dilemma.

Union bargaining is collective bargaining. It is the antithesis of what you
describe. It gets everyone on-board with the same deal, rather then everyone
making individual deals.

> What's "free market" and what isn't is subjective, but I don't think labor
> unions nec are. It's basically a cartel, but from the worker's side.

I guess in my mind, cartels are free market. The government is interfering
with the free market when they break up monopolies or cartels. Unions are the
government's way of saying "we don't normally allow cartels or monopolies, but
this is okay because it results in a net positive on society."

> When you add in union or government mandated benefits I'd argue it's NOT a
> free market because there very well could be drivers willing to drive at
> some wage or rate who wouldn't be allowed to per the union or gov rules.

What the union negotiates is just like whatever you negotiate with your boss.
Maybe someone would do your job for less, but thats not how it worked out.
Thats how markets work sometimes.

------
arkis22
The only thing Uber did is create taxi drivers without artificial medallion
limits.

Why are there expectations for a taxi dispatching service to be the savior of
the middle class?

The gig economy may make "false promises" about how happy their workers are to
get more, but I would consider that marketing.

People need to check their assumptions and expectations.

~~~
s73ver
Uber also was a pioneer in this trend of making everyone "independent
contractors" who are clearly employees.

~~~
malandrew
False. The taxi and livery industries pioneered that model. The TNCs just
inherited it.

------
balozi
Maybe the idea of an everlasting supply of stable white-collar and well-paying
blue-collar work was a mirage in the first place.

~~~
AJ007
Mass affluence seems to be a historical anomaly. Most would agree it has been
very hard on the earth's ecosystem. Following that, it may not be sustainable
no matter which economic policy choices are made.

~~~
Apocryphon
Maybe we need access to more resources. Colonize space?

~~~
ashark
Colonizing and mining the poles and the ocean floor would be way cheaper and
safer.

~~~
Apocryphon
I'd be up for that as well. And also building underground cities, and
artificial islands, and orbital LaGrange colonies. Or less fanciful than all
of these, settle the land uncovered by global warming melted permafrost. The
idea is to create a new frontier with new opportunities and new resources.

------
payne92
This analysis, like many others, compares gig economy workers to their full-
time equivalents and therefore misses a lot of the positive aspects.

The flexibility has huge value that is difficult to quantify, especially for
folks that are augmenting an existing job, a school commitment, retirement,
family obligations, or some other constrained situation.

Consider the same at work in two different arrangements: one with a very rigid
schedule that pays X dollars per hour, and the other with a completely
flexible schedule that pays Y dollars per hour. What's the ratio of X to Y?

~~~
peacetreefrog
Exactly. The National Bureau of Economic Research just did a paper on this:

[http://www.nber.org/papers/w23296](http://www.nber.org/papers/w23296)

and found twice the supplier surplus compared to more inflexible working
arrangements. They estimate that if drivers had to work at the same rates, but
for inflexible hours, they'd reduce their hours worked by 2/3s.

------
olivermarks
A previous generation of the 'gig economy' hype was 'Free Agent Nation', a
2002 Daniel Pink book that extolled the virtues of being your own boss. The
economy was cratering and in reality it became a game of musical chairs for
what work was available.

[https://www.amazon.com/Free-Agent-Nation-Working-
Yourself/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Free-Agent-Nation-Working-
Yourself/dp/0446678791)

This all promotes a race to the bottom for least pay and lack of benefits IMO.
Given that medical costs are a cynical for-profit business in the USA it's odd
there is such enthusiasm in some quarters for these ideas.

I do know several people who fly around the word making money hand over fist
speaking about the joys of this brave new era...presumably lots of people are
showing up to hear the dream...

------
exogeny
I think a better discussion is how almost none of them appear to understand
the correlation between negative unit economics and writing a bullshit, "At
least I tried!" failure-disguised-as-success Medium post about how your
company failed.

~~~
tarr11
It seems several of them are now failing. Like you say, it's basically a
miscalculation of unit economics over time, but being able to reduce staffing
costs by 20% or more certainly gave them more runway.

Hard to say if the others have fixed their economics (eg, Instacart) or are
simply better at fundraising.

Here's a list from 2015 [1] showing some of these companies that are trying to
switch to W-2.

Munchery Stiffs Early Backers and Cuts Staff in a Bid for Survival [2]

Luxe Valet shuts the door on two more markets [3]

[1] [http://www.web-
strategist.com/blog/2015/07/30/collaborative-...](http://www.web-
strategist.com/blog/2015/07/30/collaborative-startups-shift-from-contractor-
to-employee-relationships/)

[2]
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-29/munchery-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-29/munchery-
stiffs-early-backers-and-cuts-staff-in-a-bid-for-survival)

[3] [https://www.axios.com/luxe-
valet-2219230863.html](https://www.axios.com/luxe-valet-2219230863.html)

------
lithos
I really do like to bash on the gig economy, and while I don't expect much
from the editorial section... The article uses insufficient data to make any
strong arguments, Two anecdotes and the actions of one minor company.

~~~
teej
I'm surprised they mentioned the $30,000 number multiple times in the article.
How much someone makes without the context of how many hours they drive is
meaningless.

~~~
vkou
And does it count the depreciation, extra maintenance expenses, etc, of their
vehicle?

Or the write-off, when Uber decides that their vehicle no longer qualifies to
be on the platfrom?

------
pnathan
It would be prudent for the policy-inclined among us to work with the state
houses to develop a third category besides contractor or employee. As
Homejoy's founder correctly pointed out, a gig worker coordinated by a central
company falls in the cracks.

It's incredibly important to get law to properly regulate this space in a sane
way that levels the playing field and guarantees worker protections.

~~~
Spooky23
In the construction trades, the unions fill this role.

~~~
pnathan
Can you talk more about how that works out? In my interactions with the
trades, there were no trade unions in the area, so most people were either
100% contractor or employee, no union intermediary.

~~~
Spooky23
Basically, the tradesman works for the union local. You get your benefits,
pension/401k, etc through the union. There's some sort of skill/seniority list
so if you need a master plumber + two journeyman who can do skill X, the union
provides trained people.

As it's become easier to break unions, you'll find that these arrangements are
usually only required for government projects and specific localities. When
people tell stories about guys with no necks deploying rubber rats, that's
usually in NYC or a similar place.

The upside to this model is you get generally well trained people with good
benefits. The downside is that you get some additional baggage, which can be
absurd in some situations.

~~~
pnathan
Aha. OK. Yeah, there are famous downsides to trade unions, but I think we can
give them the ole college try again, and not repeat earlier issues.

I'm super ok with unionizing gig workers. I _really_ hate the exploitation
that's going on.

~~~
malandrew
The unionization efforts in Seattle are demonstrative.

They are very clearly gearing up to push forward policies that benefit full-
time drivers at the expense of part-time drivers. Proposed rules exclude new
drivers from voting and exclude drivers from voting if they haven't completed
enough trips in any three month period in the last 12 months. Rules like these
will only advantage the full-time drivers at the expense of part-time drivers.

[http://media.wix.com/ugd/af6c5f_9b35175f4fe741cabc9a17ad0161...](http://media.wix.com/ugd/af6c5f_9b35175f4fe741cabc9a17ad0161eac7.pdf)

~~~
pnathan
Given that the exploitation is going to primarily be exploiting full-time
people... I think on balance, I'm OK with this.

It's also the case that the proposed rules will limit any underhanded vote
packing by certain companies.

------
peacetreefrog
"Since workers for most gig economy companies are considered independent
contractors, not employees, they do not qualify for basic protections like
overtime pay and minimum wages."

"Most [drivers] said the money they earned from online platforms was essential
or important to their families."

What do you think would happen to the average driver if the government or
labor organizers came in and mandated that these workers receive overtime pay,
minimum wage or other benefits? Would ride costs be the same? Would Uber be
able to hire the same number of drivers? The space is competitive, it's not
like Uber has a monopoly. They make 19 cents a ride on average and lost a
bunch of money last year.

If anything, Uber should be celebrated for the fact it allows low skilled
people without many other alternatives to be productive. Or would it be better
if these people without many alternatives had... one less alternative?

~~~
1_2__3
The counter argument would be that we learned many decades ago the societal
consequences of employment that does not cover basic needs. We can't pretend a
human can survive in many parts of America on that kind of wage without
government assistance. So we either pay it for the Uber rides, or we pay it in
social welfare, or we pay it in the consequences of insufficient social
welfare. You're just complaining that it's Uber riders who would have to pay
for the externalities caused by Uber's business practices.

~~~
malandrew
So the alternative is having no employment options, which naturally cover none
of a person's basic needs.

Performing a job that meets some basic needs is strictly better than no basic
needs being met because there is no job. We have welfare and other options to
aid with unmet needs. Without these options, individuals who need welfare end
up being a 100% burden on the system instead of a partial burden. Furthermore,
those that remain unemployed for an extended period of time are increasingly
likely to remain unemployed indefinitely. Having a job, even if it doesn't
meet all needs, can at least serve as a more likely stepping stone to one that
does.

With that said, these jobs are meeting basic needs.

They may not provide enough income to support a family, but they certainly do
provide enough income to support an individual. And before anyone claims
otherwise, realize that the economy has always had jobs that have only ever
provided enough income to support individuals, not families. Such low-paying
entry-level jobs are not a new phenomenon. We've always had them. We just have
a lot more of them now. The problem isn't the existence of these jobs and the
companies that offer them, it's the lack of other jobs that pay better.

There are hundreds of thousands of people doing this kind of work, and many
have been doing this kind of work for several years. That's a clear sign that
these jobs are meeting needs. There is a big difference between "Are you happy
working for company X?" and "Would you be better off if company X did not
exist?". Even people with jobs considered good jobs by most may be unhappy
working that job. Even if they don't like the job, it doesn't mean that the
arrangement isn't mutually beneficial.

These companies are not at fault for the current job market. Most people here
are simply using them as a convenient scapegoat for other other problems.

------
paulpauper
_In reality, there is no utopia at companies like Uber, Lyft, Instacart and
Handy, whose workers are often manipulated into working long hours for low
wages while continually chasing the next ride or task. These companies have
discovered they can harness advances in software and behavioral sciences to
old-fashioned worker exploitation, according to a growing body of evidence,
because employees lack the basic protections of American law._

The gig economy is feedback-based, meaning those who get a lot of good
feedback can possibly generate a decent self-sustaining business from it, but
the wages often still don't pay well relative to the amount of work involved,
especially for Americans on Fiver who have to compete with workers from
developing countries, and feedback means gig employees are 100% accountable
for whether they succeeds or not.

This is good for the economy and the consumer because it means more
efficiency, lower prices, and better service, but harder for the gig workers.
For non-gig jobs, the entire company bears the costs of sub-100% productive
employees, but gig workers bear full responsibility, thus any sloth directly
impacts gig workers instead of being redistributed among an entire company
(like Dilbert, where all the employees but Dilbert and Wally are kinda
incompetent).

------
dlwdlw
In a way, cushiness was forcefully taken away via democritization. Just as a
rich father may gives his son a sinecure, a rich country gives its citizens
sinecures out of excess wealth.

Competition amongst people though rapidly reduces the sinecure to no longer be
sinecures. Taxi cabs may have had a monopoly, and people were willig to work
for less to driver ubers (eg poor college students) but they did not have a
sinecure. Many were struggling to make ends meet.

And they had been struggling for years. And so did not have the energy to
pursue, say, learning Haskell.

Just as there are laws to prevent olympic atheletes from taking a super drug,
breaking all records, and then dropping dead, what governs society should have
rules to prevent people working themselves to death.

Unions were once the answer, but their major drawback is reducing
competitiveness. In attempting to keep sinecures sinecures, you become less
competitive. Meanwhile, the peasant rice farmer is saving every penny to buy
his kids a better education and even beating them when they get too low of a
math score.

An american who is used to runnning water, electricity, and all night raves
who is struggling to pass his college algebra class has nothing on the poor
farmers son who grew up in a mud hut and was forced into learning calculus in
high school at belts end.

Who deserves the cushy job? The college student example may outwardly express
a desire to have a fairer world, but also may resent the poorer peasant racing
them to the bottom and the more educated peasants rapidly surpassing them in
salary, (eg they get a tech job).

------
techterrier
It's been a patent scam from the get go.

~~~
skynode
What isn't a scam these days? Scams have only become more modular and probably
smarter; so there are scams targeted at simpletons (e.g. the Nigerian Prince
Plot, which apparently still works af), the middle class (e.g. the importance
of working hard at your 9-5 job _so_ you can move up the ladder, probably pay
off that mortgage and send your kids to college, both of which have a low
chance of occurrence especially in SF & co.) and the elite (e.g. investing
your money in 2/20 hedge funds, attributing more value to expensive wines,
etc.)

At different points in your social and economic development, different modules
of the scam program are working to deceive you and emphasize unimportant
details rather than big picture perspectives.

------
LordHumungous
Techno-utopianism has always been a smoke screen for good old fashioned
unfettered capitalism. It's the same system that's been trying its best to
screw over workers since the dawn of industrialization. The more things
change, the more they stay the same.

------
sixQuarks
The "Gig Economy" may have started off with good intentions, but it's obvious
to me that its really just a "Transition Economy". Almost all of those jobs
are on the front lines when it comes to automation.

~~~
malandrew
One interesting thought experiment is to imagine how "rough" that transition
would be if we didn't have these gig economy companies bridging the gap
between labor and automation in a variety of markets.

Instead of less desirable work options, they likely would have few if any work
options.

------
cmahler7
let them eat cake

(delivered by grubhub)

------
ChrisPodlaski
Nobody said the transition would be easy, and nobody said what we have now is
the gig economy... The gig economy we were promised is made up of
decentralized enterprises built on protocols like ethereum, not market
companies.

~~~
qyv
The gig economy is not build upon technology ideas, it is built on disposable
and expendable labor.

~~~
coldtea
Meet the new economy, just like the old economy.

~~~
ChrisPodlaski
When its here you'll know.

------
bkeroack
"In reality, there is no utopia"

Shocking! It almost leads one to the conclusion that the only route to a
successful happy life is hard work and persistence, regardless of whether you
do gigs or a 9-5.

~~~
coldtea
If only everybody had such starry eyed optimism.

Rather it leads to the conclusion that "forget 9-5, the new "gig" reality will
be closer to indentured servitude, and forget "successful happy life" while
you're at it too, it will just be a living, if you're lucky. Oh and those
other 9-5/non-gig jobs? They're on the wane...".

