
Is the gig economy working? - thedarkginger
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/15/is-the-gig-economy-working
======
eli_gottlieb
Absolutely not. "Working" would require at least _something_ to go well: well-
compensated workers, high profits, technical innovation, a diversified market
-- _something_! Instead we've got 1099 contractors making barely minimum wage,
lawsuits instead of self-driving cars, local taxi companies being driven out
of business. And to top it all off, the "unicorns" like Uber are _not even
profitable_. It's just VCs spending their own money to wreck up existing
markets instead of creating a viable business.

~~~
fullshark
It's working alright for consumers

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Charity from VCs to consumers isn't viable long-term.

~~~
existencebox
Someone with a broader view on the long term success of VC than I have needs
to chime in, but although I agree with your earlier statements, you made me
think twice about this one.

What if it IS a viable long term strategy? VC was always "moonshots", 9 out of
10 fail, 1 goes big. While Uber is having issues, I've been hearing the
profitibility issue raised for years now. Other startups, while not doing
necessarily unicorn-esque in the "real world", have still IPOd or sold off. I
imagine the VC's aren't idiots, if they looked at their balance sheets and saw
a trend of throwing money into a bonfire they would have stopped a long time
back. Are we breaking even? (I honestly don't know.) If we are, then perhaps
the consumer 'charities' are a new norm for userbase building, for one strata
of company growth strategy. "want to grow faster, throw money at it" has
always been a technique, and I see the charity as just a new way of spending
that money to gain userbase. The relevant question is whether it's more or
less effective than prior/future methods.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
That would be, in its own way, _even more_ messed-up for the economy as a
whole. It would mean we're steadily replacing democratically-governed public
services _and_ market-governed businesses with VC's decisions about where to
provide a "service" by throwing good money after bad.

I should be able to catch a ride somewhere without relying on the philanthropy
and good-will of some rich dude.

~~~
asdfjlkasdf88
> steadily replacing democratically-governed public services

That's exactly what politicians and wealthy are calling for, very plainly and
in the open. Not JUST VC's calling the shots, but the wealthy elite in
general.

They own all the IP, we focus on making products they think will do best, we
vote for their candidates...

Welcome to the real world.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
I realize. There's a solution I can propose, too. It starts with "s" and ends
with "eizing the means of production".

------
notfromhere
It's set up a bunch of middle men, but undercuts local businesses and leads to
a lot of desperate and impoverished workers. When you create a just-in-time
labor system, this creates a huge amount of stress for workers, as their hours
and wages are unpredictable. This is fine if you don't need the money or are
just supplementing a full-time income. But you can't live that existence if
you have fixed bills and want to have a stable middle-class existence

------
thatwebdude
I feel like the gig economy would work better in a socialized healthcare
system.

~~~
SomeStupidPoint
Most economies do, since it reduces friction and allows workers to better
allocate labor across the market.

Socialized healthcare, and more broadly social safety nets and services,
lubricate the economy to prevent labor movement friction from causing
inefficiency.

------
camillomiller
I'll go with Betteridge's law of headlines: NO.

