
How the sharing economy turned San Francisco into dystopia for the working class - randycupertino
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/apploitation-city-instaserfs
======
threatofrain
I don't think "sharing economy" is the right word to use here, since the
article focuses its discussion entirely on ride sharing. I think that the
population selling timeshares on their home, such as via Airbnb, are in
different circumstances.

I also take issue with the label of "serfs", because unless you're an elite
who works only for aesthetics or personal fulfillment, the rest of California
must work to live. Everyone is serving somebody. Only a few elites in society
get to collect rent on important life services or materials, which is the
implication given by "serf". The relationship between customers and drivers is
surely not one described by serfdom.

The sharing economy is not the right lens to use for inquiring "why are some
people exploited?"

If we assume (1) a generally free market where important life materials and
services are provided for almost exclusively on the market, (2) that leverage
matters in trade, (3) that advantage begets advantage, and that disadvantage
begets disadvantage, and thus growing disparity is inherent to generally free
markets, (4) that individuals and families begin accumulating debt from the
start of life, then I think it's pretty easy to see why exploitation occurs.
These are factors, inherent to our market configuration, interacting with each
other.

Uber and Lyft going away isn't going to make life better for the generalist
unspecialized (highly fungible) worker, and if it does, it'd only be a band-
aid. My Point 3 means that disparity should only grow.

I'm not saying partial solutions or band-aids are bad, but they aren't
convincing solutions. Regulations can only do so much for the fact that ride
sharing workers lack leverage.

A union can also be a partial remedy to the leverage problem, which I would
urge Uber, Lyft, and other workers do. Yet, I wonder what good it will do when
automation comes along.

Hard times are ahead for the generalist worker, and appeal to decency is an
inadequate solution. We should speak of the hard mechanisms causing a problem,
and we should speak of the hard mechanisms which would convincingly solve that
problem.

~~~
jhanschoo
The article is targeted at a Canadian audience, and more specifically policy-
makers. I presume that the Canadian government has more control over
regulation of these matters than what has happened in SF.

On your hypothesis of a general trend not specific to the present situation,
outside of the US, your assumption (4) does not hold, and you've missed out on
a reasonable assumption that a country with a majority or significant minority
of unspecialized workers in a country with a democratic process can, by virtue
of mass, encourage their government to regulate businesses that prey on them.

As such, I'd say that unspecialized workers are not, in general, necessarily
doomed to exploitation.

edit: While I'd say that this alternative conclusion is pretty flimsy as well,
I'd like to point out that while the parent poster's conclusions follow from
their premises, the premises themselves warrant further investigation. In
addition, an investigation needs to be made to better understand what is
feasible, especially wrt the political dimension (which I found the parent
poster's argument to be lacking in), before we can come to a better
understanding of whether unspecialized workers are doomed to exploitation.

~~~
threatofrain
I don't know that much about Canada, but I can accept that giving up
assumption (4) is worth exploring, and that Canadians may have substantially
less family and individual debt. This should increase the ability of Canadian
workers to walk away from a deal, as their need is not as high.

However, I would have trouble giving up assumptions (1), (2), and (3) because
I think they fairly apply to Canada.

While Canada supplies for college and medicine, if the government doesn't
supply shelter, food, and transportation, that provides the imperative to
work. This means a steady supply of people who cannot easily refuse a job
offer, even if it skates by the bare minimum of the law.

If you have a financial need to work, and others are willing to take your
position, then it's hard to walk away as leverage.

I also have trouble dropping the assumption that advantage begets advantage,
and that disadvantage begets disadvantage. I think that one is inherent to a
generally free market.

I didn't include a political factor, and that's a gap that ought be plugged,
but the only counter-balancing force I can think of are union-protection laws
and progressive taxes, which many nations already have. I think these are good
but partial remedies. Fixing industry abuses ad-hoc is a catch-up game where
industry will always be ahead.

