That series is fantastic, if a bit infuriating. It defines a language around concepts and dynamics I've seen, intuited or had other self-taught people attempt to explain at me, but due to the hollistic nature of theirs and my own education on social dynamics, never clicked for me. The one addition I'd like to see to it is advice for the person who understands the Game, but unlike the Losers (who just want to fly under the radar) and the Sociopaths (who just want power), wants to kill the Game for good. Someone who wishes for the world to work according to democratic principles where everyone is an equal, instead of the feudal lord - serf dynamic exhibited in pretty much all of recorded history.
Some or many maybe making money, but are they making a profit? At what "hourly rate" of "content creation"? Is that rate sustainable or merely supplemental or in addition to other sources of income?
I can see how Groupon fits his analogy, but I don't see how he extends it to tools like Uber, where it's a one-to-one transaction that's not particularly exploitative. The only real insight here is that people become more exploitative when their resources become scarce, which isn't very surprising to me.
Uber is exploitative in that it can set prices in a completely arbitrary manner that has little to do with the way an auto-regulating market works. It's the classic "invisible hand", only in this case it's completely calculated and pre-meditated by a god-like entity.
Uber investment ("the 1%") and drivers ("locusts") are temporarily conspiring to consume the traditional livery business.
What may be puzzling are Uber's current losses. They are in some measure subsidizing price-undercutting. "Dumping" rides on the market at below cost prices.
The drivers also appear to be contributing to this dumping, based upon increased reporting of what average Uber income is for them.
And, the entire Uber system is arbitraging a swarm-like run around extant regulation, whose limited enforcement resources cannot keep up. ADA compliant? Labor regulations compliant? Safety and insurance regulations compliant?
Traditional livery services have to meet these requirements. Uber, and its mass of "independent contractors", have made an end-run around them.
An open question remains what the end game is, with Uber investment currently subsidizing the swarming (propping up their current model using investment dollars).
1) With elimination or marginalization of traditional livery services, the market will belong to them. Uber the company will have a pool of near-ideal independent, fungible driving resources. If they have their way, no expenses beyond piecework remuneration -- and perhaps some level of corporate insurance that government entities have managed to require.
2) Uber will have scale (both physical and political) to capitalize on driverless vehicles. They may trade in their fungible driver pool for a fleet of vehicles with predictable, manageable maintenance and insurance/risk requirements. If not entirely, leveraging the driverless model where it is more profitable while maintaining drivers in more "fringe" areas where lower density favors that model (paying for piecework, while letting the drivers worry about the vehicle, maintenance, and all the rest).
You end up with a big 1%, with everyone else entirely dependent upon what they decide to offer. Which will be to their best advantage. And with less or no competition, if they achieve this -- what the OP describes as the elimination of the Jeffersonian middle class of competitive independent businesses.
Livery was already a controlled and often hated marketspace. So, many people have welcomed the Uber model and the short-term disruption it has caused.
But, look at the losses -- their current model is not sustainable. And at plausible end games and justification for such investment.
Are you really part of the long term wealth Uber proposes to produce, or one of the locusts?
P.S. As I re-skim what I've written, I realize that I did not state but have been and am inclined to include Uber passengers also in the pool of "locusts" implied by this analysis. Both drivers and passengers seem to be conspiring to short-term advantage at long-term cost. The passengers definitely are getting cheaper rides that can be more convenient for e.g. skirting regulations -- unless you need, for example, handicapped access, or service in an "undesirable" neighborhood.
The drivers are gaining ready access to a revenue stream. But it does not appear to be a revenue stream that leads to security. It's another piece of the "contractor economy" placing maximum risk on the individual while paying for short-term piecework that has no guarantee and no ability for the individual to scale or leverage beyond a linear investment of time and personal capital (the vehicle).
I'm pushing, a bit, to match my perspective to the OP's 2013 article. But I've watched Uber grow as part of an attitude and perspective that seems to emphasize "every person for himself" and seems to favor personal advantage over any sense of community responsibility and long-term welfare.
This year, I observed someone who used it extensively, as she used her ostensible friends, to meet her needs with the minimum reciprocity she could get away with.
Maybe my personal anecdote has tainted my more neutral perspective. But I've come to see the UberGroupon AirBnB crowd as a bunch of parasites. They all seem to want the maximum for themselves, while quite disregarding e.g. the neighbor who simply wants a quiet, safe apartment.
Consuming our own, domestic welfare -- or that of our neighbors.
His outline of the modern corporation is fantastic:
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/