3 ms·
"...It does require a fairly dystopian strain of doublethink for a company to celebrate how hard and how constantly its employees must work to make a living, gi
by DanielBMarkham 10y ago
"...It does require a fairly dystopian strain of doublethink for a company to celebrate how hard and how constantly its employees must work to make a living, given that these companies are themselves setting the terms..."
"setting the terms" is a bit over-the-top here. If I want to go from here to the airport, and you have a car, and I offer you twenty bucks, is that okay? Does it somehow become bad if we meet online in a chat room? How about if a thousand people in this city make this trade on a chat room today? So somebody sets up an online app. At that point do the people setting up the app "set the terms"? Does it happen when they have standards for who can use the app?
In that last statement, where the app creators start setting standards for who can participate, we run into problems -- mainly because if you're the gatekeeper, you can charge rent on both parties seeking the deal. Other than that, there's nothing amiss or terrible going on here.
Western literature has this childish and somewhat verklempt tradition of taking something that's new and making it into an emotional outburst. Thoreau goes out into the woods and laments the arrival of trains, the stresses of the city, and the war against Mexico. Dickens with his cutting criticism of Victorian England.
When done well, it's a thing of beauty. Most of the time, however, authors get a little too tied-up in belly-button-gazing and confuse "things that I can become emotional about and rant" with "things that are important and transcend time" We all take the shortcut of "if it's important to me, it must be important"
I am a bit concerned about Uber, Lyft, and the gig economy. On one hand, I am concerned that companies are exerting so much control over the marketplace that they're not innovating as much as they are creating monopolies. On the other hand, however, I am concerned that because this destroys the concept of "a job" for so many people, and the relationship to their employer and country -- they are going to push hard for limiting all sorts of free trade under the rubric of "something must be done!"
In this case, quite literally, the writer begins her essay with an example of how people might feel that something must be done for the children.
My first wife worked a 9-5 W-2 job during her labor with our second child. I didn't tell her to do it, we didn't need the money. She said she'd rather be doing something than hanging out at home or the hospital. I guess I could tell the story of our second child in much the same way as this author told the story of the Lyft driver in labor -- how some folks "might" look at it as exploitation. But I'm not 17 any more, and I don't tend to view individual choices as being some kind of massive battle between forces that I must take sides on. It was her choice and she made it. For me to come along later and use it as an example for any kind of political bullshit is whack. Rant all you want about whatever topic you'd like, but never take agency away from folks simply because you think you might get a little extra mileage out of your essay.
- delegate 10y agoIf I charge money for my car repeatedly, it means I'm renting it so I'm running a business. If I do it through an app, now I'm playing by their rules, not mine. These companies are setting the terms, because they make the software, run the platform and process the payments. The article is correct, no need to bend reality any further, it's quite simple. Maybe your wife was enjoying work during her pregnancy and it was her choice. But then maybe the woman described in the article didn't have a choice - maybe she really needed money to pay for the hospital bill and all the other expenses that come with having a child. In a wealthy, healthy society, women shouldn't be forced (directly or by 'choice") to work until they give birth in their cars. People shouldn't have to do 'gigs' for $5 either. That's just the state of the economy that gives rise to these kinds of rackets. The 'system' is not just the set of rules and regulations, but also the beliefs and convictions of the people - what they think is fair and 'normal'. For some people it's normal for 10-year olds to do hard physical labor, for others it's 'normal' to eat dogs. We've decided these things aren't 'normal'. Seeing the world through the ruthless capitalist work-till-you-die, climb to the top lens is detrimental to the future of the world. We should figure out new ways of living in a society, using technology as a way to reduce injustice, rather than generate newer and newer versions of it in exchange for profit.
- DanielBMarkham 10y agoI don't know if this has occurred to you, but being angry because you think that others are "..Seeing the world through the ruthless capitalist work-till-you-die, climb to the top lens is detrimental to the future of the world. ..." is doing exactly what you hate: viewing everything in life as a monetary transaction, then judging the universe as a result of how much money is made. I said there's a case to be made that companies are setting up monopolies and hurting both parties in the exchange. If you'd like to make that case, do it. I'm all ears. But please (and I speak to the author of this piece more than you) -- don't fuck with me, jumping up on a soapbox and telling me how the world should be. Hell, I never thought they should cancel Gilligan's Island. How the hell should I know whether or not some random person is being exploited unless they tell me? And even then, this is an argument to be made using statistics alongside personal stories used as examples. Anybody that can put a sentence together can preach. All that takes is a lot of emotion and some rubes that like getting emotional. I'll be more blunt: the author needs to get a better game or go home. I'm open to the discussion if it can be made in a reasonable, adult manner. Grandstanding, chest-thumping, and emoting? It's great if you like drama. Just ain't hitting on much when it comes to reasoned discourse. There are a lot of folks in the world who'd rather appear as a talking head on a cable TV show yelling at another talking head than simply open their heart and try to find consensus.