9 ms·

The gig economy of the 18th Century

131 points by happy-go-lucky 9y ago

em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
The gig economy has been getting a lot of criticism by politicians who are fixated on "jobs" or who complain about the lack of "protections". But the gig economy is a very efficient way to allocate resources in a dynamic environment. The fact that the gig economy was widespread hundreds of years ago and today lends credence to its utility.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  The problem is that effective allocating of resources might benefit society but not the individual.
  - dmurray 9y ago
    Then politicians should encourage it. The entire reason to have government is to improve society at some cost to individuals.
    - TadasPaplauskas 9y ago
      There are many valid reasons to have a government - not least of which is protecting individuals from society.
    - Fifer82 9y ago
      I think the problem is that "some cost" and "individuals" pretty much means means batter the poor desperate people.
    - sattoshi 9y ago
      Hello there Stalin! Jokes aside, we should throw away the fundemental luxeries of western civilization for the future. We can compromise on them but not to the degree of going back a century or two.
      - sattoshi 9y ago
        Should not* throw away
  - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
    in the long run and on average, benefiting society will benefit individuals.
    - sgift 9y ago
      - In the long run we're all dead - If people die of hunger or sickness in the short term there will be no long run Also: Just-world fallacy.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Fully effective allocating of resources, where "effective" means optimal from the market's point of view, will definitely not benefit society. Quality of life is itself a market inefficiency.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      What's the "market's point of view" and how do you determine it?
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        You simulate a libertarian utopia and watch how it evolves ;).
        arethuza 9y ago
        Out of interest, has anyone actually tried to do that? (the simulation that is).
- grive 9y ago
  > The gig economy is a very efficient way to allocate humans in a precarious environment. If you remove the bullshit-coating, you're left naked with the sad reality. And as human are not capable of living without shelters and in fear for their future, they become dependent on society to pick-up your failure to provide a proper environment to your employees. You've essentially subsidized your business by deporting the negative externalities of "living wage" and "humane work environment" to the tax-payers. And those new-age capitalists then lecture us on personal responsibility.
  - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
    Giggers don't really need employers or employees, since gigs can be performed in an ad-hoc p2p fashion. Also I don't see why you would want taxpayers to subsidize giggers. That would lead to a overabundance of gigging compared to what the market equilibrium would be without subsidies. I've never heard the term "new-age capitalist", but I sortof like the sound of that.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Each and every employee law that we enjoy now came as a direct response to some of the abuse that happened in the past. Before you decide to tear down all that our great-{n}-gradparents fought and bled for, please take a look at how the realities of work evolved since the industrial revolution. You'll find plenty of evidence that those nice "benefits" of gig economy break down in practice, resulting in lots of suffering.
      - vkreso 9y ago
        > Each and every employee law that we enjoy now came as a direct response to some of the abuse that happened in the past. This is an incredibly strong statement. Back it up please. Law making is anything but an efficient and optimal, noiseless process. There is quite a lot of legislation constructed simply because of the government responding to pressure groups (worker unions, crony businessmen.....) and legislating their narrow interests for everyone.
- collyw 9y ago
  "The fact that the slave economy was widespread hundreds of years ago and today lends credence to its utility."
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    Slavery built the pyramids. Smallpox existed hundreds of years ago. Nobody's in a hurry to get those back.
  - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
    The slave economy is not prevalent today. That is because ultimately slavery is not terribly utilitarian, since slaves don't make for good employees and consumers.
- williamperiod 9y ago
  You're being downvoted unjustly in my book. I come from farmers, and there aren't any more difficult gigs out there if you ask me. Maybe being a lion or gazelle...
- bryanrasmussen 9y ago
  The fact that income disparity was widespread hundreds of years ago and today helps lend impetus to the gig economy.
- danmaz74 9y ago
  > The fact that the gig economy was widespread hundreds of years ago and today lends credence to its utility. Things that were widespread hundreds of years ago include slavery, forced marriage, child labor... does this give credence to those practices?
  - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
    Not necessarily. They would have to be prevalent today. But you would also have to carefully examine the particular reasons to determine if is good in net. Lends credence doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good thing, but rather suggests that there might be positive aspects.
madaxe_again 9y ago
A more apt term than "gig economy" would be "crumb pecking" - as in "pecking at the crumbs that fall from the luxuriant table of the plutocracy". How governments can be enthusiastically cheering on a return to pre-industrialisation labour practices is beyond me - unless they have a vested interest in doing so, or are doing their damnedest to mollify an increasingly agitated populace while toeing the line their donors and lobbyists demand. Trump & Brexit are both symptoms of the increasingly widespread anger and despair, and if nothing fundamental changes (UBI?), a descent into a totalitarian/terrorist (where the terrorist is anyone who opposes unfettered state power) dichotomy is inevitable. You already see the rhetoric in the press - traitors, saboteurs, etc. - and the political and economical landscapes are inseparable, despite what many wishful thinkers believe.
- RobertoG 9y ago
  "How governments can be enthusiastically cheering on a return to pre-industrialisation labour practices is beyond me [..]" This is only surprising if you think of the system as a happy place where everything is automatically optimal. For me the reason is obvious if you accept the old (and now unfashionable) idea that there is an ongoing conflict between capital and labour for who keep the profits. Government is the rope that those forces are pulling in order to get their goals and, it seems, one is pulling stronger than the other now. I watched this interesting interview(1) where the interviewed (around 6 minutes) mention how the view of the system as an ideal system (as something apolitical) without conflict appeared. (1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTDei-dAKW8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTDei-dAKW8
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > Government is the rope that those forces are pulling in order to get their goals and, it seems, one is pulling stronger than the other now. This is a very insightful metaphor. I haven't seen it before. Thanks!
- icebraining 9y ago
  Which governments are enthusiastically cheering on the gig economy? Most of the moves I've seen have been to restrict it.
henrik_w 9y ago
Some people argue that software development will move more and more to a gig model. In some cases it may make sense, but in many cases it doesn't. Mostly because of the knowledge you build up about the product and because software is never "finished". https://henrikwarne.com/2017/01/22/software-development-and-the-gig-economy/ https://henrikwarne.com/2017/01/22/software-development-and-...
- fredley 9y ago
  I have a theory that all really successful, long-lived software projects are either maintained by committed individuals or by institutions (in the most general sense of the word - an institution could be a really long-lived team, or an org like Google). There is no middle ground. Software projects that bounce around between teams, contractors or whatever are dead already.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - uiri 9y ago
    It seems like your usage of the word "institution" in the general sense is just a group of "committed individuals" perhaps with documentation in place for knowledge transfer as individuals leave and join the group. I think that joining/leaving at points is orthogonal to an individual's commitment while a member of the institution/group.
    - fredley 9y ago
      Yes, basically an institution is a long-lived collection of people, with at least some parts of it with extremely slow turnover of people. This is where the deep knowledge lives that can sustain large projects. An institution also implies to some extent a culture too - a set of shared practices unique to that group that foster a (hopefully) good environment for the project to develop. It is interesting to note that, broadly speaking, the world is becoming de-institutionalised. Talk to any older academic, engineer, doctor, etc., and they'll tell you that less and less people are interested in settling into a job for the long-term - for maybe their entire careers. The gig economy is one end of the scale, but it's happening across the board, and it's having many detrimental side-effects (talk to any older academic, engineer, doctor, etc.). Many of the more successful software companies today foster an institutional environment - one with a strong identifying culture, making it a more difficult place to leave (e.g. Google).
dalbasal 9y ago
I really think we need pro-labour political voices to take a different view on Gig economy jobs. I realize that most activists and politicians see this as part of the "contractor problem." IE many worker rights and protections are built into the permanent employee structure. They see employers shifting work from this structure to less protected structures, like contracting. I think this is a narrow view. Other employment structures have benefits too. The gig economy is not going to replace the majority of work. It's a segment, like day labour, casual shiftwork, etc. There are features to the gig economy that benefit different people. For some people, the low barriers to entry, no gatekeeping, no committment features of these gigs are valuable. There is no reason not to legislate worker protection laws to cover these jobs, as they are. Currently, most pro-labour voices talking about legislation seem to be trying to effectively ban it, and force more conventional labour structures instead. I think this is misguided.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- kasey_junk 9y ago
  For many people not having set hours is a tremendous boon. Something I don't think nearly enough people are aware of is the all night daycare. Its a feature of many lower income neighborhoods that is fairly unheard of elsewhere. If the parent gigging means that kids don't have to spend the night away from home, I'd say thats something to be encouraged. TLDR - couldn't agree more. Lets find ways to provide worker protections for the next labor market not the last one.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    You just need flexible and predictable working hours for the benefits you are describing. There is no need for gigging.
    - kasey_junk 9y ago
      Of course, but thats not what the pre-gig market was providing, especially at the lower income space.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
albertgoeswoof 9y ago
The worker protections we have that the gig economy strips employees of are actually really important. The protections we have in place e.g. 40 hours work week, time off (4+ weeks/year in developed countries), termination periods, redundancy pay etc enable a market place where individuals employees can compete fairly with one another. Without these restrictions we open up a fast race to the bottom, where only those who are willing to work multiple jobs (gigs), extreme working hours at minimal pay can compete (see freelance websites and other "gig" platforms for examples). The gig economy allows some unique companies (e.g. Uber, Deliveroo) to operate right now when they are backed with massive VC funds and operate at a loss - but we can't all expect to have a personal driver + food on delivery every day, without either seeing massive technology efficiency gains (which aren't there yet, e.g. drone delivery, self driving cars etc.) or alternatively we deregulate and push some people into poverty (gig economy).
- conanbatt 9y ago
  I don't subscribe at all to the race to the bottom concept honestly. It is senseless to believe that it is worker regulations that isn't grinding workers. When someone wants to work more than what they 40 hour work week offers, he would go into contracting and work a lot more. Our society is filled with people choosing to work more, and no-one is richer by forcing those people to work less. Not only that, the race to the bottom you mention would not dock pay as much as you think. In fact, it would increase riches. This is related to the classical problem of confounding money with value. Lets say you work 40 hours a week and make 1 fork an hour, and get paid 1 dollar for it. A contractor shows up and he makes 1 fork an hour and works 60 hours a week. The new influx of 60 forks will drop the price of forks, and hence you will be paid less per fork you produce: but the entire system now has 100 forks. You will be paid less but you can buy more forks with the lesser pay. In a real world example, you would lose money, because your entire income is devoted to forks but not your expenditures: but this effect happens with almost anything that is produceds and requires labor. So basically advocating for the restrictions in name of pay, is advocating for higher nominal salaries for less goods.
  - seppin 9y ago
leggomylibro 9y ago
If you're interested in this sort of thing, you might take a look at the work of Thomas Mayhew: http://web.archive.org/web/20080923195808/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/toc/modeng/public/MayLond.html http://web.archive.org/web/20080923195808/http://etext.lib.v... He catalogued the work done by the poor in the early 19th century extensively, and I do mean EXTENSIVELY. He gathered details not only of the types of 'gigs' being performed, but the specific costs and potential profits involved. He was actually trying to estimate how much these London hustles were contributing to the broader economy at the scale of hundreds of thousands of people. It's a little dull, racist, and sexist, but the subject matter is fastidiously catalogued. Some examples: Of Oyster Selling In The Streets: http://web.archive.org/web/20021129180421/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=MayLond.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=60&division=div2 http://web.archive.org/web/20021129180421/http://etext.lib.v... Of Roasted Chestnuts And Almonds: http://web.archive.org/web/20021129184309/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=MayLond.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=71&division=div2 http://web.archive.org/web/20021129184309/http://etext.lib.v... Of The Cries, Rounds, And Days Of Costermongers: http://web.archive.org/web/20021129180440/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=MayLond.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=42&division=div2 http://web.archive.org/web/20021129180440/http://etext.lib.v... Of Coffee-Stall Keepers: (I learned about 'saloop' from this one) http://web.archive.org/web/20021129180034/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=MayLond.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=135&division=div2 http://web.archive.org/web/20021129180034/http://etext.lib.v... And of course, Of Street Piemen: http://web.archive.org/web/20030127022056/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=MayLond.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=146&division=div2 http://web.archive.org/web/20030127022056/http://etext.lib.v...
mr_tristan 9y ago
It's hard for me to get a bead on how skilled any prior patterns of work were, though. It seems like there is an increasing skills gap, and that the gig economy just caters to less skilled work. And the prior examples mentioned in the article all struck me as unskilled. So, was there any prior pattern of using highly skilled labor in any kind of flexible "gig" system?
Mz 9y ago
I do freelance work. I don't think Gig Work needs to be a race to the bottom at all. I have a serious medical condition. Gig Work has been a better answer for me than a regular job. The short version is that I can take off as much time as I need to when my health requires it without living in fear of losing my job. Yes, there are problems with it. I certainly wish I had more money and more stability. But the real root cause of my instability is my medical situation. Freelance work has been a far better answer for me than regular employment. There are a lot of people who have many other things on their plate beyond just trying to make a living. From parents of small children to parents of special needs kids to people with a sick relative or people going to college, there are a great many reasons why one might need to arrange for life to revolve around some other priority and have earning income take a back seat to that. Our expectation of a serious career actually is very problematic for such people. Historically, the family was the organizing them for most of the world. This is become less true. Families have a lot of flexibility that full time jobs typically lack. If the family is no longer going to be the primary way that people are taken care of, then work needs to become more flexible. I don't think it has to be a race to the bottom. We can intentionally design gig work so that it is not. I think this is the key to not only maintaining the high quality of life we expect, but improving it.

The gig economy has been getting a lot of criticism by politicians who are fixated on "jobs" or who complain about the lack of "protections". But the gig economy is a very efficient way to allocate resources in a dynamic environment. The fact that the gig economy was widespread hundreds of years ago and today lends credence to its utility.

ThomPete 9y ago
The problem is that effective allocating of resources might benefit society but not the individual.
- dmurray 9y ago
  Then politicians should encourage it. The entire reason to have government is to improve society at some cost to individuals.
  - TadasPaplauskas 9y ago
    There are many valid reasons to have a government - not least of which is protecting individuals from society.
  - Fifer82 9y ago
    I think the problem is that "some cost" and "individuals" pretty much means means batter the poor desperate people.
  - sattoshi 9y ago
    Hello there Stalin! Jokes aside, we should throw away the fundemental luxeries of western civilization for the future. We can compromise on them but not to the degree of going back a century or two.
    - sattoshi 9y ago
      Should not* throw away
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
  in the long run and on average, benefiting society will benefit individuals.
  - sgift 9y ago
    - In the long run we're all dead - If people die of hunger or sickness in the short term there will be no long run Also: Just-world fallacy.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Fully effective allocating of resources, where "effective" means optimal from the market's point of view, will definitely not benefit society. Quality of life is itself a market inefficiency.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    What's the "market's point of view" and how do you determine it?
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      You simulate a libertarian utopia and watch how it evolves ;).
      - arethuza 9y ago
        Out of interest, has anyone actually tried to do that? (the simulation that is).
grive 9y ago
> The gig economy is a very efficient way to allocate humans in a precarious environment. If you remove the bullshit-coating, you're left naked with the sad reality. And as human are not capable of living without shelters and in fear for their future, they become dependent on society to pick-up your failure to provide a proper environment to your employees. You've essentially subsidized your business by deporting the negative externalities of "living wage" and "humane work environment" to the tax-payers. And those new-age capitalists then lecture us on personal responsibility.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
  Giggers don't really need employers or employees, since gigs can be performed in an ad-hoc p2p fashion. Also I don't see why you would want taxpayers to subsidize giggers. That would lead to a overabundance of gigging compared to what the market equilibrium would be without subsidies. I've never heard the term "new-age capitalist", but I sortof like the sound of that.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Each and every employee law that we enjoy now came as a direct response to some of the abuse that happened in the past. Before you decide to tear down all that our great-{n}-gradparents fought and bled for, please take a look at how the realities of work evolved since the industrial revolution. You'll find plenty of evidence that those nice "benefits" of gig economy break down in practice, resulting in lots of suffering.
    - vkreso 9y ago
      > Each and every employee law that we enjoy now came as a direct response to some of the abuse that happened in the past. This is an incredibly strong statement. Back it up please. Law making is anything but an efficient and optimal, noiseless process. There is quite a lot of legislation constructed simply because of the government responding to pressure groups (worker unions, crony businessmen.....) and legislating their narrow interests for everyone.
collyw 9y ago
"The fact that the slave economy was widespread hundreds of years ago and today lends credence to its utility."
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  Slavery built the pyramids. Smallpox existed hundreds of years ago. Nobody's in a hurry to get those back.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
  The slave economy is not prevalent today. That is because ultimately slavery is not terribly utilitarian, since slaves don't make for good employees and consumers.
williamperiod 9y ago
You're being downvoted unjustly in my book. I come from farmers, and there aren't any more difficult gigs out there if you ask me. Maybe being a lion or gazelle...
bryanrasmussen 9y ago
The fact that income disparity was widespread hundreds of years ago and today helps lend impetus to the gig economy.
danmaz74 9y ago
> The fact that the gig economy was widespread hundreds of years ago and today lends credence to its utility. Things that were widespread hundreds of years ago include slavery, forced marriage, child labor... does this give credence to those practices?
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
  Not necessarily. They would have to be prevalent today. But you would also have to carefully examine the particular reasons to determine if is good in net. Lends credence doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good thing, but rather suggests that there might be positive aspects.

madaxe_again 9y ago

A more apt term than "gig economy" would be "crumb pecking" - as in "pecking at the crumbs that fall from the luxuriant table of the plutocracy". How governments can be enthusiastically cheering on a return to pre-industrialisation labour practices is beyond me - unless they have a vested interest in doing so, or are doing their damnedest to mollify an increasingly agitated populace while toeing the line their donors and lobbyists demand. Trump & Brexit are both symptoms of the increasingly widespread anger and despair, and if nothing fundamental changes (UBI?), a descent into a totalitarian/terrorist (where the terrorist is anyone who opposes unfettered state power) dichotomy is inevitable. You already see the rhetoric in the press - traitors, saboteurs, etc. - and the political and economical landscapes are inseparable, despite what many wishful thinkers believe.

RobertoG 9y ago
"How governments can be enthusiastically cheering on a return to pre-industrialisation labour practices is beyond me [..]" This is only surprising if you think of the system as a happy place where everything is automatically optimal. For me the reason is obvious if you accept the old (and now unfashionable) idea that there is an ongoing conflict between capital and labour for who keep the profits. Government is the rope that those forces are pulling in order to get their goals and, it seems, one is pulling stronger than the other now. I watched this interesting interview(1) where the interviewed (around 6 minutes) mention how the view of the system as an ideal system (as something apolitical) without conflict appeared. (1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTDei-dAKW8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTDei-dAKW8
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > Government is the rope that those forces are pulling in order to get their goals and, it seems, one is pulling stronger than the other now. This is a very insightful metaphor. I haven't seen it before. Thanks!
icebraining 9y ago
Which governments are enthusiastically cheering on the gig economy? Most of the moves I've seen have been to restrict it.

henrik_w 9y ago

Some people argue that software development will move more and more to a gig model. In some cases it may make sense, but in many cases it doesn't. Mostly because of the knowledge you build up about the product and because software is never "finished". https://henrikwarne.com/2017/01/22/software-development-and-the-gig-economy/ https://henrikwarne.com/2017/01/22/software-development-and-...

fredley 9y ago
I have a theory that all really successful, long-lived software projects are either maintained by committed individuals or by institutions (in the most general sense of the word - an institution could be a really long-lived team, or an org like Google). There is no middle ground. Software projects that bounce around between teams, contractors or whatever are dead already.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- uiri 9y ago
  It seems like your usage of the word "institution" in the general sense is just a group of "committed individuals" perhaps with documentation in place for knowledge transfer as individuals leave and join the group. I think that joining/leaving at points is orthogonal to an individual's commitment while a member of the institution/group.
  - fredley 9y ago
    Yes, basically an institution is a long-lived collection of people, with at least some parts of it with extremely slow turnover of people. This is where the deep knowledge lives that can sustain large projects. An institution also implies to some extent a culture too - a set of shared practices unique to that group that foster a (hopefully) good environment for the project to develop. It is interesting to note that, broadly speaking, the world is becoming de-institutionalised. Talk to any older academic, engineer, doctor, etc., and they'll tell you that less and less people are interested in settling into a job for the long-term - for maybe their entire careers. The gig economy is one end of the scale, but it's happening across the board, and it's having many detrimental side-effects (talk to any older academic, engineer, doctor, etc.). Many of the more successful software companies today foster an institutional environment - one with a strong identifying culture, making it a more difficult place to leave (e.g. Google).

dalbasal 9y ago

I really think we need pro-labour political voices to take a different view on Gig economy jobs. I realize that most activists and politicians see this as part of the "contractor problem." IE many worker rights and protections are built into the permanent employee structure. They see employers shifting work from this structure to less protected structures, like contracting. I think this is a narrow view. Other employment structures have benefits too. The gig economy is not going to replace the majority of work. It's a segment, like day labour, casual shiftwork, etc. There are features to the gig economy that benefit different people. For some people, the low barriers to entry, no gatekeeping, no committment features of these gigs are valuable. There is no reason not to legislate worker protection laws to cover these jobs, as they are. Currently, most pro-labour voices talking about legislation seem to be trying to effectively ban it, and force more conventional labour structures instead. I think this is misguided.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kasey_junk 9y ago
For many people not having set hours is a tremendous boon. Something I don't think nearly enough people are aware of is the all night daycare. Its a feature of many lower income neighborhoods that is fairly unheard of elsewhere. If the parent gigging means that kids don't have to spend the night away from home, I'd say thats something to be encouraged. TLDR - couldn't agree more. Lets find ways to provide worker protections for the next labor market not the last one.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  You just need flexible and predictable working hours for the benefits you are describing. There is no need for gigging.
  - kasey_junk 9y ago
    Of course, but thats not what the pre-gig market was providing, especially at the lower income space.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

albertgoeswoof 9y ago

The worker protections we have that the gig economy strips employees of are actually really important. The protections we have in place e.g. 40 hours work week, time off (4+ weeks/year in developed countries), termination periods, redundancy pay etc enable a market place where individuals employees can compete fairly with one another. Without these restrictions we open up a fast race to the bottom, where only those who are willing to work multiple jobs (gigs), extreme working hours at minimal pay can compete (see freelance websites and other "gig" platforms for examples). The gig economy allows some unique companies (e.g. Uber, Deliveroo) to operate right now when they are backed with massive VC funds and operate at a loss - but we can't all expect to have a personal driver + food on delivery every day, without either seeing massive technology efficiency gains (which aren't there yet, e.g. drone delivery, self driving cars etc.) or alternatively we deregulate and push some people into poverty (gig economy).

conanbatt 9y ago
I don't subscribe at all to the race to the bottom concept honestly. It is senseless to believe that it is worker regulations that isn't grinding workers. When someone wants to work more than what they 40 hour work week offers, he would go into contracting and work a lot more. Our society is filled with people choosing to work more, and no-one is richer by forcing those people to work less. Not only that, the race to the bottom you mention would not dock pay as much as you think. In fact, it would increase riches. This is related to the classical problem of confounding money with value. Lets say you work 40 hours a week and make 1 fork an hour, and get paid 1 dollar for it. A contractor shows up and he makes 1 fork an hour and works 60 hours a week. The new influx of 60 forks will drop the price of forks, and hence you will be paid less per fork you produce: but the entire system now has 100 forks. You will be paid less but you can buy more forks with the lesser pay. In a real world example, you would lose money, because your entire income is devoted to forks but not your expenditures: but this effect happens with almost anything that is produceds and requires labor. So basically advocating for the restrictions in name of pay, is advocating for higher nominal salaries for less goods.
- seppin 9y ago

leggomylibro 9y ago

If you're interested in this sort of thing, you might take a look at the work of Thomas Mayhew: http://web.archive.org/web/20080923195808/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/toc/modeng/public/MayLond.html http://web.archive.org/web/20080923195808/http://etext.lib.v... He catalogued the work done by the poor in the early 19th century extensively, and I do mean EXTENSIVELY. He gathered details not only of the types of 'gigs' being performed, but the specific costs and potential profits involved. He was actually trying to estimate how much these London hustles were contributing to the broader economy at the scale of hundreds of thousands of people. It's a little dull, racist, and sexist, but the subject matter is fastidiously catalogued. Some examples: Of Oyster Selling In The Streets: http://web.archive.org/web/20021129180421/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=MayLond.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=60&division=div2 http://web.archive.org/web/20021129180421/http://etext.lib.v... Of Roasted Chestnuts And Almonds: http://web.archive.org/web/20021129184309/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=MayLond.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=71&division=div2 http://web.archive.org/web/20021129184309/http://etext.lib.v... Of The Cries, Rounds, And Days Of Costermongers: http://web.archive.org/web/20021129180440/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=MayLond.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=42&division=div2 http://web.archive.org/web/20021129180440/http://etext.lib.v... Of Coffee-Stall Keepers: (I learned about 'saloop' from this one) http://web.archive.org/web/20021129180034/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=MayLond.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=135&division=div2 http://web.archive.org/web/20021129180034/http://etext.lib.v... And of course, Of Street Piemen: http://web.archive.org/web/20030127022056/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=MayLond.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=146&division=div2 http://web.archive.org/web/20030127022056/http://etext.lib.v...

mr_tristan 9y ago

It's hard for me to get a bead on how skilled any prior patterns of work were, though. It seems like there is an increasing skills gap, and that the gig economy just caters to less skilled work. And the prior examples mentioned in the article all struck me as unskilled. So, was there any prior pattern of using highly skilled labor in any kind of flexible "gig" system?

Mz 9y ago

I do freelance work. I don't think Gig Work needs to be a race to the bottom at all. I have a serious medical condition. Gig Work has been a better answer for me than a regular job. The short version is that I can take off as much time as I need to when my health requires it without living in fear of losing my job. Yes, there are problems with it. I certainly wish I had more money and more stability. But the real root cause of my instability is my medical situation. Freelance work has been a far better answer for me than regular employment. There are a lot of people who have many other things on their plate beyond just trying to make a living. From parents of small children to parents of special needs kids to people with a sick relative or people going to college, there are a great many reasons why one might need to arrange for life to revolve around some other priority and have earning income take a back seat to that. Our expectation of a serious career actually is very problematic for such people. Historically, the family was the organizing them for most of the world. This is become less true. Families have a lot of flexibility that full time jobs typically lack. If the family is no longer going to be the primary way that people are taken care of, then work needs to become more flexible. I don't think it has to be a race to the bottom. We can intentionally design gig work so that it is not. I think this is the key to not only maintaining the high quality of life we expect, but improving it.