> Giggers don't really need employers or employees, since gigs can be performed in an ad-hoc p2p fashion. That's only mudding the waters. Work is performed to

> Giggers don't really need employers or employees, since gigs can be performed in an ad-hoc p2p fashion. That's only mudding the waters. Work is performed to the benefit of someone. Someone is giving orders / specs and gives money for it. The point of the gig economy is to avoid naming it a employer / employee relationship, by dividing it until it isn't meaningful anymore. But that's only to hide the concept and allow to profit from a new relationship where you don't have to provide benefits / baseline standard of working for the people effectively being employed (that you can reduce to "spending their time on your problem"). > Also I don't see why you would want taxpayers to subsidize giggers. That's precisely the opposite of what I am saying. The gig economy fucking up the labor market will force any humane society to step up and provide for those lacking access to basic things in life: help to pay the rent in the months where work is scarce, food stamps, etc.. And that's not even going into the lack of stability, forbidding any access to long term investment (a car, a house), which in our time and age should be accessible to anyone. You have employers benefitting from a new relationship where they do not need to provide it for their employees because the relationship has been destroyed. This forces others to pick-up their failures. I don't want to live in a society where people are starving, with or without a job but even moreso if they are active and working. I am against the gig economy, because this is a way for employers to avoid taking their responsibilities, meaning that taxpayers are left to foot the bill. If not, we go a few centuries back with extreme poverty, shantytowns and slavery-in-all-but-name. I do not want that, and I do not want to pay to increase the profit of others.