6 ms·

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

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
  You are conflating wanting to work more with having to. The gig economy provides both
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >I don't subscribe at all to the race to the bottom concept honestly. I don't get how you can not. Workers fought and died[0] for the protections the United States enforces. Why do you think that is? Because they were tired of racing to the bottom! And for the economic example, this: >but this effect happens with almost anything that is produceds and requires labor just isn't correct. For example, one of the other top comments in this thread is specifically about how gig labor probably won't work well for most software. >So basically advocating for the restrictions in name of pay, is advocating for higher nominal salaries for less goods. That's a pretty interesting assertion. I could just as easily say the opposite. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-union_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-union_violence_in_the_Uni...
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    > I don't get how you can not. Workers fought and died[0] for the protections the United States enforces. Why do you think that is? Because they were tired of racing to the bottom! People fought and died for to expand christianity in the world as well. How can you not believe in god? There are many things about the era of unions and worker rights that to my personal level, require a scrutiny I dont have the understanding and knowledge to disentangle. The increase of wealth and people's welfare might as well have happened in spite of worker's rights movements. Also, the greatest terrible thing about that era was that the state was participant in the oppression ,by using violence against workers. (At least it was so in argentina). Thats a great case for unionization, but not for workers rights, since the oppressor is the one that puts the rules. The United States has some of the most rudimentary worker laws in the developed world, yet many jobs (like soft dev) tout great benefits like paid leave, extra pto etc. What increases worker well-being is the creation of wealth, not the mandatory legal requirements for it. > just isn't correct. For example, one of the other top comments in this thread is specifically about how gig labor probably won't work well for most software. That's pretty much an opinion, and software is not everything out there. > That's a pretty interesting assertion. I could just as easily say the opposite. I dont see how it would be opposite. Lower worker times means lower production, which means lower goods and services to consume. No matter what you do with the currency, reducing production makes the whole poorer. There are some arguments around this topic like reasonable work-times increase productivity and spending and all that, and they are believable to a certain extent, but the basic mechanic has to be the before mentioned. To be honest, I always perceive that issue as a problem of perception of distribution. In a system of 10 workers, where each has the same output, if one of them were willing to work 60 hours over 40, he would make relatively more than the other workers and that causes a perception of inequality humans are inherently against. The 40 hour worker now also thinks(correctly) that his wage would go up if he could force the 60 hour guy to work 40 hours. But he believes this is good for him, which it isn't, because even he would be relatively worse, he would be absolutely better. In economics, what you dont see often has a more profound effect that what you can see.

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
You are conflating wanting to work more with having to. The gig economy provides both
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>I don't subscribe at all to the race to the bottom concept honestly. I don't get how you can not. Workers fought and died[0] for the protections the United States enforces. Why do you think that is? Because they were tired of racing to the bottom! And for the economic example, this: >but this effect happens with almost anything that is produceds and requires labor just isn't correct. For example, one of the other top comments in this thread is specifically about how gig labor probably won't work well for most software. >So basically advocating for the restrictions in name of pay, is advocating for higher nominal salaries for less goods. That's a pretty interesting assertion. I could just as easily say the opposite. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-union_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-union_violence_in_the_Uni...
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > I don't get how you can not. Workers fought and died[0] for the protections the United States enforces. Why do you think that is? Because they were tired of racing to the bottom! People fought and died for to expand christianity in the world as well. How can you not believe in god? There are many things about the era of unions and worker rights that to my personal level, require a scrutiny I dont have the understanding and knowledge to disentangle. The increase of wealth and people's welfare might as well have happened in spite of worker's rights movements. Also, the greatest terrible thing about that era was that the state was participant in the oppression ,by using violence against workers. (At least it was so in argentina). Thats a great case for unionization, but not for workers rights, since the oppressor is the one that puts the rules. The United States has some of the most rudimentary worker laws in the developed world, yet many jobs (like soft dev) tout great benefits like paid leave, extra pto etc. What increases worker well-being is the creation of wealth, not the mandatory legal requirements for it. > just isn't correct. For example, one of the other top comments in this thread is specifically about how gig labor probably won't work well for most software. That's pretty much an opinion, and software is not everything out there. > That's a pretty interesting assertion. I could just as easily say the opposite. I dont see how it would be opposite. Lower worker times means lower production, which means lower goods and services to consume. No matter what you do with the currency, reducing production makes the whole poorer. There are some arguments around this topic like reasonable work-times increase productivity and spending and all that, and they are believable to a certain extent, but the basic mechanic has to be the before mentioned. To be honest, I always perceive that issue as a problem of perception of distribution. In a system of 10 workers, where each has the same output, if one of them were willing to work 60 hours over 40, he would make relatively more than the other workers and that causes a perception of inequality humans are inherently against. The 40 hour worker now also thinks(correctly) that his wage would go up if he could force the 60 hour guy to work 40 hours. But he believes this is good for him, which it isn't, because even he would be relatively worse, he would be absolutely better. In economics, what you dont see often has a more profound effect that what you can see.