4 ms·
Maybe for this particular investment, but I'm pretty sure the wider intention was to legitimize business practices where the poor live tenuous lives as an app-d
by alphonsegaston 9y ago
Maybe for this particular investment, but I'm pretty sure the wider intention was to legitimize business practices where the poor live tenuous lives as an app-directed servant class. Uber made this kind of neo-feudalism so socially acceptable that we now celebrate "Uber-for-X" as "innovation."
- QAPereo 9y agoTo be fair, few outside of SV do celebrate that.
- rainbowmverse 9y agoIt already happened before Uber, except now the app is in the hands of the person being exploited, not the managers creating optimized schedules that make it near impossible for individuals to hold enough jobs to pay the bills.
- alphonsegaston 9y agoThat's nice PR to assuage the guilt of people building this kind of tech, but it's really not working out that way: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/17/uber-drivers-homeless-assault-travis-kalanick https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/17/uber-drivers...
- rainbowmverse 9y agoYou must have replied to the wrong post. This agrees with my point that this kind of tech is abusive, but doesn't address my point that it's a long-standing problem older than Uber. Managers in retail and food service have used scheduling software to screw workers over for years. Uber just shifts the technology into the hands of people it exploits (smartphone app instead of scheduling software in the manager's office + calling in to get hours/find out you aren't getting any). You seemed to imply that this is a new phenomenon that isn't yet legitimized. It's been around for a long time. It was and continues to be a problem, but Uber is just a microcosm of it.