7 ms·

Gig economy is the mass exploitation of millennials

60 points by pje 9y ago

everdev 9y ago
Or, "Gig economy is the natural evolution of free markets". With the Internet, now I can find the best logo designer in the world, rather than within 30min driving distance. When the supply of labor goes up, prices go down. I'm sure just the top X% of gig workers reap the most rewards in the gig economy, but it's a free market situation and if they weren't being rewarded enough they'd raise their rates or stop working. That doesn't seem to be the case though.
- walshemj 9y ago
  Still does not mean that you as a civilian (i.e. you don't work for WPP or similar agencies ) can get this generations Saul Bass to work for you for tuppence ha'penny.
- pessimizer 9y ago
  > When the supply of labor goes up, prices go down. When labor protections go down, prices go down. Remember, the cheapest person to do most of the physical, low-skilled work you want doing is still a child.
  - frabbit 9y ago
    Well, some of it can be quite skilled. But you still want children doing it because it is a valuable intern experience: https://www.inquisitr.com/365377/yes-your-iphone-really-is-made-by-children-foxconn-admits-to-child-labor/ https://www.inquisitr.com/365377/yes-your-iphone-really-is-m...
- zerostar07 9y ago
  The problem is that the rest of the economy is not catching up to the new economic reality , largely because those older generations are too invested in heavy taxation / large penseions / welfare / expensive housing etc. I 'm mainly talking about Europe
taylodl 9y ago
I don't think it's as much a generational issue vs. a haves vs. have-nots issue. It's just more likely that younger folks fall into the have-nots category and thus gives the appearance of a generational issue. To wit, I can provide lots of anecdotes of Baby Boomers and Gen Xers suffering in this economy in the same manner as the Millenials described in this article. What they have in common is their (lack) of economic power. You should acquaint yourself with the term "monopsony" and how it relates to a labor market.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  The fact that the content of the story implies strongly that the author is well aware of this makes me wonder if the editor exerted a bit of pressure on him to change the title. I wonder if advertisers like seeing the word 'millenial' in the title of stories.
  - justboxing 9y ago
    > I wonder if advertisers like seeing the word 'millennial' in the title of stories. Yes, they certainly do. > The Importance of Millennials to Brands > In the U.S. alone there are about 80 million millennials, making them larger than any other demographic in the country. There are also more Millennials in the workforce than other generations, with an expected $1.4 trillion in disposable income by the year 2020. > There hasn't been such a fixation on marketing to a specific generation since the baby boomers, and so many consumers outside of this demographic are left wondering why they're being ignored. Source: Why Are Marketers So Obsessed With Millennials? https://outline.com/Ybsrdv https://outline.com/Ybsrdv [ad clutted-free link]
juicyfroot 9y ago
There's that Marxist "exploitation" language again. Don't want to do it? Then don't work like that. Want something better? Start your own business. It's that simple.
ppeetteerr 9y ago
When a city or a people succumb to the gig economy, they reduce the protection set up by the state to keep people either employed and well feed or unemployed and taken care of by the state. Conveniently, gig workers are no longer counted against the unemployment numbers because they are no longer looking for work, so the state looks great and their currency rises. Cities across the world have been turning a blind eye on Uber/Lyft and their traditional taxi drivers are suffering. Cities are turning a blind eye on Airbnb/VRBO and their tax payers are suffering. This is just the beginning as delivery services are becoming gig-iffied and so are other business models. Soon, some semblance of job security and minimum wage will be laughable qualities only attributed to state employees the same way we treat pension funds today.
- closeparen 9y ago
  Prohibiting the third zone (partially taken care of by work and partially by the state) is deadweight loss, leading to both less tax revenue and greater need for subsidy. Full welfare dependence is not economically or morally superior to halfway in, halfway out. Designing the welfare and labor protection systems based on this belief leads to all kinds of binary cliffs and thresholds that discourage or punish incrementally improving one’s station. Heaping obligations onto full time work relationships, for example, just encourages employers to keep anyone from getting too many hours. Needing to assemble multiple part time jobs with unpredictable schedules leaves low-income workers worse off than before. You can’t legislate benefits into existence without also funding them. There’s this seductive idea that you can extract more from capitalists by setting high minimum standards for allowable transactions (see: “affordable housing”) and they continue to disprove it by just walking away from the transactions instead.
  - ppeetteerr 9y ago
    I would argue that full welfare, depending on how its used or what it provides, is either a blessing or a curse. I Canada, a person can return to a vocational school full time while being on welfare to improve their standing in life. If that same person is unable to better their standing through government services, they have two choices: the black market and the gig economy. Here, the gig economy is a benefit but, the way it's being done now, it's a stand in for regular business. So we're sacrificing regulated, decent paying jobs with unregulated, poorly paying jobs.
prepend 9y ago
I think part of the issue is how much income is derived from “gigs.” I know a few friends (comically all genx, not millennial) who drive for uber, do thumbtack jobs, fiver, stuff like that. They have full time jobs and do this on the side. I don’t know what percent of income, but they are happy as it’s extra income. This is very different than full time giggers.
- CodeWriter23 9y ago
  If they’re driving for Lyft or Uber in the UberX/Standard Lyft category, they are arithmetically challenged. Or perhaps in a new market where the economics are “throw money at anyone who will drive”. In an established market, the economics of driving for Lyft turn out to be worse than minimum wage, and and continued participation is reinforced by magical thinking about hitting that jackpot - Prime Time.
  - prepend 9y ago
    I live in a top 10 city. I get about 50-75 cents per mile net before bonuses and whatnot. Now if you look it at a straight business this is terrible as the standard mile deduction is 53.5 cents per mile. So sometimes you technically lost money just by driving. However, my car payment is fixed. I didn’t buy a new car for Uber. My marginal costs are quite low at about 5 cents/mile in gas and 12 cents/mile in extra wear and tear. My insurance difference is negligible because I don’t drive that much. So I have coats of 20 cents and make between 30 and 55 cents per mile. This is especially good for taxes as I get to deduct 53.5 cents per mile even though my costs are much lower. So I net about $10/hour after expenses and taxes. That’s not bad for an extra 10-20 hours per week whenever I feel like it. My arithmetic is certainly different than others as there’s lots of variables, but certainly not challenged with my math. I think different people just value their time more. But having the option to make $10 whenever I have free time is better than watching tv or whatnot.
    - jbattle 9y ago
      Your car payment is fixed, but you are likely to need to replace the car X months/years sooner if you put miles on it more rapidly. So the question isn't whether you need to spend extra on your current car because of Uber, its whether you'll need to spend more on future cars (i.e. buy one sooner)
UncleEntity 9y ago
When I was a youth almost all my peers had jobs which paid less than a "living wage" or were going to college (or, commonly, both). Just the way life works unfortunately...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
candiodari 9y ago
One issue is that the "new" left just can't get over open borders. It is in fact a major point of friction between traditional socialists and the more modern ones. The problem with that is as the article describes: > Young workers must accept that our fate relies on our co-operation. If I accept an unpaid internship, I have undercut my generation. I have not only devalued my labour but that of my peers too. I am complicit in the denigration of my generation. This same issue applies, as can be easily observed in any large city, to immigrants. Having a fair labour market is fundamentally incompatible with free movement of goods (meaning we need to heavily tax your ipad if we are to have more equality) and with the free movement of labour (meaning equality and open borders are fundamentally incompatible ). one might say, but not if we have worldwide socialism. That is right to an extent, but that effectively means that long as there are a few exploitative states we can't have socialism and fair labour markets anywhere else. Needless to say, there is lots of propaganda about how it's "racist" to be opposed to large scale people movement, even though the economic reason for it is obvious in any large city : to enable the economic exploitation of the weak by the powerful. I'm just hoping that at some point we can accept that "I want closed borders to improve labour conditions" will be recognized as obviously the non-racist opinion (and open borders, since it's real effect is exploitation of "the other", recognized as the racist option)
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > One issue is that the "new" left just can't get over open borders. It is in fact a major point of friction between traditional socialists and the more modern ones (1) Internationalism over nationalism is old socialism; if anything. (2) I've seen very few leftists (new or traditional) who supported “open borders” as a short-term policy in any modern advanced country; I've seen many who support reforms of immigration rules (e.g., in the US, aligning slotd within existig overall quotas better with demand by removing or altering per country limits as a means of reducing the incentive for illegal immigration)—or simply opposed adding additional restrictions—with those positions attacked by the nativist right as “open borders”, but very little actual support for anything like actual open borders.
  - candiodari 9y ago

60 points by pje 9y ago

Or, "Gig economy is the natural evolution of free markets". With the Internet, now I can find the best logo designer in the world, rather than within 30min driving distance. When the supply of labor goes up, prices go down. I'm sure just the top X% of gig workers reap the most rewards in the gig economy, but it's a free market situation and if they weren't being rewarded enough they'd raise their rates or stop working. That doesn't seem to be the case though.

walshemj 9y ago
Still does not mean that you as a civilian (i.e. you don't work for WPP or similar agencies ) can get this generations Saul Bass to work for you for tuppence ha'penny.
pessimizer 9y ago
> When the supply of labor goes up, prices go down. When labor protections go down, prices go down. Remember, the cheapest person to do most of the physical, low-skilled work you want doing is still a child.
- frabbit 9y ago
  Well, some of it can be quite skilled. But you still want children doing it because it is a valuable intern experience: https://www.inquisitr.com/365377/yes-your-iphone-really-is-made-by-children-foxconn-admits-to-child-labor/ https://www.inquisitr.com/365377/yes-your-iphone-really-is-m...
zerostar07 9y ago
The problem is that the rest of the economy is not catching up to the new economic reality , largely because those older generations are too invested in heavy taxation / large penseions / welfare / expensive housing etc. I 'm mainly talking about Europe

taylodl 9y ago

I don't think it's as much a generational issue vs. a haves vs. have-nots issue. It's just more likely that younger folks fall into the have-nots category and thus gives the appearance of a generational issue. To wit, I can provide lots of anecdotes of Baby Boomers and Gen Xers suffering in this economy in the same manner as the Millenials described in this article. What they have in common is their (lack) of economic power. You should acquaint yourself with the term "monopsony" and how it relates to a labor market.

crdoconnor 9y ago
The fact that the content of the story implies strongly that the author is well aware of this makes me wonder if the editor exerted a bit of pressure on him to change the title. I wonder if advertisers like seeing the word 'millenial' in the title of stories.
- justboxing 9y ago
  > I wonder if advertisers like seeing the word 'millennial' in the title of stories. Yes, they certainly do. > The Importance of Millennials to Brands > In the U.S. alone there are about 80 million millennials, making them larger than any other demographic in the country. There are also more Millennials in the workforce than other generations, with an expected $1.4 trillion in disposable income by the year 2020. > There hasn't been such a fixation on marketing to a specific generation since the baby boomers, and so many consumers outside of this demographic are left wondering why they're being ignored. Source: Why Are Marketers So Obsessed With Millennials? https://outline.com/Ybsrdv https://outline.com/Ybsrdv [ad clutted-free link]

juicyfroot 9y ago

There's that Marxist "exploitation" language again. Don't want to do it? Then don't work like that. Want something better? Start your own business. It's that simple.

ppeetteerr 9y ago

When a city or a people succumb to the gig economy, they reduce the protection set up by the state to keep people either employed and well feed or unemployed and taken care of by the state. Conveniently, gig workers are no longer counted against the unemployment numbers because they are no longer looking for work, so the state looks great and their currency rises. Cities across the world have been turning a blind eye on Uber/Lyft and their traditional taxi drivers are suffering. Cities are turning a blind eye on Airbnb/VRBO and their tax payers are suffering. This is just the beginning as delivery services are becoming gig-iffied and so are other business models. Soon, some semblance of job security and minimum wage will be laughable qualities only attributed to state employees the same way we treat pension funds today.

closeparen 9y ago
Prohibiting the third zone (partially taken care of by work and partially by the state) is deadweight loss, leading to both less tax revenue and greater need for subsidy. Full welfare dependence is not economically or morally superior to halfway in, halfway out. Designing the welfare and labor protection systems based on this belief leads to all kinds of binary cliffs and thresholds that discourage or punish incrementally improving one’s station. Heaping obligations onto full time work relationships, for example, just encourages employers to keep anyone from getting too many hours. Needing to assemble multiple part time jobs with unpredictable schedules leaves low-income workers worse off than before. You can’t legislate benefits into existence without also funding them. There’s this seductive idea that you can extract more from capitalists by setting high minimum standards for allowable transactions (see: “affordable housing”) and they continue to disprove it by just walking away from the transactions instead.
- ppeetteerr 9y ago
  I would argue that full welfare, depending on how its used or what it provides, is either a blessing or a curse. I Canada, a person can return to a vocational school full time while being on welfare to improve their standing in life. If that same person is unable to better their standing through government services, they have two choices: the black market and the gig economy. Here, the gig economy is a benefit but, the way it's being done now, it's a stand in for regular business. So we're sacrificing regulated, decent paying jobs with unregulated, poorly paying jobs.

prepend 9y ago

I think part of the issue is how much income is derived from “gigs.” I know a few friends (comically all genx, not millennial) who drive for uber, do thumbtack jobs, fiver, stuff like that. They have full time jobs and do this on the side. I don’t know what percent of income, but they are happy as it’s extra income. This is very different than full time giggers.

CodeWriter23 9y ago
If they’re driving for Lyft or Uber in the UberX/Standard Lyft category, they are arithmetically challenged. Or perhaps in a new market where the economics are “throw money at anyone who will drive”. In an established market, the economics of driving for Lyft turn out to be worse than minimum wage, and and continued participation is reinforced by magical thinking about hitting that jackpot - Prime Time.
- prepend 9y ago
  I live in a top 10 city. I get about 50-75 cents per mile net before bonuses and whatnot. Now if you look it at a straight business this is terrible as the standard mile deduction is 53.5 cents per mile. So sometimes you technically lost money just by driving. However, my car payment is fixed. I didn’t buy a new car for Uber. My marginal costs are quite low at about 5 cents/mile in gas and 12 cents/mile in extra wear and tear. My insurance difference is negligible because I don’t drive that much. So I have coats of 20 cents and make between 30 and 55 cents per mile. This is especially good for taxes as I get to deduct 53.5 cents per mile even though my costs are much lower. So I net about $10/hour after expenses and taxes. That’s not bad for an extra 10-20 hours per week whenever I feel like it. My arithmetic is certainly different than others as there’s lots of variables, but certainly not challenged with my math. I think different people just value their time more. But having the option to make $10 whenever I have free time is better than watching tv or whatnot.
  - jbattle 9y ago
    Your car payment is fixed, but you are likely to need to replace the car X months/years sooner if you put miles on it more rapidly. So the question isn't whether you need to spend extra on your current car because of Uber, its whether you'll need to spend more on future cars (i.e. buy one sooner)

UncleEntity 9y ago

When I was a youth almost all my peers had jobs which paid less than a "living wage" or were going to college (or, commonly, both). Just the way life works unfortunately...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

candiodari 9y ago

One issue is that the "new" left just can't get over open borders. It is in fact a major point of friction between traditional socialists and the more modern ones. The problem with that is as the article describes: > Young workers must accept that our fate relies on our co-operation. If I accept an unpaid internship, I have undercut my generation. I have not only devalued my labour but that of my peers too. I am complicit in the denigration of my generation. This same issue applies, as can be easily observed in any large city, to immigrants. Having a fair labour market is fundamentally incompatible with free movement of goods (meaning we need to heavily tax your ipad if we are to have more equality) and with the free movement of labour (meaning equality and open borders are fundamentally incompatible ). one might say, but not if we have worldwide socialism. That is right to an extent, but that effectively means that long as there are a few exploitative states we can't have socialism and fair labour markets anywhere else. Needless to say, there is lots of propaganda about how it's "racist" to be opposed to large scale people movement, even though the economic reason for it is obvious in any large city : to enable the economic exploitation of the weak by the powerful. I'm just hoping that at some point we can accept that "I want closed borders to improve labour conditions" will be recognized as obviously the non-racist opinion (and open borders, since it's real effect is exploitation of "the other", recognized as the racist option)

dragonwriter 9y ago
> One issue is that the "new" left just can't get over open borders. It is in fact a major point of friction between traditional socialists and the more modern ones (1) Internationalism over nationalism is old socialism; if anything. (2) I've seen very few leftists (new or traditional) who supported “open borders” as a short-term policy in any modern advanced country; I've seen many who support reforms of immigration rules (e.g., in the US, aligning slotd within existig overall quotas better with demand by removing or altering per country limits as a means of reducing the incentive for illegal immigration)—or simply opposed adding additional restrictions—with those positions attacked by the nativist right as “open borders”, but very little actual support for anything like actual open borders.
- candiodari 9y ago