6 ms·

Serfdom is not a good comparison. Serfs were essentially slaves required to work the land, they did not choose to do so at hours that suited them, which is a ke

Serfdom is not a good comparison. Serfs were essentially slaves required to work the land, they did not choose to do so at hours that suited them, which is a key "feature" of the gig economy. They also were required to work mines, logging, or whatever service the lord of the manor wished. Let's say you worked for ride-shaes the same hours as a serf, something like sunrise to sunset. If you drove an Uber in my city for that long, you'd probably make at least $100 pre-tax, and your overall income would be enough to support yourself in a far higher quality of life than even the greatest kings who ruled over the serfs.

maxxxxx 9y ago
Do you realize how obnoxiously condescending the line "look how good you have it over the people a few hundred years ago" is? How about we give that line to people who already have a lot but always want more? No, it's only used against the little guy who dares to want a decent life.
- kdamken 9y ago
  Yeah, so maybe then the writer of the article shouldn't have used that as the title for it.
- WhompingWindows 9y ago
  kdamken nails it. I'm responding to the author's hyperbolic use of the word serfdom, which carries with it an actual historical set of facts. Do I agree with the current distribution of income/wealth in the economy? No, in another thread I'm speaking about the low chances of companies using cash to hire new people, vs. paying off CEOs or stockholders. Yet, to compare Uber or Lyft workers to serfs is not historically valid.
shusson 9y ago
I think the point is we are heading in the direction of more inequality where people feel like slaves to the economy.
- merpnderp 9y ago
  Slaves because they have to work at all? Or slaves because flipping burgers doesn't pay for for a McMansion? Because someone else makes millions does that absolve someone else from working at all at whatever value they can provide?
  - jamespo 9y ago
    those are definitely the only 2 options
  - zanny 9y ago
    More like a studio apartment today costs as much as a McMansion did per month 20 years ago. Wages went up 30%, price of housing went up 300%. The relevant statistic is that there are simply not enough jobs paying living wages relative to the number of people that need them. Flipping burgers is not a livable job in 90% of the places where corporations want burgers flipped (ie fast food joints in cities where cost of living is astronomical).
psyc 9y ago
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-01-16/are-the-poor-better-off-than-king-louis-xiv https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-01-16/are-the-p...
troupe 9y ago
Agreed. Some people are concerned with getting people out of absolute poverty. This includes things like access to clean water, a roof to sleep under, the ability to not die at 30, etc. Other people are concerned about the spread of income. They don't want to see someone making millions of dollars when someone else is making $20k. In the US, for the most part, people are not living in absolute poverty.
- cryoshon 9y ago
  then why are 1 in 7 people food insecure in the US?
  - Cthulhu_ 9y ago
    And why do 12-14% live under the poverty line? https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-un... There were articles a few years ago where people had to work two or three jobs just to make ends meet - if at all. Nowadays they still do, but the jobs no longer exist and they're being replaced with gigs. At least the jobs had some guarantee of number of hours people could work. And I mean look at me - I'm already claiming the previous shitty situation of 16 hour work days was better! It really isn't. A 40 hour work week should be possible and enough to live above the poverty line for everyone. Preferably put them comfortably in the middle class.
    - troupe 9y ago
      As someone who grew up well below the poverty line, I suggest you look into what is actually considered poverty in the United States. It is an extremely high threshold in terms of absolute poverty and reflects an ever-increasing dollar amount rather than a standard of living. If you look at the number of people today who have a standard of living at or below what was considered poverty in 1918 I think you'll find the percentage has steadily decreased over time. As people get further and further from real poverty we just raise the standard. I'm not saying that is necessarily bad, but most people who talk about the poverty line don't really think about how much the standard of living at that level has improved over the past 100 years or so.
eganist 9y ago
> they did not choose to do so at hours that suited them Aside from being particularly banal, the assertion that employees partaking in a gig economy can reasonably choose their own hours is provably false. People relying on gigs to make a living are effectively obligated to follow demand; choosing your own hours is only an option when the revenue is no longer necessary for sustenance. Don't take my word for it -- this stuff is all actively being litigated, regulated, and decided, and generally not favorably for Uber: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/11/10/british-panels-rules-uber-drivers-employees-not-contractors/851388001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/11/10/british... https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/wage-dumping-_swiss-authorities-say-uber-drivers-should-be-treated-as--employees-/43984356 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/wage-dumping-_swiss-authorities... https://www.bna.com/massachusetts-uber-drivers-n57982089498/ https://www.bna.com/massachusetts-uber-drivers-n57982089498/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uber-drivers-employees-full-rights-court-appeal-lose-ordered-treat-ride-sharing-app-taxi-a8047316.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uber-driver... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uber-supreme-court-appeal-employment-tribunal-drivers-decision-taxi-full-rights-employees-a8074001.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uber-suprem... etc.
- troupe 9y ago
  > the assertion that employees partaking in a gig economy can reasonably choose their own hours is provably false Having talked with a number of Uber drivers, I know that many of them like Uber specifically because they can choose their own hours. Of all the things they have told me they DON'T like, choosing their own hours is the one thing they all DO say that they like. Some take off when their kid has a baseball game. Others like working new years eve because it pays well. Others don't like dealing with drunks on new years eve so they don't think it is worth it to them to work it and take the evening off even though they have to work more hours on other days to make the same amount of money.
  - eganist 9y ago
    That's all well and good, but policymaking doesn't hinge on anecdotes. Surge wouldn't be a thing if Uber really subscribed to the idea of letting drivers choose their own hours. As an aside: your example is in theory no different than what unlimited leave allows you to do, but we know how broken that system is in the bay.

maxxxxx 9y ago

Do you realize how obnoxiously condescending the line "look how good you have it over the people a few hundred years ago" is? How about we give that line to people who already have a lot but always want more? No, it's only used against the little guy who dares to want a decent life.

kdamken 9y ago
Yeah, so maybe then the writer of the article shouldn't have used that as the title for it.
WhompingWindows 9y ago
kdamken nails it. I'm responding to the author's hyperbolic use of the word serfdom, which carries with it an actual historical set of facts. Do I agree with the current distribution of income/wealth in the economy? No, in another thread I'm speaking about the low chances of companies using cash to hire new people, vs. paying off CEOs or stockholders. Yet, to compare Uber or Lyft workers to serfs is not historically valid.

shusson 9y ago

I think the point is we are heading in the direction of more inequality where people feel like slaves to the economy.

merpnderp 9y ago
Slaves because they have to work at all? Or slaves because flipping burgers doesn't pay for for a McMansion? Because someone else makes millions does that absolve someone else from working at all at whatever value they can provide?
- jamespo 9y ago
  those are definitely the only 2 options
- zanny 9y ago
  More like a studio apartment today costs as much as a McMansion did per month 20 years ago. Wages went up 30%, price of housing went up 300%. The relevant statistic is that there are simply not enough jobs paying living wages relative to the number of people that need them. Flipping burgers is not a livable job in 90% of the places where corporations want burgers flipped (ie fast food joints in cities where cost of living is astronomical).

psyc 9y ago

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-01-16/are-the-poor-better-off-than-king-louis-xiv https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-01-16/are-the-p...

troupe 9y ago

Agreed. Some people are concerned with getting people out of absolute poverty. This includes things like access to clean water, a roof to sleep under, the ability to not die at 30, etc. Other people are concerned about the spread of income. They don't want to see someone making millions of dollars when someone else is making $20k. In the US, for the most part, people are not living in absolute poverty.

cryoshon 9y ago
then why are 1 in 7 people food insecure in the US?
- Cthulhu_ 9y ago
  And why do 12-14% live under the poverty line? https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-un... There were articles a few years ago where people had to work two or three jobs just to make ends meet - if at all. Nowadays they still do, but the jobs no longer exist and they're being replaced with gigs. At least the jobs had some guarantee of number of hours people could work. And I mean look at me - I'm already claiming the previous shitty situation of 16 hour work days was better! It really isn't. A 40 hour work week should be possible and enough to live above the poverty line for everyone. Preferably put them comfortably in the middle class.
  - troupe 9y ago
    As someone who grew up well below the poverty line, I suggest you look into what is actually considered poverty in the United States. It is an extremely high threshold in terms of absolute poverty and reflects an ever-increasing dollar amount rather than a standard of living. If you look at the number of people today who have a standard of living at or below what was considered poverty in 1918 I think you'll find the percentage has steadily decreased over time. As people get further and further from real poverty we just raise the standard. I'm not saying that is necessarily bad, but most people who talk about the poverty line don't really think about how much the standard of living at that level has improved over the past 100 years or so.

eganist 9y ago

> they did not choose to do so at hours that suited them Aside from being particularly banal, the assertion that employees partaking in a gig economy can reasonably choose their own hours is provably false. People relying on gigs to make a living are effectively obligated to follow demand; choosing your own hours is only an option when the revenue is no longer necessary for sustenance. Don't take my word for it -- this stuff is all actively being litigated, regulated, and decided, and generally not favorably for Uber: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/11/10/british-panels-rules-uber-drivers-employees-not-contractors/851388001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/11/10/british... https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/wage-dumping-_swiss-authorities-say-uber-drivers-should-be-treated-as--employees-/43984356 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/wage-dumping-_swiss-authorities... https://www.bna.com/massachusetts-uber-drivers-n57982089498/ https://www.bna.com/massachusetts-uber-drivers-n57982089498/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uber-drivers-employees-full-rights-court-appeal-lose-ordered-treat-ride-sharing-app-taxi-a8047316.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uber-driver... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uber-supreme-court-appeal-employment-tribunal-drivers-decision-taxi-full-rights-employees-a8074001.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uber-suprem... etc.

troupe 9y ago
> the assertion that employees partaking in a gig economy can reasonably choose their own hours is provably false Having talked with a number of Uber drivers, I know that many of them like Uber specifically because they can choose their own hours. Of all the things they have told me they DON'T like, choosing their own hours is the one thing they all DO say that they like. Some take off when their kid has a baseball game. Others like working new years eve because it pays well. Others don't like dealing with drunks on new years eve so they don't think it is worth it to them to work it and take the evening off even though they have to work more hours on other days to make the same amount of money.
- eganist 9y ago
  That's all well and good, but policymaking doesn't hinge on anecdotes. Surge wouldn't be a thing if Uber really subscribed to the idea of letting drivers choose their own hours. As an aside: your example is in theory no different than what unlimited leave allows you to do, but we know how broken that system is in the bay.