4 ms·

The labor market is never free, because living isn't free - almost every participant is coerced. We're all trading time and willpower for money. If the gig eco

The labor market is never free, because living isn't free - almost every participant is coerced. We're all trading time and willpower for money. If the gig economy has a poor ROI, people can end up in poverty traps - stuck working a couple shitty jobs because they need the money to survive, but the jobs consume so much time/will-power that they can't pursue alternatives. This becomes a huge issue for Uber-style companies where workers buy their own tools (cars), in exchange for uncertain per-trip wages with no benefits. They're called "contractors", but realistically what can they do if Uber "fires" them? Work for Lyft? Same shit, different logo. Uber's practices are outright deceptive - they compare very optimistic ridesharing wages to hourly employee wages, without considering their car ownership/fuel/taxes/maintenance/insurance costs. I did some napkin math a while back which suggested quite a few drivers are actually losing money in the long-run (primarily maintenance and lower auto resale value).

roenxi 8y ago
> The labor market is never free, because living isn't free - almost every participant is coerced. Your actual post is mostly reasonable arguments, but this premise is not realistic. This is stretching the word 'coerced' to the point where it doesn't mean anything. The fact that resources are limited and we need the average person to add about as much value as they consume is not coercion. It is a (very sad) fact. There is no element of force involved except maybe the enforcement of property rights, which is one of the most reasonable things we ask our governments to undertake. > They're called "contractors", but realistically what can they do if Uber "fires" them? Work for Lyft? Same shit, different logo. Are these people born with "only allowed to work as a car driver" stamped on their forehead? If the market rate driving cars is so terrible, they need to find a different industry. The difficulties of moving between industries are real, I'll acknowledge them and say maybe there is a role for the government to facilitate this aspect. However, as a practical point, I don't think governments generally do. When we as a society decide who is responsible for employees moving between industries, we basically have to choose between this being the employers problem, this being the individuals problem or this being someone else's problem. I'm very happy to contend that, even though it is not very fair, the person who has the most control is the individual and they are the only one who is ultimately responsible for themselves. There are a lot of problems with companies like Uber. The car drivers are clearly employees in every way except technicalities, and the practice of making them bring their own tools is reprehensible. But it is by far better to try and solve that problem by encouraging the growth of better alternatives than by dropping the hammer of regulation. When they regulated the taxi industries, my memory is in a lot of major areas the actual taxi drivers didn't end up benefiting and random licensed taxi owners did. Depends on the country and city.
- losteric 8y ago
  > Are these people born with "only allowed to work as a car driver" stamped on their forehead? Did you see what I said about poverty traps? Once someone is stuck, it's very challenging to break out without outside help. > The difficulties of moving between industries are real, I'll acknowledge them and say maybe there is a role for the government to facilitate this aspect. However, as a practical point, I don't think governments generally do. When we as a society decide who is responsible for employees moving between industries, we basically have to choose between this being the employers problem, this being the individuals problem or this being someone else's problem. I'm very happy to contend that, even though it is not very fair, the person who has the most control is the individual and they are the only one who is ultimately responsible for themselves. Personally, I'd like to see free or heavily subsidized public adult education. There is no need to regulate unethical employment practices when laborers have the freedom to seek employment elsewhere - the market can sort it out. But we need freedom of horizontal movement first.
  - pktgen 8y ago
    > There is no need to regulate unethical employment practices when laborers have the freedom to seek employment elsewhere - the market can sort it out. But we need freedom of horizontal movement first. And yet even in the supposedly so competitive SV tech market, abusive practices like forcing employees to sign arbitration agreements, at-will employment (can be dismissed with zero notice or severance and for no or any reason not prohibited by law), "unlimited" vacation that is really meant to discourage you from taking it, and long workweeks with no overtime pay are common. Who doesn't get to deal with any of the above? Union employees (for the most part).
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    >Did you see what I said about poverty traps? Once someone is stuck, it's very challenging to break out without outside help. We need to agree on where the poverty traps come from first to then reason if government is the solution.
    - vmateixeira 8y ago

roenxi 8y ago

> The labor market is never free, because living isn't free - almost every participant is coerced. Your actual post is mostly reasonable arguments, but this premise is not realistic. This is stretching the word 'coerced' to the point where it doesn't mean anything. The fact that resources are limited and we need the average person to add about as much value as they consume is not coercion. It is a (very sad) fact. There is no element of force involved except maybe the enforcement of property rights, which is one of the most reasonable things we ask our governments to undertake. > They're called "contractors", but realistically what can they do if Uber "fires" them? Work for Lyft? Same shit, different logo. Are these people born with "only allowed to work as a car driver" stamped on their forehead? If the market rate driving cars is so terrible, they need to find a different industry. The difficulties of moving between industries are real, I'll acknowledge them and say maybe there is a role for the government to facilitate this aspect. However, as a practical point, I don't think governments generally do. When we as a society decide who is responsible for employees moving between industries, we basically have to choose between this being the employers problem, this being the individuals problem or this being someone else's problem. I'm very happy to contend that, even though it is not very fair, the person who has the most control is the individual and they are the only one who is ultimately responsible for themselves. There are a lot of problems with companies like Uber. The car drivers are clearly employees in every way except technicalities, and the practice of making them bring their own tools is reprehensible. But it is by far better to try and solve that problem by encouraging the growth of better alternatives than by dropping the hammer of regulation. When they regulated the taxi industries, my memory is in a lot of major areas the actual taxi drivers didn't end up benefiting and random licensed taxi owners did. Depends on the country and city.

losteric 8y ago
> Are these people born with "only allowed to work as a car driver" stamped on their forehead? Did you see what I said about poverty traps? Once someone is stuck, it's very challenging to break out without outside help. > The difficulties of moving between industries are real, I'll acknowledge them and say maybe there is a role for the government to facilitate this aspect. However, as a practical point, I don't think governments generally do. When we as a society decide who is responsible for employees moving between industries, we basically have to choose between this being the employers problem, this being the individuals problem or this being someone else's problem. I'm very happy to contend that, even though it is not very fair, the person who has the most control is the individual and they are the only one who is ultimately responsible for themselves. Personally, I'd like to see free or heavily subsidized public adult education. There is no need to regulate unethical employment practices when laborers have the freedom to seek employment elsewhere - the market can sort it out. But we need freedom of horizontal movement first.
- pktgen 8y ago
  > There is no need to regulate unethical employment practices when laborers have the freedom to seek employment elsewhere - the market can sort it out. But we need freedom of horizontal movement first. And yet even in the supposedly so competitive SV tech market, abusive practices like forcing employees to sign arbitration agreements, at-will employment (can be dismissed with zero notice or severance and for no or any reason not prohibited by law), "unlimited" vacation that is really meant to discourage you from taking it, and long workweeks with no overtime pay are common. Who doesn't get to deal with any of the above? Union employees (for the most part).
- conanbatt 8y ago
  >Did you see what I said about poverty traps? Once someone is stuck, it's very challenging to break out without outside help. We need to agree on where the poverty traps come from first to then reason if government is the solution.
  - vmateixeira 8y ago