4 ms·

The 'gig' economy reminds me very much of the state of factory workers in the early 1900s. For businesses, it was very clear that forcing workers to work in a v

The 'gig' economy reminds me very much of the state of factory workers in the early 1900s. For businesses, it was very clear that forcing workers to work in a very unfriendly way (doing a repetitive task as part of an assembly line) was a multiplier for scale and productivity. However, associated with that was the "price" unfair wages, long hours, stress, strain, and injury. It took 30-60 years of unions and labor rights before the problem was 'solved' - the non-monetary economics of that kind of production sucked (worker's comp + regulations for human rights) and those factories shipped overseas to where those things didn't exist. The modern gig economy is really just scaling up distribution instead of mass production. On paper, it is cheap and scalable. But add in all the socio-economic components and you'll realize that it's not really that cheap, and not an economic engine that can survive long term past the initial stages, reason being that demand exists only because the price is subsidized. Currently, shipping is extremely cheap, subsidized by Amazon, the government, and more recently, the individuals who due to lack of opportunities live with subsistence wages. If shipping was actual market price (where gig workers earned a fair wage), the cost would be much higher, which would shrink demand. (shipping was available as a function since forever, and wasn't ever a popular shopping option until today). If we wanted free shipping as a standard of living, we would need to subsidize shipping on a governmental level, similar to how we subsidize food (especially meat). Americans don't realize it but meat is cheap in the US, much cheaper than the rest of the world. This is purely because of subsidies, which is a perk to allow the american standard of living: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-meat-and-animal-by-products-so-cheap-in-the-U-S-despite-of-the-fact-that-it-takes-a-lot-of-natural-resources-to-produce-them https://www.quora.com/Why-are-meat-and-animal-by-products-so.... If you want to make the american standard of living free package delivery, subsidize the wages from the US government, and force the tech companies to pay real corporate tax.

digi_owl 8y ago
Speaking of subsidizing shipping, i seem to recall that the price of postage is fixed no matter the distance and remoteness with the calculation that more trafficed areas then subsidize less trafficed areas.
- spyckie2 8y ago
  Shipping is weird because of cargo loads. It is similar to the airline industry in that as long as you ship enough at a price to cover the operation cost, anything else can theoretically be shipped for free. Routes with high volume usage can take advantage of this and have lower operation costs per unit because the cost is better distributed. So if shipping anywhere is a fixed cost, then yes, you are technically subsidizing less trafficked areas. Volume and cost efficiency is a hard problem to solve, because getting the cost of shipping down is essentially optimizing for this.
amelius 8y ago
Isn't subsidized pricing illegal? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing > Predatory pricing , also known as undercutting, is a pricing strategy in which a product or service is set at a very low price with the intention to drive competitors out of the market or to create barriers to entry for potential new competitors. Theoretically, if competitors or potential competitors cannot sustain equal or lower prices without losing money, they go out of business or choose not to enter the business. The so-called predatory merchant then theoretically has fewer competitors or even is a de facto monopoly. > Predatory pricing is considered anti-competitive in many jurisdictions and is illegal under competition laws.
- Djvacto 8y ago
  This is a relatively uninformed thought/analysis, but I would guess that the US meat subsidies are given to all of the factory farms, and because they only 'compete with each other' and you don't really have, say, an Italian grocer trying to sell meat here, it's valid? The question from me would then be, do subsidized meat vendors compete with farmers small enough that are selling individually on a farmer's market level? Does the subsidizing occur further up the chain, with tax rebates when purchasing cows? So subsidized pricing would not be illegal as long as it isn't allowing for predatory pricing.
- shanghaiaway 8y ago
  Is Uber illegal?
  - rainbowmverse 8y ago
    Courts exist to answer this question.
- spyckie2 8y ago
  Meat subsidy affects the national market as a whole, so it is not predatory pricing unless you consider the global market. In the global market, US and Australian meat is better quality and cheaper than local meat in many countries (true in Hong Kong). However, while it does undercut some competition, the reality is that meat exports is a bit risky due to shipping costs and time. It does substantially affect other meat producers in other countries, just not sure at what scale. To clarify my original point: As a competitive good, meat is priced a lot lower in the US than the rest of the world. The cost of producing meat shouldn't vary that much from country to country, so why is US (and Australian) meat so much cheaper? Answer: they're both subsidized by the gov't. The effect of this is that Americans and Australians both enjoy cheap meat at a high consumption rate.
extralego 8y ago
Early 1900s was actually late in terms of industrial era labor movements, depending on which continent. Why is meat subsidized so much? Is it because farmers are relatively organized?
- baursak 8y ago
  I would imagine it's because rural areas of the country are over represented in Congress per capita, plus it's not farmers but large corporations like Tyson who produce most of the meat?
- spyckie2 8y ago
  It is pretty late. I mentioned early 1900s to capture the steel era, which was when unions became popular in the US. You had a lot of worker's movements in Europe long before then (french revolution anyone?). I don't know exactly why meat is subsidized so much but I do remember that the US was very concerned about being self sufficient during it's isolationist period before WW1/2. This was the era of the great depression where a lack of stability in grain prices (really in the economy as a whole) put into question the nation's ability to feed itself, as farmers were going under and production was so volatile (dust bowl era as well). This led to the US government stepping in to set up policies to control grain and food prices, stabilizing farmers and food production. I think one unintended effect was the massive spike in production of cheap grains like corn. Because corn was in over abundance due to the profitability of it (due to subsidies), we needed other ways to consume it - corn syrup, corn starch, etc. Corn is also used as the primary feed for beef cows. Some conspiracy people think that there's a huge farming lobby that makes farming extremely profitable. It's probably only a bit true. The reality is that if meat got more expensive due to a reduction in subsidies, it could be a PR nightmare for the gov't administration due to the American love for meat, and a perceived standard of living drop. And while the American diet is changing, even healthy US diets still have a substantially larger quantity of meat in them than the rest of the world.
  - extralego 8y ago
    Makes sense. I actually assumed that was exactly why you said 1900. Of all the history Americans were mistaught, I wish more of us just understood how long we lagged behind the civil progressions of Europe. I would have thought slavery would be a more effective eye opener but most Americans don’t even comprehend how recent our civil war was. Weird about meat. But it would be more a food lobby than a farming lobby, right? Now that I think of it, I’m pretty sure that farmers, especially livestock farmers, are just contractors these days.
CompelTechnic 8y ago
>Currently, shipping is extremely cheap, subsidized by Amazon, the government, and more recently, the individuals who due to lack of opportunities live with subsistence wages. In what ways are shipping subsidized by Amazon and the government?
- patd 8y ago
  Not GP, but some critics say that it's unclear if Amazon makes money on free shipping or if it's a loss-leader that Amazon can afford due to its valuation. For the government, some are saying that the USPS isn't charging enough. And the USPS makes a loss. But other say otherwise : https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/amazon-postal-service-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/amazon-postal-...
  - spyckie2 8y ago
    This mostly. Shipping also uses a public good (roads) which you can claim that companies using these public goods are not paying their fair share for them.
- baddox 8y ago
  Over-the-road shipping is obviously heavily subsidized by the government in the form of the interstate highway system.

digi_owl 8y ago

Speaking of subsidizing shipping, i seem to recall that the price of postage is fixed no matter the distance and remoteness with the calculation that more trafficed areas then subsidize less trafficed areas.

spyckie2 8y ago
Shipping is weird because of cargo loads. It is similar to the airline industry in that as long as you ship enough at a price to cover the operation cost, anything else can theoretically be shipped for free. Routes with high volume usage can take advantage of this and have lower operation costs per unit because the cost is better distributed. So if shipping anywhere is a fixed cost, then yes, you are technically subsidizing less trafficked areas. Volume and cost efficiency is a hard problem to solve, because getting the cost of shipping down is essentially optimizing for this.

amelius 8y ago

Isn't subsidized pricing illegal? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing > Predatory pricing , also known as undercutting, is a pricing strategy in which a product or service is set at a very low price with the intention to drive competitors out of the market or to create barriers to entry for potential new competitors. Theoretically, if competitors or potential competitors cannot sustain equal or lower prices without losing money, they go out of business or choose not to enter the business. The so-called predatory merchant then theoretically has fewer competitors or even is a de facto monopoly. > Predatory pricing is considered anti-competitive in many jurisdictions and is illegal under competition laws.

Djvacto 8y ago
This is a relatively uninformed thought/analysis, but I would guess that the US meat subsidies are given to all of the factory farms, and because they only 'compete with each other' and you don't really have, say, an Italian grocer trying to sell meat here, it's valid? The question from me would then be, do subsidized meat vendors compete with farmers small enough that are selling individually on a farmer's market level? Does the subsidizing occur further up the chain, with tax rebates when purchasing cows? So subsidized pricing would not be illegal as long as it isn't allowing for predatory pricing.
shanghaiaway 8y ago
Is Uber illegal?
- rainbowmverse 8y ago
  Courts exist to answer this question.
spyckie2 8y ago
Meat subsidy affects the national market as a whole, so it is not predatory pricing unless you consider the global market. In the global market, US and Australian meat is better quality and cheaper than local meat in many countries (true in Hong Kong). However, while it does undercut some competition, the reality is that meat exports is a bit risky due to shipping costs and time. It does substantially affect other meat producers in other countries, just not sure at what scale. To clarify my original point: As a competitive good, meat is priced a lot lower in the US than the rest of the world. The cost of producing meat shouldn't vary that much from country to country, so why is US (and Australian) meat so much cheaper? Answer: they're both subsidized by the gov't. The effect of this is that Americans and Australians both enjoy cheap meat at a high consumption rate.

extralego 8y ago

Early 1900s was actually late in terms of industrial era labor movements, depending on which continent. Why is meat subsidized so much? Is it because farmers are relatively organized?

baursak 8y ago
I would imagine it's because rural areas of the country are over represented in Congress per capita, plus it's not farmers but large corporations like Tyson who produce most of the meat?
spyckie2 8y ago
It is pretty late. I mentioned early 1900s to capture the steel era, which was when unions became popular in the US. You had a lot of worker's movements in Europe long before then (french revolution anyone?). I don't know exactly why meat is subsidized so much but I do remember that the US was very concerned about being self sufficient during it's isolationist period before WW1/2. This was the era of the great depression where a lack of stability in grain prices (really in the economy as a whole) put into question the nation's ability to feed itself, as farmers were going under and production was so volatile (dust bowl era as well). This led to the US government stepping in to set up policies to control grain and food prices, stabilizing farmers and food production. I think one unintended effect was the massive spike in production of cheap grains like corn. Because corn was in over abundance due to the profitability of it (due to subsidies), we needed other ways to consume it - corn syrup, corn starch, etc. Corn is also used as the primary feed for beef cows. Some conspiracy people think that there's a huge farming lobby that makes farming extremely profitable. It's probably only a bit true. The reality is that if meat got more expensive due to a reduction in subsidies, it could be a PR nightmare for the gov't administration due to the American love for meat, and a perceived standard of living drop. And while the American diet is changing, even healthy US diets still have a substantially larger quantity of meat in them than the rest of the world.
- extralego 8y ago
  Makes sense. I actually assumed that was exactly why you said 1900. Of all the history Americans were mistaught, I wish more of us just understood how long we lagged behind the civil progressions of Europe. I would have thought slavery would be a more effective eye opener but most Americans don’t even comprehend how recent our civil war was. Weird about meat. But it would be more a food lobby than a farming lobby, right? Now that I think of it, I’m pretty sure that farmers, especially livestock farmers, are just contractors these days.

CompelTechnic 8y ago

>Currently, shipping is extremely cheap, subsidized by Amazon, the government, and more recently, the individuals who due to lack of opportunities live with subsistence wages. In what ways are shipping subsidized by Amazon and the government?

patd 8y ago
Not GP, but some critics say that it's unclear if Amazon makes money on free shipping or if it's a loss-leader that Amazon can afford due to its valuation. For the government, some are saying that the USPS isn't charging enough. And the USPS makes a loss. But other say otherwise : https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/amazon-postal-service-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/amazon-postal-...
- spyckie2 8y ago
  This mostly. Shipping also uses a public good (roads) which you can claim that companies using these public goods are not paying their fair share for them.
baddox 8y ago
Over-the-road shipping is obviously heavily subsidized by the government in the form of the interstate highway system.