27 ms·

It specifically isn't about that. The idea is that these projects aim to make more and more kinds of manual work fungible and exchangeable by breaking them dow

It specifically isn't about that. The idea is that these projects aim to make more and more kinds of manual work fungible and exchangeable by breaking them down into small enough subtasks. Each of these elementary tasks get commoditized into a market of near-perfect competition when they become deskilled this way. It's not automation, it's a hyper-division of labor, like a worldwide assembly line connected by ethernet and optical fiber. It is specifically that it isn't automation that makes it a problem. If you were totally replaced by a machine, then at least you wouldn't have to work. But here, you aren't being replaced by machines -- you are part of the machine, like a component that's completely replaceable and interchangeable.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
I think it still qualifies as “automation”. The automation doesn’t completely replace people, but it does replace portions of their tasks, and when you start adding it up it does replace people. Two people needed to do 5 tasks now done by 1 person who can handle all 5 tasks. Full time secretaries for everyone are now down to 1 administrative assistant for the whole team or office. Taxi dispatchers not needed anymore. That’s what technology enables people to do. Measure, target inefficiencies, and commoditize. But I don’t think it’s anything like a grand conspiracy, it’s pretty much the only way to move forward. Problem is the humans aren’t so interested in distributing the fruits of the resulting efficiencies in an equitable manner.
- elvinyung 8y ago
  Well, sure, but I think there's something to be cautious about here. The legend goes that the Romans never found an economically useful application for the steam engine (the aeolipile invented by Heron of Alexandria) because they already relied on a massive labor force of slaves. But it's precisely this barrier that we've begun to cross that indicates there are some very old questions that we should be asking ourselves again. I think you and I agree that at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that this increased economic efficiency has the potential to improve everyone's wellbeing, not just concentrate wealth in the hands of a few.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    Yes, hopefully we can find a balance between a system that rewards effort and ingenuity at the same time as providing opportunity for everyone.
- rayiner 8y ago
  In thd gig economh, the machine isn’t doing any of the work. When I order something on instacart, it’s not functionally different from calling in an order to a human shopper. The machine isn’t doing any part of the shopping or driving. Indeed, instead of displacing human labor, like you suggest, it’s increasing the amount of work available by bringing previously non-market work into the market. The machine does that by reducing the transaction costs to make outsourcing that kind kind of labor feasible. Relevant reading: Ronald Coase’s Theory of the Firm.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    The machine (internet/instacart) is doing work, it's reducing the transacation cost so that you and the delivery person can make a deal. It’s just like an exchange making trading easier, it increases liquidity and facilitates transactions. “Non market” work seems like another word for labor you can’t afford. Rich people with drivers and butlers or whatever have had instacart forever. Having a central dispatch to relay what you want to a driver, have them go pick it up and deliver, and then re route them to the next one all while handling incoming calls is probably too expensive to offset the convenience of an individual not driving to Target and picking it up. But with a computer and some programming, you don’t need any dispatch, and you don’t waste time communicating what you need, which drives down the cost of getting something delivered to you so that it’s now affordable. The machine is doing the work of people that would have had to coordinate and pass all that information between two parties. Not to mention the risk of not being paid (taken care of by the payment card networks). Also, I’m not convinced these many of these “gig” companies are going to be around forever. Instacart might work in a few urban locales with a few rich young people with no families, but it’s far from proven that it’s valuable enough and cheap enough for most people.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      > The machine (internet/instacart) is doing work, it's reducing the transacation cost so that you and the delivery person can make a deal. It’s just like an exchange making trading easier, it increases liquidity and facilitates transactions. “Work” is different than transaction costs. The amount of human labor needed hasn’t changed in any meaningful way compared to what was needed before, so it’s not the reduction of labor demand through automation that’s at issue. What’s changed is, as the OP explained, that technology now permits more fluid allocation of that labor so as to reduce transaction costs. This is a different phenomenon from automation eliminating the need for actual work. > “Non market” work seems like another word for labor you can’t afford. Non-market work is a well understood term in economics for work households perform themselves, such as child care, etc. Technology that allows moving non-market work into the market doesn’t decrease labor opportunities, it increases them. That’s the opposite of your thesis. Again, two different phenomenon. A roomba is automation—it replaces the need for a human to vacuum and decreases the amount of human labor needed. An app that makes it easy to hire someone to clean dishes after a big party is not automation and doesn’t decrease the amount of human labor needed. > Rich people with drivers and butlers or whatever have had instacart forever. Yes, and the amount of human labor involved in that scenario was about the same as today. What changed was the transaction costs, enabling a shift from an employee relationship to a contractor relationship Read the Theory of the Firm. It addresses this issue directly.

lotsofpulp 8y ago

I think it still qualifies as “automation”. The automation doesn’t completely replace people, but it does replace portions of their tasks, and when you start adding it up it does replace people. Two people needed to do 5 tasks now done by 1 person who can handle all 5 tasks. Full time secretaries for everyone are now down to 1 administrative assistant for the whole team or office. Taxi dispatchers not needed anymore. That’s what technology enables people to do. Measure, target inefficiencies, and commoditize. But I don’t think it’s anything like a grand conspiracy, it’s pretty much the only way to move forward. Problem is the humans aren’t so interested in distributing the fruits of the resulting efficiencies in an equitable manner.

elvinyung 8y ago
Well, sure, but I think there's something to be cautious about here. The legend goes that the Romans never found an economically useful application for the steam engine (the aeolipile invented by Heron of Alexandria) because they already relied on a massive labor force of slaves. But it's precisely this barrier that we've begun to cross that indicates there are some very old questions that we should be asking ourselves again. I think you and I agree that at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that this increased economic efficiency has the potential to improve everyone's wellbeing, not just concentrate wealth in the hands of a few.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  Yes, hopefully we can find a balance between a system that rewards effort and ingenuity at the same time as providing opportunity for everyone.
rayiner 8y ago
In thd gig economh, the machine isn’t doing any of the work. When I order something on instacart, it’s not functionally different from calling in an order to a human shopper. The machine isn’t doing any part of the shopping or driving. Indeed, instead of displacing human labor, like you suggest, it’s increasing the amount of work available by bringing previously non-market work into the market. The machine does that by reducing the transaction costs to make outsourcing that kind kind of labor feasible. Relevant reading: Ronald Coase’s Theory of the Firm.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  The machine (internet/instacart) is doing work, it's reducing the transacation cost so that you and the delivery person can make a deal. It’s just like an exchange making trading easier, it increases liquidity and facilitates transactions. “Non market” work seems like another word for labor you can’t afford. Rich people with drivers and butlers or whatever have had instacart forever. Having a central dispatch to relay what you want to a driver, have them go pick it up and deliver, and then re route them to the next one all while handling incoming calls is probably too expensive to offset the convenience of an individual not driving to Target and picking it up. But with a computer and some programming, you don’t need any dispatch, and you don’t waste time communicating what you need, which drives down the cost of getting something delivered to you so that it’s now affordable. The machine is doing the work of people that would have had to coordinate and pass all that information between two parties. Not to mention the risk of not being paid (taken care of by the payment card networks). Also, I’m not convinced these many of these “gig” companies are going to be around forever. Instacart might work in a few urban locales with a few rich young people with no families, but it’s far from proven that it’s valuable enough and cheap enough for most people.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    > The machine (internet/instacart) is doing work, it's reducing the transacation cost so that you and the delivery person can make a deal. It’s just like an exchange making trading easier, it increases liquidity and facilitates transactions. “Work” is different than transaction costs. The amount of human labor needed hasn’t changed in any meaningful way compared to what was needed before, so it’s not the reduction of labor demand through automation that’s at issue. What’s changed is, as the OP explained, that technology now permits more fluid allocation of that labor so as to reduce transaction costs. This is a different phenomenon from automation eliminating the need for actual work. > “Non market” work seems like another word for labor you can’t afford. Non-market work is a well understood term in economics for work households perform themselves, such as child care, etc. Technology that allows moving non-market work into the market doesn’t decrease labor opportunities, it increases them. That’s the opposite of your thesis. Again, two different phenomenon. A roomba is automation—it replaces the need for a human to vacuum and decreases the amount of human labor needed. An app that makes it easy to hire someone to clean dishes after a big party is not automation and doesn’t decrease the amount of human labor needed. > Rich people with drivers and butlers or whatever have had instacart forever. Yes, and the amount of human labor involved in that scenario was about the same as today. What changed was the transaction costs, enabling a shift from an employee relationship to a contractor relationship Read the Theory of the Firm. It addresses this issue directly.