14 ms·

The entire model is labor arbitrage, with any employer obligation/cost removed. When nonprofits pop up to help gig workers determine if they are actually makin

The entire model is labor arbitrage, with any employer obligation/cost removed. When nonprofits pop up to help gig workers determine if they are actually making any income, the business plans seems pretty obvious.

jfoutz 8y ago
It seems like you're leaving out a bit about information asymmetry. maybe multi billon dollar companies don't have any extra facts that aren't available to somebody in the 'gig economy' but this [1] keeps ringing a bell. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons
- thatoneuser 8y ago
  Oh totally. Hell, lyft and Uber straight up withhold information for the explicit purpose of coaxing workers to do work they wouldn’t otherwise do.
  - ithinkinstereo 8y ago
    A hallmark of a scam is unnecessary obfuscation and complexity in the business model (i.e., how you get paid).
Pristina 8y ago
not the company's problem, the gig workers cannot into maths.
- johnchristopher 8y ago
  Neither can governments that promotes the uber-economy then. Or, god forbids, they are accomplices ?! /s
- watwut 8y ago
  It is their decision to take advantage of it. Moreover, most of these companies did disseminated and promoted half-truths and falsehood about how much people will earn and what costs are offloaded. When you knowingly manipulate people or lie to them, you have no business to complain when someone else comes in and talks openly about you not being truthful. People criticising and blaming companies eager for taking advantage of either naive or uninformed people is how the economic system becomes less vulnerable and how people learn what to be careful off. Openly criticizing these companies is how next workers become informed about traps like this.
  - kopos 8y ago
    Interestingly, in India, Uber paid drivers upwards of $1700, in in the initial 1-2 years, as incentives to get them onto the platform. Drivers took loans and mortgages to buy cars which they couldn't pay after the incentives were taken off. Lot of drivers went into debts and sold away their cars. The market has probably more stabilized now. But inspite of all the talk of tech, we are still looking at these platforms taking 25%-30%.
  - Pristina 8y ago
    It's each individual's own responsibility to consider all information before deciding to partake in any activity. failure to do so is their own fault.
barry-cotter 8y ago
It’s not entirely arbitraging labour costs or paying low wages. Look at Uber or Lyft. You can come to work whenever you want, for as long as you want, as often as you want as long as you have a good enough car. The convenience beats working at McDonald’s comfortably. I’m sure some of these companies were working off of new people realising it was a bad deal but there’s no way Uber or Lyft are. People aren’t reliably, exploitable stupid over long time periods.
- DanBC 8y ago
  > People aren’t reliably, exploitable stupid over long time periods. They don't have to be stupid to be exploitable. They just have to be in a desparate situation. In England people who claim unemployment benefit (Universal Credit (UC)) will lose that benefit if they refuse to take gig economy jobs. They're forced into these jobs by the state. And then, because of the way UC works they are forced to work as many hours as possible. The flexible bit doesn't work for them because UC doesn't work well for people doing variable hours part time. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmworpen/997/99704.htm https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwo... https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/25/universal-credit-self-employed-benefit-slash https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/25/universal-cr... https://www.ftadviser.com/protection/2018/03/29/meeting-the-needs-of-the-uk-s-gig-economy/ https://www.ftadviser.com/protection/2018/03/29/meeting-the-... https://www.litrg.org.uk/sites/default/files/Gig%20economy%20factsheet%20FINAL.pdf https://www.litrg.org.uk/sites/default/files/Gig%20economy%2...
  - orf 8y ago
    People on unemployment benefit are denied those benefits if they turn down employment? Oh no! While I'm not saying these gigs are exactly long term careers it's better for the state and for the person than not working.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      In England you can claim UC while working, if you do less than 16 hours per week and less than (I think) £120.50 per week. This is a route back into employment for people who've spent years out of work. The intent is to provide a ramp from "no work, full benefits", though "some work, some benefits", to "full time paid employment, no benefits". (in fact, with tax credits, many people in full time (over 16 hours per week) work are also getting state benefits). This ramp is broken by the gig economy because zero-hours contracts make it impossible for the state to know how much top-up benefit to pay month to month. This plunges people into debt and poverty. The gig economy employers benefit because they don't have to pay a lving wage, they don't need to compete for workers by offering sensible wages. This is an unintented distortion of the free-market. If you believe in free markets you should wish to see the end of this distortion.

jfoutz 8y ago

It seems like you're leaving out a bit about information asymmetry. maybe multi billon dollar companies don't have any extra facts that aren't available to somebody in the 'gig economy' but this [1] keeps ringing a bell. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

thatoneuser 8y ago
Oh totally. Hell, lyft and Uber straight up withhold information for the explicit purpose of coaxing workers to do work they wouldn’t otherwise do.
- ithinkinstereo 8y ago
  A hallmark of a scam is unnecessary obfuscation and complexity in the business model (i.e., how you get paid).

Pristina 8y ago

not the company's problem, the gig workers cannot into maths.

johnchristopher 8y ago
Neither can governments that promotes the uber-economy then. Or, god forbids, they are accomplices ?! /s
watwut 8y ago
It is their decision to take advantage of it. Moreover, most of these companies did disseminated and promoted half-truths and falsehood about how much people will earn and what costs are offloaded. When you knowingly manipulate people or lie to them, you have no business to complain when someone else comes in and talks openly about you not being truthful. People criticising and blaming companies eager for taking advantage of either naive or uninformed people is how the economic system becomes less vulnerable and how people learn what to be careful off. Openly criticizing these companies is how next workers become informed about traps like this.
- kopos 8y ago
  Interestingly, in India, Uber paid drivers upwards of $1700, in in the initial 1-2 years, as incentives to get them onto the platform. Drivers took loans and mortgages to buy cars which they couldn't pay after the incentives were taken off. Lot of drivers went into debts and sold away their cars. The market has probably more stabilized now. But inspite of all the talk of tech, we are still looking at these platforms taking 25%-30%.
- Pristina 8y ago
  It's each individual's own responsibility to consider all information before deciding to partake in any activity. failure to do so is their own fault.

barry-cotter 8y ago

It’s not entirely arbitraging labour costs or paying low wages. Look at Uber or Lyft. You can come to work whenever you want, for as long as you want, as often as you want as long as you have a good enough car. The convenience beats working at McDonald’s comfortably. I’m sure some of these companies were working off of new people realising it was a bad deal but there’s no way Uber or Lyft are. People aren’t reliably, exploitable stupid over long time periods.

DanBC 8y ago
> People aren’t reliably, exploitable stupid over long time periods. They don't have to be stupid to be exploitable. They just have to be in a desparate situation. In England people who claim unemployment benefit (Universal Credit (UC)) will lose that benefit if they refuse to take gig economy jobs. They're forced into these jobs by the state. And then, because of the way UC works they are forced to work as many hours as possible. The flexible bit doesn't work for them because UC doesn't work well for people doing variable hours part time. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmworpen/997/99704.htm https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwo... https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/25/universal-credit-self-employed-benefit-slash https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/25/universal-cr... https://www.ftadviser.com/protection/2018/03/29/meeting-the-needs-of-the-uk-s-gig-economy/ https://www.ftadviser.com/protection/2018/03/29/meeting-the-... https://www.litrg.org.uk/sites/default/files/Gig%20economy%20factsheet%20FINAL.pdf https://www.litrg.org.uk/sites/default/files/Gig%20economy%2...
- orf 8y ago
  People on unemployment benefit are denied those benefits if they turn down employment? Oh no! While I'm not saying these gigs are exactly long term careers it's better for the state and for the person than not working.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    In England you can claim UC while working, if you do less than 16 hours per week and less than (I think) £120.50 per week. This is a route back into employment for people who've spent years out of work. The intent is to provide a ramp from "no work, full benefits", though "some work, some benefits", to "full time paid employment, no benefits". (in fact, with tax credits, many people in full time (over 16 hours per week) work are also getting state benefits). This ramp is broken by the gig economy because zero-hours contracts make it impossible for the state to know how much top-up benefit to pay month to month. This plunges people into debt and poverty. The gig economy employers benefit because they don't have to pay a lving wage, they don't need to compete for workers by offering sensible wages. This is an unintented distortion of the free-market. If you believe in free markets you should wish to see the end of this distortion.