12 ms·
Worker-Owned Apps Are Trying to Fix the Gig Economy
- jasonlfunk 7y agoDespite the loaded exploitation rhetoric in the article, if competitors can come into the market that is better for the workers, that’s great. And if it raises the standards for the privately owned apps, that’s even better. This seems like a win all around.
- rmbryan 7y agoexploration =?> exploitation
- jasonlfunk 7y agoYes. Edited.
- ptah 7y agowhat if it makes it impossible for the "privately owned" apps to compete and wipes them out completely?
- jasonlfunk 7y agoWhy would that be a problem?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- throwaway_tech 7y agoThen that is the best case scenario. Let the exploitative founders and VCs test the market and find fit...then let the workers organize and steal their lunch.
- rubinelli 7y agoAn economist would say that customers and workers are capturing most of the value of the transaction, so that would be close to optimal.
- coldtea 7y agoThen we might have found a way to solve most of humanity's problems!
- M2Ys4U 7y agoJob done
- Nasrudith 7y agoThat is as much of a problem in itself as co-ops or literal cottage industries not being competitive with dedicated workforces. Sucks to be them but not a true problem to the economy overall. If they can't compete with their advantages maybe they shouldn't be in that business. Just being able to do something efficiently isn't an abuse.
- captainbland 7y agoNet gain for humanity
- danShumway 7y agoLet me rephrase that question in terms of software -- what happens if someone develops an Open Source product that works better than the proprietary alternative, and the proprietary alternatives get wiped out entirely? The short answer is that for-profit, privatized entities should not be privileged in competition. Community owned solutions, non-profit solutions, naturally occurring public alternatives to products, worker-owned and volunteer-maintained solutions, and so on -- these efforts are no less legitimate than a traditional Capitalist solution. If they produce better results than a VC-backed or privatized product, then they deserve to win. In my mind, the difference between a free market and Capitalism is that a free market is OK with Capitalists losing sometimes. It's good for businesses to compete not only with each other, but also with forces and coalitions outside of traditional markets. And worker-owned businesses aren't even that radical of an idea -- they're just a different way to manage the business and distribute profits. Open Source and nonprofits are much farther outside of traditional Capitalist markets than a worker-owned business is. I'm all for efforts like this.
- zozbot234 7y agoAll new businesses start out as purely worker-owned. Some of them just find it convenient to sell shares of the business (equity) in exchange for capital, but this need not apply to everyone. Indeed, the typical "app"-driven business has little reason to take any outside capital at all.
- WalterBright 7y ago> what happens if someone develops an Open Source product that works better than the proprietary alternative, and the proprietary alternatives get wiped out entirely? Well, we know what happens. Consider the compiler business. In the 80's, compilers cost real money. Today, compilers are free and are far better. Although in the 80's I once counted 30 independent C compiler vendors. Those companies all dwindled away one by one.
- Nasrudith 7y agoYeah - it would be a logical extension of disrupting gatekeepers in an efficient market. Also kind of obvious in retrospect when gig-workers or contractors require their own tools that they would be in a good position to subsitute for the rest of the company "chain". That makes them mobile and we already saw "multiapp" gig workers. Of course the hard part is that owing to mindshare these markets tend strongly towards winner takes most.
- wffurr 7y agoTo add some data to the "exploitation" argument, consider this: “Imagine developing a company specifically to take advantage of people’s ignorance of how expensive it really is to drive their own car. What would this company look like?“ (the answer is of course that it would look like very much like Uber or any other ridesharing company) https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/11/22/mr-money-mustache-uber-driver/ https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/11/22/mr-money-mustache...
- frockington1 7y agoThis seems like a fault by the individual being 'exploited'. I don't think it is the job of a corporation to run an a cost-benefit analysis tailored for watch individual. There is also no obligation to continue driving, so if the drivers cost-benefit isn't what they thought they can always find something else
- vernie 7y agoI'm guessing you love the way healthcare currently works in US. So many choices! Who doesn't love a combinatorial explosion?
- frockington1 7y agoI'm not as opposed to most people. I certainly enjoy all of the advances we've had in recent history. I do hate the government waster and subsidizing of the uninsured. If we could get rid of those we could mute many of the burdensome combinations
- thulecitizen 7y agoAre you serious with 'loaded exploitation rhetoric'? Consumer marketplace apps are black-boxes which completely disregard all the workers rights battles of our ancestors. To not see this is to put too much trust in digital tech as a magic fix to all problems.
- patrickaljord 7y ago> the workers rights battles of our ancestors. The consequence of these battles is that at least for low skill workers, all these jobs were shipped abroad (or just disappeared) where none of these rights exist. Creating huge unemployment, so now low skill workers have rights but no jobs and therefor make even less. The fact that people are willing to take these jobs is a sign that low skill workers are ok with having lower wages and less benefits if this means getting a job and a better pay. We could ban all these jobs of course but that would not give these low skill workers rights, it would just make them unemployed again.
- theaeolist 7y agoThis general point does not apply to cleaners, drivers, and most of the gig economy.
- patrickaljord 7y agoIt does apply, that's why I said: > all these jobs were shipped abroad (or just disappeared) If we start imposing heavy regulation on the gig economy, it will not be viable anymore, these companies will need to shut down and those jobs will disappear. As for jobs like cleaners or waitress, companies will hire much less of them to the strict minimum. Jobs that would have existed would disappear too which is why you get long wait and horrible service in French restaurants for example where minimum wage and employee tax are super high even though France was known to invent the saying "the customer is king" and offering top tier commercial service, not anymore. What I'm saying is that making the cost of work and hiring more expensive artificially always ends up in job losses and worse quality service. When I say artificially I mean because of government imposition, not market force (which is usually due to growth so not an issue).
- coding123 7y agoIn the tutoring space markup is about $65 per hour. Tutors are often making less than 25. I don't know if there are apps for it yet, but don't pay the middle man.
- SilasX 7y agoSorry for the nitpick, but I think you mean, "buyers pay $65" or "price after markup is $65"; markup is the difference between input price and sale price.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- coding123 7y agoNo worries about the nitpick! However, in the market of "In home" tutoring my wife was working for a company that was indeed charging around 85 to 90. Markup was 60-65, tutor was paid 20-25. (prices depended on quality of tutor).
- SilasX 7y agoOh yikes! I had just assumed you couldn't have meant a markup/price difference of $65! Thanks for the follow-up!
- WalterBright 7y agoBack in the 1980's when we sold compilers through the mail, we had deals with various mail order aggregators. They'd run full page ads with lists of software they were selling mail order, along with prices. I was horrified that they wanted us to supply them the product for less than half of what they were selling it for. No way, I thought, they're ripping us off. I was told that there was no other way. The reality of running an aggregator business is you have to double the wholesale cost in order to turn a profit. Most lay people terribly underestimate how much money it costs to run a business. And it was worth it for us because the aggregator was reaching far more customers than we could. Don't pay the middle man is nice in theory, but the middle man exists because they are worth the money.
- rmbryan 7y agomy question is, as a consumer, how can I find cooperative platforms as distinct from exploitive ones?
- toomuchtodo 7y agoGreat question. There doesn't seem to be a platform specific concept similar to "Certified Employee Owned" [1], but you might consider getting in touch with Certified EO to see if they would develop one. I too would be interested in using only non-exploitive platforms, bonus if it cuts the legs out from underneath the traditional VC funded platforms. [1] https://www.certifiedeo.com/eo/about https://www.certifiedeo.com/eo/about
- jawns 7y agoOne way is to do a google search for ".coop", which turns up a ton of cooperative organizations.
- aitchnyu 7y agoThey could make a directory. If a ZTaxi user opens the app in an unserved city, the app should recommend similar apps that serve the city. Cut out the search engine middle man.
- jacquesm 7y agoI'm not familiar with the ins and outs of app development, is it possible for one app to detect the presence of another? If yes then it won't take long before there will be retaliation.
- severine 7y agoSeems possible: https://sites.google.com/site/androidhowto/how-to-1/detect-if-an-app-is-installed https://sites.google.com/site/androidhowto/how-to-1/detect-i... Anyone can explain more?
- boomlinde 7y agoSounds like you are suggesting a clear cut antitrust case.
- OrangeMango 7y agoThat's the kind of restriction an employer would place on an employee...
- ska 7y agoEven if you could, you would run into 1099 issues (US specific) pretty quickly. I often see Uber/Lyft drivers monitoring multiple apps for example.
- aitchnyu 7y agoFacebook used Onavo security app to recognise WhatsApp as a growing and valuable platform to buy, for 19 billion though.
- cjg 7y agoSeize the means of production.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tantalor 7y agoIs it the car, or the app?
- diggan 7y agoThe service itself, the economic value of it. Probably would refer to the network and it's data, and the app. The car is irrelevant. Some might get a car provided, others might use their own. Focus is to make sure there is no fight between owners of the service and operators/users. Put them all on the same level (or simpler, make the operators the owners).
- m0zg 7y agoYou forgot to add: ??? Profit
- dang 7y agoPlease don't post unsubstantive comments here.
- sharemywin 7y agomy question is are these platforms(I'm including UBER in this) actually cartels? from a legal perspective? If they don't allow individuals to set pricing.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ptah 7y agohow are they stopping individuals from setting pricing. if anything it gives them more power than traditional gig economy apps
- sharemywin 7y agoI talking about price fixing. we're multiple sellers collude to fix pricing. Up & Go cleaners earn $25 per hour, more than double what workers typically earned independently, according to Project Manager Sylvia Morse. While apps generally take a cut of 20 percent or more, Up & Go only takes 5 percent, which it then reinvests in the platform.
- ptah 7y agoexplain to me how that is bad? Also it is not multiple sellers. Up & go is one entity just like Uber
- sharemywin 7y agoI was more asking is it illegal? Horizontal Price Fixing Horizontal price fixing occurs when companies decide to fix prices or price levels for a good or service at a premium or a discount. For example, several retail companies may fix the sale prices of television sets at a premium thereby earning higher profits. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pricefixing.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pricefixing.asp
- ptah 7y ago
- roschdal 7y agoThis is a wonderful idea
- makeskyblue 7y agoI am from former communist country so I can smell communist from a distance. vice.com is 100% communist.
- joshuaellinger 7y agoAustin Taxi Co-op is owned by the drivers. They have a decent app and are (slowly) working their way up to competing with Uber/Lyft. They've got the booking side down well enough but haven't tackled payment. It will be interesting to see how that shakes out in the next five years.
- sfifs 7y agoI'm surprised there's not more of this kind of worker co-op apps. These gig economy apps largely cater to region specific markets - so having enough platform scale to cover an urban agglomeration seems is good enough. If members of a profession in a city choose to go with a specific app, the demand tends to follow by word of mouth. Seems like there's a business model in building white label apps for co-ops and unions on a costs plus kind of model.
- rjtavares 7y agoGig Economy + Economies of Scale + Open Source make cooperatives something that makes a lot of sense economically. It takes a lot of organization effort though, and I don't know who could be the leader on that movement (unions would make sense, but I don't think they're entrepreneurial enough for it).
- TremendousJudge 7y agoIt doesn't seem that hard -- the things needed are a couple of free software nerds that build some sort of "UberFactory", and a city big enough where some workers unionize and are the first to create their own Uber with the UberFactory. After that other cities can copy them, and the only cost for the workers is to keep the servers running. Well, and customer support. They should be able to pay this with surplus and still get better salaries.
- rjtavares 7y agoDon't underestimate the amount of work and coordination needed to set it in motion.
- save_ferris 7y agoAustin got a non-profit ridesharing app after Lyft and Uber left a few years ago. It was pretty solid, although the mobile UX wasn't quite as good (which was to be expected). When Uber and Lyft came back, they artificially lowered prices by subsidizing rides to claw business back from RideAustin, and it worked. Within a few months, RideAustin was pretty much defunct and hard to use since drivers were using the other apps. Word of mouth only works when the local option is also the most lucrative. The problem with gig apps is the company can take their VC cash and underbid the market to weed out competition.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- moretai 7y agoI don't get it. If there is an app that take a minimal cut, like a craigslist, wouldn't that be better for the company in the long run than suffering the PR disaster and distaste that will inevitably come after fucking over your sole reason of use?
- brenden2 7y agoIt would be interesting to make a unionization app for tech workers, too. Something like blind where you can share your salary history, insider stories, etc, and use it for leverage when negotiating salary. The one thing I don't like about blind is that most of the discussions are very low quality, but you could fix that by disabling the discussion part, focusing on salary data, and perhaps company reviews (like Glassdoor) anonymously.
- tathougies 7y agoOn the contrary, there is no exploitation. A driver for uber (or dasher for doordash, or whatever) is legally completely allowed to create their own app to take their own orders. This is because they are independent contractors -- businesses, from a legal perspective, doing business with other businesses. As such, neither uber nor doordash nor anyone else can prevent its ICs from joining other networks (hence why many drive for lyft and uber). It would be exploitation if these individuals were employees, which is what California has recently forced in that state. This state-mandated exploitation is immoral and unjust, because it precludes workers from doing things like this. In California, now exploited employees would first have to quit their gig job in order to join a new app that benefits them. This creates an artificial moat around starting a new app because often times these individuals would not have enough capital to be able to finance even short periods of unemployment and migration to a new platform. That is really sad.
- nacho2sweet 7y agoIt was cool when Uber financed all those bad car leases (because they had a certain level of new car) and made a bunch drivers indentured servants. Making them drive more and more while they cut the driver pay rate.
- tomtheelder 7y agoThere is extreme exploitation, due to independent contractors not being afforded almost any worker protections. Each gig employer has no incentive, legal or otherwise, to provide for their workers. In their efforts to minimize labor costs they can employ tactics like reducing wages below minimum wage, offering no benefits, discriminating at will, and of course offering less work than could possibly sustain an employee. This last one is made particularly easy because of the ability of ICs to work for many operators: the employers know their workers will just pick up extra work on another platform, often with a cruel total of worked hours for minimal pay. In California, these workers will now receive some of the protections offered to others. That is not a perfect situation or anything, but the current state of ICs in the gig economy is _abominable_. They will be free to seek new employment without quitting much like any other worker. Yes they wont be able to work oppressive hours for multiple employers, none of whom are providing for them. That is not a bad thing. The gig economy is an unmitigated disaster. I'm not sure CA's solution is perfect, but it's a _big_ improvement.
- say_it_as_it_is 7y agoDon't forget what happened to Walnut when it priced its moving services for fairness and equity: https://medium.com/@nickbkim/why-were-closing-walnut-a452225e7127 https://medium.com/@nickbkim/why-were-closing-walnut-a452225... Everyone wants fairness and equity until the time comes for each to pay for it. I'm saying this in a disappointed tone as I really would like platform cooperatives to work but they're going to fail to compete in a relatively open market of a capitalist society. Also, everyone working in IT for these platforms becomes the exploited. It's inverted exploitation. Programmer: you're being paid less than what you'd make in a free market. If you're not getting your flat cleaned twice a week as a member of this cooperative, you're doing it wrong. You, my friend, are being taken to the proverbial cleaners.
- antonkm 7y agoThere's more to life then money. Being able to provide others with a fair and better platform would make me accept a paycut.
- say_it_as_it_is 7y agoIt's easy to give up what you don't have. A web dev in Sweden has a social safety net to maintain a quality of life that is unobtainable in the U.S. without earning as much as possible. It is never at someone else's loss but at the discretion of managers based on the value each gives to the organization.
- antonkm 7y agoI'm sorry, I don't really follow your comment. > It is never at someone else's loss but at the discretion of managers based on the value each gives to the organization Can you expand on this?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- sharemywin 7y agoI'm not sure I understand how IT workers would be exploited? 2010–2012 Instagram launches on the iPhone and grows to 13 employees and to 30 million users (closing at $50 million at a $500 million valuation). It eventually gets acquired by Facebook in 2012. Seems like if you scaled like that you could still pay devs pretty well with minimal costs per transactions.
- WalterBright 7y agoThe great thing about free market capitalism is that people can form worker cooperatives anytime they want.
- nickpp 7y agoThis pretty much sums up the entrepreneurial impact of socialism for me: "You can be a socialist under capitalism but you can’t be a capitalist under socialism."
- WalterBright 7y ago"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under socialism, it's the other way around!"
- BrainInAJar 7y ago"you can choose not to own slaves under slavery, but you can't choose to own slaves without it"
- MadWombat 7y agoI just checked Up & Go site for prices. I am sure, Handy are terrible, exploitative, capitalist pigs, but they clean my place for about $40-50 less than Up & Go just quoted me. I think I am going to stick with the pigs for now.
- dsalzman 7y agoGym owners should band together to make a cooperative owned alternative to MindBody. It’s a disaster. Any group of companies that are hyper regional and don’t compete should try this. Same thing with restaurants and Opentable/Ordering Apps.
- ilaksh 7y agoDecentralization technologies should help with efforts like this.