5 ms·

I've had nagging doubts about this narrative ever since the first exposés about Uber were coming out. 1) What job would the subject have been working say, 4 ye

I've had nagging doubts about this narrative ever since the first exposés about Uber were coming out. 1) What job would the subject have been working say, 4 years ago, before instacart expanded to the entire US? Would that job have been better? 2) Did Instacart destroy that other potential job, leaving Instacart as the only option? I guess these are variations on the theme of "No one forced you to take this job". I'm all for these news articles being written, and for workers banding together to demand better treatment. But at some point we have to realize that if the company is not destroying other industries and creating monopolies, then one can just choose to work somewhere else. Even better, one could try to gain the skills necessary for obtaining less contingent work.

toss1 7y ago
Two Issues First, the problem is described in the article but not specifically called out It is Bait-and-Switch. The initial wages are rather generous, enough to get workers to move to their platform from other potential employers. The initial rate of $22 to deliver a basket of groceries looks pretty doable, and if you can do a couple per hour, likely reasonably profitable. Now it's down to $3. Not even close to any minimum or sustainable wage. They committed to one sort of condition, and then are screwed, sunk costs, missed opportunities, etc. This has happened even worse under Uber, where drivers took out car loans assuming one pay structure, then Uber changes the deal... Second, the trope that if someone accepts a low payment, it must be OK. At a theoretical level, that might be true, but the theory makes the bad assumption that all actors in the economy have equal power in the transaction. This assumption is massively false. The vast difference in power between these workers vs the SV corps is exactly what allows the exploitation. The choice to be exploited is only marginally less horrible than the other choices. For a clearer and more extreme example, you are lost in a desert dying of dehydration, I drive by with a 5gal jug of water and a map to guide you to safety. I say: "hand over the title to your house and I'll give you both" - will you do it? Of course you will, losing your house is less bad than losing your life. Does that mean that it is a free and fair transaction? Not even close. What forces them to take the job is the paucity of other options. There's plenty of research on how poverty is extremely expensive, and these companies are exploiting that.
- virtuous_signal 7y ago
  Agreed on the bait and switch. It is wrong. But the only reason it settles at such a low equilibrium is that people still decide that it's worth it. My unease with this focus completely on gig economy jobs is that they are all new. There was no Uber, Instacart, Lime, etc. a mere 10 years ago. What would Uber drivers be complaining about if Uber did not exist? Perhaps about how inflexible and low-paid some fast food or grocery store jobs are. But the fact that they don't switch to those jobs now, is proof that they consider their gig job better, whether due to flexibility or higher pay. Is there a structural problem with the economy as a whole? Sure -- what I'm saying is that people will complain about whichever employer employs lower-skilled workers, whether it's Walmart back then or Uber right now. But I don't think there is anything uniquely evil about Uber.
  - toss1 7y ago
    Part of the reason they don't switch to other jobs is that squandering years on gig jobs does zero for your resume. The logic above is simply restating the same fallacy that allows for the exploitation -- just because there's nothing better, it means that they are good. The fact is, that in a modern society, any job that does not allow it's workers to make a living wage is not only exploitative, but it also constitutes welfare for the employer -- the taxpayers subsidize the companies to the extent that they subsidize their workers. WalMart has actual classes on how to get govt benefits. If the business isn't viable providing a living wage, it is not viable in a modern society.
    - virtuous_signal 7y ago
      I don't think I've committed that fallacy because I've never called these jobs "good" even if they are, for a particular person, the best among alternatives. Whether a business deserves to survive based on how it treats its lowest rung of workers requires a lot of value judgments I'm not prepared to make. Off the top of my head, Walmart provides access to low prices (saving money) to orders of magnitudes more customers, than workers it exploits. Their current starting salary is $11/hr. Whose job is it to make sure someone has enough money to live on? The term "living wage" ignores those who for some reason or other don't work. Who gave Walmart the responsibility to provide their employees a "living amount" of money, and whose responsibility is it for the unemployed?
asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
Agreed. This quote also really stood out to me: > “We are controlled. We are treated like employees but without the perks,” Jennifer Cotten, a Los Angeles area–based shopper, told me. Ain't a whole lot of perks being a part-time, entry-level employee at McDonalds. Being an employee is no guarantee of financial safety or stability. I think at least some of these gig workers are very confused about what's going to happen if their "employers" are forced to classify them as employees. Namely, I think everyone believes that they'll be kept on, and that doesn't seem especially likely to me.
- virtuous_signal 7y ago
  Just to make it clear that I'm not trying to kick anyone who's down: all of these jobs sound terrible. And when all your choices for work are terrible then the word "choice" is too generous. I wouldn't wish the stress or instability of unskilled labor on anyone I know. But I think people's frustration with inequality and how the economy isn't working for most people, is just finding the easiest target, which right now happens to be the gig economy. McDonald's provides cheap food for everyone. Uber means no one will go back to phoning a taxi/waiting 45 minutes for one due to the artificial scarcity of medallions. They are here to stay. Things (unemployment as you mention) would be even worse without them.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    For sure. We need a safety net for these folks. But destroying the value created by these companies is not an efficient or even sufficient mechanism for realizing that future.

toss1 7y ago

Two Issues First, the problem is described in the article but not specifically called out It is Bait-and-Switch. The initial wages are rather generous, enough to get workers to move to their platform from other potential employers. The initial rate of $22 to deliver a basket of groceries looks pretty doable, and if you can do a couple per hour, likely reasonably profitable. Now it's down to $3. Not even close to any minimum or sustainable wage. They committed to one sort of condition, and then are screwed, sunk costs, missed opportunities, etc. This has happened even worse under Uber, where drivers took out car loans assuming one pay structure, then Uber changes the deal... Second, the trope that if someone accepts a low payment, it must be OK. At a theoretical level, that might be true, but the theory makes the bad assumption that all actors in the economy have equal power in the transaction. This assumption is massively false. The vast difference in power between these workers vs the SV corps is exactly what allows the exploitation. The choice to be exploited is only marginally less horrible than the other choices. For a clearer and more extreme example, you are lost in a desert dying of dehydration, I drive by with a 5gal jug of water and a map to guide you to safety. I say: "hand over the title to your house and I'll give you both" - will you do it? Of course you will, losing your house is less bad than losing your life. Does that mean that it is a free and fair transaction? Not even close. What forces them to take the job is the paucity of other options. There's plenty of research on how poverty is extremely expensive, and these companies are exploiting that.

virtuous_signal 7y ago
Agreed on the bait and switch. It is wrong. But the only reason it settles at such a low equilibrium is that people still decide that it's worth it. My unease with this focus completely on gig economy jobs is that they are all new. There was no Uber, Instacart, Lime, etc. a mere 10 years ago. What would Uber drivers be complaining about if Uber did not exist? Perhaps about how inflexible and low-paid some fast food or grocery store jobs are. But the fact that they don't switch to those jobs now, is proof that they consider their gig job better, whether due to flexibility or higher pay. Is there a structural problem with the economy as a whole? Sure -- what I'm saying is that people will complain about whichever employer employs lower-skilled workers, whether it's Walmart back then or Uber right now. But I don't think there is anything uniquely evil about Uber.
- toss1 7y ago
  Part of the reason they don't switch to other jobs is that squandering years on gig jobs does zero for your resume. The logic above is simply restating the same fallacy that allows for the exploitation -- just because there's nothing better, it means that they are good. The fact is, that in a modern society, any job that does not allow it's workers to make a living wage is not only exploitative, but it also constitutes welfare for the employer -- the taxpayers subsidize the companies to the extent that they subsidize their workers. WalMart has actual classes on how to get govt benefits. If the business isn't viable providing a living wage, it is not viable in a modern society.
  - virtuous_signal 7y ago
    I don't think I've committed that fallacy because I've never called these jobs "good" even if they are, for a particular person, the best among alternatives. Whether a business deserves to survive based on how it treats its lowest rung of workers requires a lot of value judgments I'm not prepared to make. Off the top of my head, Walmart provides access to low prices (saving money) to orders of magnitudes more customers, than workers it exploits. Their current starting salary is $11/hr. Whose job is it to make sure someone has enough money to live on? The term "living wage" ignores those who for some reason or other don't work. Who gave Walmart the responsibility to provide their employees a "living amount" of money, and whose responsibility is it for the unemployed?

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago

Agreed. This quote also really stood out to me: > “We are controlled. We are treated like employees but without the perks,” Jennifer Cotten, a Los Angeles area–based shopper, told me. Ain't a whole lot of perks being a part-time, entry-level employee at McDonalds. Being an employee is no guarantee of financial safety or stability. I think at least some of these gig workers are very confused about what's going to happen if their "employers" are forced to classify them as employees. Namely, I think everyone believes that they'll be kept on, and that doesn't seem especially likely to me.

virtuous_signal 7y ago
Just to make it clear that I'm not trying to kick anyone who's down: all of these jobs sound terrible. And when all your choices for work are terrible then the word "choice" is too generous. I wouldn't wish the stress or instability of unskilled labor on anyone I know. But I think people's frustration with inequality and how the economy isn't working for most people, is just finding the easiest target, which right now happens to be the gig economy. McDonald's provides cheap food for everyone. Uber means no one will go back to phoning a taxi/waiting 45 minutes for one due to the artificial scarcity of medallions. They are here to stay. Things (unemployment as you mention) would be even worse without them.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  For sure. We need a safety net for these folks. But destroying the value created by these companies is not an efficient or even sufficient mechanism for realizing that future.