3 ms·

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

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?
  - toss1 7y ago
    Whether or not we call them "good", the fallacy is that if a person takes an exploitative job as their least-worst option, that this is somehow acceptable. Perhaps in some idealized distopia, but not in any kind of modern society that is sustainable. >>who gave Walmart the responsibility to provide their employees a "living amount" of money, and whose responsibility is it for the unemployed? The same govt that sets the minimum wage, pay 7 overtime requirements, work safety requirements, etc. The entire structure of worker protection was developed precisely because previous generations finally figured out that the arguments you make are empty - Allowing unfetterd exploitation of workers results in a few rich capitalists, horrific Dickensian living conditions for most, and ends in revolution with even worse conditions. If you don't want to "make value judgements", you need only to look at whether practices will sustainably improve society. However, by avoiding those value judgements and the answer above, you are also basically saying that it is perfectly OK with you that I took the title to your house for that 5gal of water and map. I wonder if you are comfortable with that kind of value judgement.

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?
- toss1 7y ago
  Whether or not we call them "good", the fallacy is that if a person takes an exploitative job as their least-worst option, that this is somehow acceptable. Perhaps in some idealized distopia, but not in any kind of modern society that is sustainable. >>who gave Walmart the responsibility to provide their employees a "living amount" of money, and whose responsibility is it for the unemployed? The same govt that sets the minimum wage, pay 7 overtime requirements, work safety requirements, etc. The entire structure of worker protection was developed precisely because previous generations finally figured out that the arguments you make are empty - Allowing unfetterd exploitation of workers results in a few rich capitalists, horrific Dickensian living conditions for most, and ends in revolution with even worse conditions. If you don't want to "make value judgements", you need only to look at whether practices will sustainably improve society. However, by avoiding those value judgements and the answer above, you are also basically saying that it is perfectly OK with you that I took the title to your house for that 5gal of water and map. I wonder if you are comfortable with that kind of value judgement.