3 ms·
Cheapness of labor is not necessary for the system the author is describing to work (although it's probably a factor in how that system is able to be the presen
by firethief 6y ago
Cheapness of labor is not necessary for the system the author is describing to work (although it's probably a factor in how that system is able to be the present equilibrium). The system in Quito may be less efficient (i.e. there may be waste, like extra guys with trucks waiting for customers), but it's also less efficient at concentrating capital. Whether wages are "low" depends on the ratio of those inefficiencies. I can imagine a world where the latter "inefficiency" is maintained as the waste is reduced and wages rise. It would require "gig economy" coordination tools to match capacity to demand efficiently, but the market tech would need to lack power over the workers, whether because of competition or regulation.
- duxup 6y agoI'm not sure the gig economy really is a good example of positive things as far as wadges / benefits and etc goes.
- firethief 6y agoFor the "gig economy" to become a good example of positive things as far as wadges / benefits and etc goes, the market tech would need to lack power over the workers, whether because of competition or regulation. That's why I'm not saying "look at Uber, Uber is wonderful." I'm saying I can imagine a system with the best of both worlds. The American political/economic climate hasn't got us there.
- duxup 6y agoI'm really skeptical of the idea that you could have everyday people hire other humans for cheap... and at the same time somehow they would make a good income / benefits / etc.
- masklinn 6y agoReminds me of Japan's "busy jobs". People paid at doing essentially nothing as a form (and instead) of welfare.