5 ms·

I'm torn on the whole gig economy topic. On one hand I sympathize with the drivers, in the precariousness of their work. And of course we all want to make more

• adrianN 6y ago
  If a business doesn't make economic sense without exploiting workers, maybe hat business just shouldn't exist.
  • yibg 6y ago
    While that's true, where does that leave the workers? If we consider the benefits of the drivers, does Uber and Lyft going out of business help them? Seems like what they (or at least the driver in the article) wants is for Uber to keep paying him, but just pay more.
  • gen3 6y ago
    Thats pretty dismissive to the problem at hand. Uber could run an operation with full time employees and benefits. The downside is that they would have to hire less people, those people would have to work set hours, and there would be a good chance they pull out of rural markets. For many Uber drivers, the flexibility is the selling point. You could work 60 hours, or you could work 3. You can work only during the weekends or during the summer and still maintain your regular job. Like many things in life, this problem is more nuanced. I'm curious where it will go.
  • bhupy 6y ago
    There's a lot of nuance at play here. To what degree are the drivers being "exploited"? There's no doubt that there exist some that rely almost entirely on app-based gig work for their livelihood, but is that true for the majority of them? Finally, if an ideology can be quoted in a single pithy quote, maybe it isn't sophisticated enough to stand up to scrutiny.
  • scarface74 6y ago
    We could say the same thing about unprofitable startups that aren’t forced to worry about profits. If a healthcare system is based on you having to get benefits through your job, maybe we need a better health care system.
• lokar 6y ago
  But at least for black car drivers, there was a sustainable business in place before Uber. Why does Uber get to destroy that?
  • yibg 6y ago
    Black car as a niche possibly, but it was also a very narrow niche. Taxis as a whole I'm not sure how sustainable it was. Taxi drivers weren't exactly rolling in cash. A lot of the ones I've spoken too were also exploited drivers that rents a medallion from rent seekers and they don't make much more than minimum wage if even minimum wage. Seems to be Uber just opened up the market so that it's more accessible and arguable better quality. So the incentives of hiring a black car is greatly diminished. If uber and lyft disappears, some of the drivers may go drive black cars sure, but I think most will be driving taxis or looking for work else where.
    • lokar 6y ago
      Yeah, from what I have read in most cities the taxi regulator had been captured by non-drivers and was pretty exploitative, and provided really bad service. But I used black cars before Uber, and after. Uber made it more convenient, but at a big cost to the drivers. While breaking the law.
      • yibg 6y ago
        Not just more convenient, but also much more accessible. How many people had access to black cars pre Uber and how long did it take for a car to arrive? But besides that, most uber drives won't become black car drivers if uber disappears. Most probably won't even be taxi drivers. They'll go look for some other work (which is presumably worse, otherwise they'd already be doing it) or just become unemployed.
• liability 6y ago
  If we had universal healthcare, it would be easier for companies like Uber to hire people on a full time basis, while also making full-time status less important to workers; a win-win as I see it.
• blisterpeanuts 6y ago
  Why not let the markets decide? If Uber/Lyft win this fight over "gig" workers versus employees, then it becomes a question of how much the gig workers will tolerate. If ride sharing is just not a sustainable income, people will find other work, and the number of gig workers competing for riders will drop. If there aren't enough drivers, Uber/Lyft will be forced to raise the pay to attract people. Good old fashioned free market economics.
  • yibg 6y ago
    Yes that's one view of it. That if drivers aren't happy with driving for uber as it is well then don't drive for uber. On the other hand that's true for the general labor market too, yet we do have minimum wage in place for a reason. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I don't think it's quite as simple as let the market sort it out.
  • jayd16 6y ago
    Market forces are imperfect. Market forces decided child labor and unsafe working conditions were just fine. You can argue that you don't like some specific regulation or that its failing to meet the moment but there's plenty of examples of why "let the market decide" wasn't good enough in the past (as well as plenty of examples it was the perfect solution).
    • liability 6y ago
      Markets should be considered a tool. Frequently a powerful and useful tool, but I don't think there has ever been a tool that's the right tool for every purpose. There are a lot of problems that markets just aren't a good tool for solving. If a problem calls for screws, put down the hammer.
    • r00fus 6y ago
      Not to mention slavery. In fact a large part of what happened world wide in the past few centuries revolved around the slave trade. That's one example of what happens when market forces are allowed free rein.
  • deleted 6y ago
• thanhhaimai 6y ago
  A setup that is better than the 2 above (I'm not claiming optimal setup): 1) Universal Healthcare, regardless of employment status 2) Keep the drivers contractors, allowing them to work multiple jobs if they like. 3) Tax the income over 5mil a year more aggressively. In the end: 1) Everyone gets healthcare. All the drivers have flexible working hours, and work as hard as they like. They gain healthcare,but they don't get better pay. 3) Companies like Uber can keep operating well. Only their rich executives get more tax. 4) Decouple healthcare from the job, lowering the barrier for people to abandon bad jobs and move to the next one. It has a healthy benefit for the economy as a whole, allowing the employees to vote with their feet on whether the business is good. In the situation, both side asks for all the cake and eat it too. The setup above is IMHO a better compromise. Opinions are my owns.
  • yibg 6y ago
    I agree. This shifts the curve so that the burden becomes lower all around. I just don't think this is realistically achievable any time soon.
  • mattmanser 6y ago
    To be frank, the healthcare thing is a US problem (admittedly this is about California). But in countries where that's a solved problem then the problem becomes Uber/Lyft have no duty of care for sickness or holidays, they're doging other labor laws. So in the UK, the gig economy argument is focused on that instead, no sickness/holiday pay means drivers are working when they shouldn't, or ending up broke if a long-term illness hits. There's even been contractors being fined for being sick because they're unable to do deliveries. Which fundamentally goes against the social contract companies are supposed to have in the EU, making them very parasitic. Then again, most American companies are coming off as extremely parasitic in the EU, doging taxes, etc.
    • kazen44 6y ago
      >So in the UK, the gig economy argument is focused on that instead, no sickness/holiday pay means drivers are working when they shouldn't, or ending up broke if a long-term illness hits. There's even been contractors being fined for being sick because they're unable to do deliveries. Which fundamentally goes against the social contract companies are supposed to have in the EU, making them very parasitic. This is the major pain point. Uber and Lyft see their employees as contracters and thus do not pay their fair dues in maintaining the healthcare and social system (while still getting the majority of the benefits from it). It might be more beneficial from a finanicial perspective for uber's shareholders, but it ruins the social prospect of the community as a whole in the longterm.
• throwaway45349 6y ago
  > Drivers want benefits and better pay Are you sure? California seems to be speaking for these people. I would like to see a middle ground where drivers can explicitly mark Uber as their job and get benefits. Either way, as an Englishman this just strikes me as a negative side-effect of the terrible US system without single payer healthcare.
• charwalker 6y ago
  If the business is not profitable when following regulations and laws on employee rights then it will dissolve unless some group is willing to fund the red ink. In this case, that long term may be self driving cars or the value of the ecosystem and install base. But most American companies operate in ways that are extremely anti-employee and concentrate wealth at the top, if successful. Many of them could not operate in other first world nations. Could you image some employers you've had planning for team members to have an $11 hour minimum wage, up to 6 weeks of paid sick leave or up to 70% for more time, 24 days of vacation to start, 6 weeks off before giving birth and up to 8 weeks after (paid) for maternal and paternal leave, and more strictly followed regulations on worker protected classes/benefits/hours. EX: https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/employee-rights.html https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/employee-rights.html My employer could because they offer benefits close to much of the EU benefits package from the start, with relatively good medical/etc and minimal premiums. Could yours? Could McDonalds? Could Uber?
  • yibg 6y ago
    If you add enough conditions and move the hurdle higher you can always force some business to be no longer viable. If you make minimum wage $30 an hour most retail business are no longer viable. Doesn't really speak to what should happen or where the line is though. In fact having a higher burden probably benefits more established businesses over upstarts and SMBs.
• jabyess 6y ago
  The real answer is that cars are incredibly expensive in many ways - vehicle maintenance, infrastructure maintenance, pollution, etc. Taxis are often 2-3x more expensive than ridesharing because that's what the cost is to pay someone to drive you around, and maintain a private vehicle. The solution should involve reducing the need of private vehicles. But that's a much bigger conversation.
  • novok 6y ago
    They're expensive because supply is explicitly limited by a license limit and the taxi license holders extract monopoly rents. On top of that they are often in cahoots with local politicians and form a symbolic relationships where politicians limit their competition in exchange for political support, with organized crime connections that are too petty for most federal investigators to take notice. Actual taxi drivers are paid shit too. Often have to pay something like $3000/month to rent the license & car from the actual license owner as independent contractors, at the end of the month you end up with Uber-esque pay anyway. Talk to a taxi driver and ask them how it actually works, it might surprise you.