The article doesn't begin right but it is pretty reasonable once you reach the last few paragraphs: "The real disruption would be something that renders the gi

The article doesn't begin right but it is pretty reasonable once you reach the last few paragraphs: "The real disruption would be something that renders the gig economy or servant class empty, because it lifts living standards for so many. Something that creates actual middle class jobs and lifts real family incomes across the board. In the past these have been government infrastructure programs, or opening up to free trade, or allowing more free movement of people. But those policies aren’t sexy and they don’t have an app. But we shouldn’t mistake gig economy company’s for more than what they are. They deliver convenience, not prosperity. They touch millions of lives, but only in a superficial way. As it is, however, the gig economy is a symptom of rising inequality, not a solution. For countries that haven’t had servants the difference seems truly revolutionary, but in reality they are just stepping back into the ‘developing’ world, hiding the ugly parts behind a gilded screen" In a way gig economies are even worse than servants since the worker is squeezed out of productivity in the most efficient manner, dehumanizing them in the process. The benefits however accrue to the customer and the aggregator since the individual gig worker can't really scale.