4 ms·
There's a yiddish version of that, but I don't remember exactly. Alte smatesh, noy-something. I have to disagree though. Not that I think you're incorrect. It'
by netcan 5y ago
There's a yiddish version of that, but I don't remember exactly. Alte smatesh, noy-something.
I have to disagree though. Not that I think you're incorrect. It's neither correct not incorrect. It's a reduction, or essentialization perhaps. Even if it is a correct reduction, it isn't a helpful one. Labour for hire sure isn't new, neither is exploitation. However the "gig economy" is a new (or newly common) mode of labour, like hourly vs salaried vs piecemeal... modes that existed in the past.
There are two approaches:
(1) We can argue about what the rules are, ignoring all evidence that the rules are in fact unclear. This has given the gig economy a good decade to operate without labour laws.
(2) We can recognize that laws are a decision. We can make these decisions. make new laws that take into account the technology, norms and industries of our time.
- lukeschlather 5y agoWhat is the distinction between the "gig economy" and piecemeal hourly work? I mean, it seems to me the only real difference is that they're billed to the minute which doesn't seem like a difference of kind to me. But then taxis that bill to the minute are not new either, the only difference is how jobs are assigned, the work and compensation is identical .
- netcan 5y agoThe distinction is whatever we decide it should be. Maybe they should be covered by the same category. The point is that once these existed, laws should have kept up.
- xboxnolifes 5y agoBut, why are we calling this work 'gig economy labor' and not 'piece work labor'? Why is there a conversation at all? Why are we not just saying "This is piece work, treat it as such". If they aren't different, there are no laws to be kept up. That's the question.