8 ms·

The grandparent deserves a good rebuttal, and I don't think this is very good. This comment is effectively saying that the gig worker is in fact not a free agen

The grandparent deserves a good rebuttal, and I don't think this is very good. This comment is effectively saying that the gig worker is in fact not a free agent by using analogies like slavery and indentured servitude, but these analogies don't map well to the gig worker's economic position. I'm going to second the GP's request for a convincing argument, as I've also yet to see one.

frereubu 4y ago
I didn’t read this as a rebuttal, it’s pointing out the logical fallacies in the structure of the GP’s argument, so criticising it for not offering a rebuttal is slightly missing the point. They certainly aren’t saying that Uber drivers are in an identical situation to slaves.
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  But there aren't any fallacies in the GP's argument. And it is quite directly making an absurd and unsupportable statement regarding indentured servitude for a job opportunity that is undeniably no strings attached.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > People are not agents of free will, and any sub-utopic framework they have to participate in is immoral? This is so fallacious that it almost doesn't parse as English (largely imo because it's been fluffed up to hide the utterly commonplace "so you're saying everything is wrong unless it's perfect?" strawman.)
    - kryogen1c 4y ago
      It's intended to be a steelman and is a rephrasing of an argument said to me in the past; you could dig it up in my comment history from a previous uber discussion should you be so inclined. Regardless, feel free to ignore my strawman and tell me the real argument.
      - thfuran 4y ago
        >It's intended to be a steelman I think maybe you've misunderstood steelmanning. It's not about taking an argument to the absolute extreme, it's about constructing the most convincing and effective form of the argument.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - jakelazaroff 4y ago
        The real argument is that gig employers have found a way to skirt regulations protecting “real” employees. And that the people who suffer from this are primarily in an economic position such that they don’t have much of a choice but to accept those conditions. That doesn’t mean “any sub-utopic framework they have to participate in is immoral”, it just means this particular one is.
        throwaway09223 4y ago
        "Real employees" have not historically done these jobs. Your assertion is simply not true.
        ada1981 4y ago
        Uber replaced taxi cabs, which had some of the most historic Union protections in American history.
        throwaway09223 4y ago
        Sorry, no. These exact same complaints have been swirling around for decades before Uber came on the scene: https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2017/12/12/taxi-drivers-employees-independent-contractors/ https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2017/12/12/taxi-drivers-emplo... The only change is that Uber grew the market and popularized hiring cars, and the state of California decided to start attacking its own tech industry. There's a lot of hypocrisy here. If the state truly had worker's interests at heart it would be looking at the farming industry, not ridesharing.
  - ckw 4y ago
    The indentured servitude statement is apt: the GP implies that willful entrance into a contract of employment is by virtue of this willfulness incapable of being exploitative. But indentured servitude is entered into in the same manner, and few would deny the exploitative nature of indentured servitude.
    - throwaway09223 4y ago
      No, it isn't. There is no contract in this scenario whatsoever, equitable or otherwise. It's an absurd analogy.
      - ckw 4y ago
        Do you mean gig workers enter into no contract, or indentured servants entered into no contract, or something else? Indentured Servitude: ‘Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years. The contract, called an "indenture", may be entered voluntarily for eventual compensation or debt repayment, or it may be imposed as a judicial punishment.’ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude As for Uber drivers: it’s pretty hard to be an independent contractor without entering into a contract.
        throwaway09223 4y ago
        Obviously I mean there's no contract demanding ongoing work performance from Uber drivers. Drivers can stop at any time. The only terms stipulate how they can work and under what terms, should they choose to do so. It is the polar opposite of an arrangement which demands continuing performance. It's even less restrictive than a typical employer-employee relationship.
        ckw 4y ago
        GGP: How is it exploitative if the worker willfully enters into the contract? GP: But indentured servants enter willfully into their contracts, and indentured servitude is exploitative. So how is the willful nature of gig work relevant to the question of whether it is exploitative? You: GP has equated gig work with indentured servitude, and they are in no way comparable, because gig workers can quit whenever they choose. Me: GP did not equate indentured servitude and gig work, they used indentured servitude as a tool to show the flawed reasoning of GGP. You: Gig work is nothing like indentured servitude, because gig workers can quit whenever they want, and indentured servants can’t. Do you see the problem here?
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  It's asserting there are logical fallacies, by calling the arguments "shallow", "straw man", and bemoaning how talk like this is dragging down HN quality. But I didn't see any pointing out of logical fallacies among the condescension.
- picsao 4y ago
pydry 4y ago
>these analogies don't map well to the gig worker's economic position. They do though. Gig workers are almost always in a very economically precarious position which Uber takes advantage of in precisely the same way that employers of indentured servitude do. If the US had full employment and decent unemployment benefits (like it used to) jobs like these wouldnt exist.
- ghufran_syed 4y ago
  “ If the US had full employment and decent unemployment benefits (like it used to) jobs like these wouldn’t exist.” I think that’s the “utopia” gp is referring to. All this will do is force people to spend time and money forming corporations so that the uber corporation (for example) can contract directly with another corporation (most likely a one-employee s-corp) which will “employ” the driver. Same economic effect, but just with extra friction and cost for people who in general don’t have a lot of money to spare
  - thfuran 4y ago
    >which will “employ” the driver. Same economic effect, but just with extra friction and cost for people who in general don’t have a lot of money to spare ...and all the rights that come with being an employee, for all that they're not so great in the US.
    - ghufran_syed 4y ago
      yes, but the “employee rights” will be between the driver and the driver’s own corporation - how does that help the driver if there isn’t enough money coming from the contracting company (eg Uber) to pay for those benefits?
- actionablefiber 4y ago
  > If the US had full employment and decent unemployment benefits (like it used to) jobs like these wouldnt exist. We don't, though, and that has much deeper causes than the existence of gig companies. A large swath of the American voting public supports political candidates who oppose providing an adequate backstop for people balancing on a knife edge. I think there's a legitimate market for people who want to earn cash in their spare time on their own schedule and gig companies seem like a good fit for those people, such as people who already have stable employment or cannot work regular hours for one reason or other. Very few industries/companies offer that level of flexibility to their workers. The issue is that gig companies are also gutting already-existing labor markets by burning investor cash to undercut established competitors, so people who have stable employment find themselves forced into precarity and turn to gig work due to the lack of full time employment in the industry combined with the lack of adequate support in the American social safety net.
jorvi 4y ago
Gig work normalizes the loss of the overall labor protections / amenities that were wrought so hard during the 19th and 20th century. Here in The Netherlands flexible labor and temporary rental contracts were introduced last decade, they were meant to increase the fluidity of both markets and take up a small amount of overall contracts, but have started to dominate both of them. Being on either basically erodes any certainty you could have had as a foundation to build your life on. Gig work is even worse than flexible contracts. Not only can you be ditched at any moment, in many ways you are considered self-employed which strips you of so many protections normally afforded to you. And whereas self-employed software developers (read: freelancers) are in an extremely powerful economic position, the usual gig worker has almost zero leverage. ‘Nuff said.
kareemsabri 4y ago
I don't think the GP does deserve a good rebuttal tbh, it's a pretty weak argument that I have a hard time believing someone could really think. The argument is, because these people "willingly" took the job, they cannot be being taken advantage of? I don't understand why people think "free will" means you cannot be taken advantage of. People can have both free will, and real economic / physical / legal constraints in my life that people could take advantage of if they are in a position to do so. It happens every single day all over the world. I'll take a stab at a strong argument for gig workers being taken advantage of. I don't think it describes _every single_ gig worker, but I'm sure there are some for whom it's true. There are individuals in precarious economic positions. They need income to survive, they are living one week to the next (meaning they pay rent weekly, and have no excess money at the end of the week). They need to provide for their families, maybe send money home to their families in another country because they are immigrants. Stuff like that. You can talk to them yourself, ride a cab in New York and ask the driver about his life, these stories are pretty common. Let's say they have limited skills. But they have a body. They can move around, drive a car, or maybe just ride an e-Bike. They could maybe drive a cab, but driving a cab costs you a a flat fee per month to rent the medallion, no matter what you make. I believe you need some upfront capital to get started. So they sign up for Uber Eats / DoorDash / Grubhub / pick your delivery app. The pay on DoorDash is very low, because consumers won't pay that much for food delivery. Out of that, the restaurant has to get paid, DoorDash has to get paid, and the gig worker has to get paid. Who has the least amount of bargaining power in this situation? The restaurant has other sources of income, so they can leave if they aren't happy with the cut. The platform obviously sets the terms, and there's a lot of people in precarious economic positions who need money. So the gig worker has the least amount of bargaining power. So he gets a pretty low pay. He lives in a one-room apartment with like, 8 other gig workers who all do delivery for Doordash, Grubhub, Uber Eats etc. (I'm not making this up, it's pretty common) and works 7 days a week. No time for learning some new skill, and since the wages are subsistence level, no ability to save and eventually move on to better work. So essentially, they need money to survive, the money they get from delivery apps gives them that, but no more. They would certainly prefer to do something else, but have no other skills. So these apps run on the labor of people in precarious economic positions with no better options. Of course he has "free will", but I'm curios what economic alternatives you think are on offer that make that free will a meaningful, and not simply philosophical, concept. Perhaps the phrase "taken advantage of" triggers some people. But it doesn't seem that controversial to me. The business works because there are people who need to work a job for very low pay. I don't think they love riding around picking up bags of food for $3-$5 each. Here's a thread on the DoorDash Reddit, I found it by scrolling down the front page, it's not old. https://www.reddit.com/r/doordash/comments/xeyvrg/the_soul_crushing_reality_of_being_a_dasher/ https://www.reddit.com/r/doordash/comments/xeyvrg/the_soul_c... Here's the top comment with 119 upvotes > I couldn’t agree more. The only reason I’m doing doordash currently is out of desperation. Plus, it allows me some much needed flexibility which is crucial given some difficulties in my personal life. I dunno what you consider that. But it's not like, an arrangement in which the worker seems to opting into this because they think it's a good deal out of their plethora of options. They do it because they are, in their words, desperate. Edit: I'm not saying gig companies are evil or something, or even predatory. It's unclear to me if they have sound unit economics, but that doesn't make them evil. The business just doesn't work without low delivery wages.
sidlls 4y ago
A comment laced with fallacies is effectively rebutted with a comment pointing that out. There is literally nothing of substance to rebut in the GP

frereubu 4y ago

I didn’t read this as a rebuttal, it’s pointing out the logical fallacies in the structure of the GP’s argument, so criticising it for not offering a rebuttal is slightly missing the point. They certainly aren’t saying that Uber drivers are in an identical situation to slaves.

throwaway09223 4y ago
But there aren't any fallacies in the GP's argument. And it is quite directly making an absurd and unsupportable statement regarding indentured servitude for a job opportunity that is undeniably no strings attached.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > People are not agents of free will, and any sub-utopic framework they have to participate in is immoral? This is so fallacious that it almost doesn't parse as English (largely imo because it's been fluffed up to hide the utterly commonplace "so you're saying everything is wrong unless it's perfect?" strawman.)
  - kryogen1c 4y ago
    It's intended to be a steelman and is a rephrasing of an argument said to me in the past; you could dig it up in my comment history from a previous uber discussion should you be so inclined. Regardless, feel free to ignore my strawman and tell me the real argument.
    - thfuran 4y ago
      >It's intended to be a steelman I think maybe you've misunderstood steelmanning. It's not about taking an argument to the absolute extreme, it's about constructing the most convincing and effective form of the argument.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      The real argument is that gig employers have found a way to skirt regulations protecting “real” employees. And that the people who suffer from this are primarily in an economic position such that they don’t have much of a choice but to accept those conditions. That doesn’t mean “any sub-utopic framework they have to participate in is immoral”, it just means this particular one is.
      - throwaway09223 4y ago
        "Real employees" have not historically done these jobs. Your assertion is simply not true.
        ada1981 4y ago
        Uber replaced taxi cabs, which had some of the most historic Union protections in American history.
        throwaway09223 4y ago
        Sorry, no. These exact same complaints have been swirling around for decades before Uber came on the scene: https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2017/12/12/taxi-drivers-employees-independent-contractors/ https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2017/12/12/taxi-drivers-emplo... The only change is that Uber grew the market and popularized hiring cars, and the state of California decided to start attacking its own tech industry. There's a lot of hypocrisy here. If the state truly had worker's interests at heart it would be looking at the farming industry, not ridesharing.
- ckw 4y ago
  The indentured servitude statement is apt: the GP implies that willful entrance into a contract of employment is by virtue of this willfulness incapable of being exploitative. But indentured servitude is entered into in the same manner, and few would deny the exploitative nature of indentured servitude.
  - throwaway09223 4y ago
    No, it isn't. There is no contract in this scenario whatsoever, equitable or otherwise. It's an absurd analogy.
    - ckw 4y ago
      Do you mean gig workers enter into no contract, or indentured servants entered into no contract, or something else? Indentured Servitude: ‘Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years. The contract, called an "indenture", may be entered voluntarily for eventual compensation or debt repayment, or it may be imposed as a judicial punishment.’ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude As for Uber drivers: it’s pretty hard to be an independent contractor without entering into a contract.
      - throwaway09223 4y ago
        Obviously I mean there's no contract demanding ongoing work performance from Uber drivers. Drivers can stop at any time. The only terms stipulate how they can work and under what terms, should they choose to do so. It is the polar opposite of an arrangement which demands continuing performance. It's even less restrictive than a typical employer-employee relationship.
        ckw 4y ago
        GGP: How is it exploitative if the worker willfully enters into the contract? GP: But indentured servants enter willfully into their contracts, and indentured servitude is exploitative. So how is the willful nature of gig work relevant to the question of whether it is exploitative? You: GP has equated gig work with indentured servitude, and they are in no way comparable, because gig workers can quit whenever they choose. Me: GP did not equate indentured servitude and gig work, they used indentured servitude as a tool to show the flawed reasoning of GGP. You: Gig work is nothing like indentured servitude, because gig workers can quit whenever they want, and indentured servants can’t. Do you see the problem here?
BurningFrog 4y ago
It's asserting there are logical fallacies, by calling the arguments "shallow", "straw man", and bemoaning how talk like this is dragging down HN quality. But I didn't see any pointing out of logical fallacies among the condescension.
picsao 4y ago

pydry 4y ago

>these analogies don't map well to the gig worker's economic position. They do though. Gig workers are almost always in a very economically precarious position which Uber takes advantage of in precisely the same way that employers of indentured servitude do. If the US had full employment and decent unemployment benefits (like it used to) jobs like these wouldnt exist.

ghufran_syed 4y ago
“ If the US had full employment and decent unemployment benefits (like it used to) jobs like these wouldn’t exist.” I think that’s the “utopia” gp is referring to. All this will do is force people to spend time and money forming corporations so that the uber corporation (for example) can contract directly with another corporation (most likely a one-employee s-corp) which will “employ” the driver. Same economic effect, but just with extra friction and cost for people who in general don’t have a lot of money to spare
- thfuran 4y ago
  >which will “employ” the driver. Same economic effect, but just with extra friction and cost for people who in general don’t have a lot of money to spare ...and all the rights that come with being an employee, for all that they're not so great in the US.
  - ghufran_syed 4y ago
    yes, but the “employee rights” will be between the driver and the driver’s own corporation - how does that help the driver if there isn’t enough money coming from the contracting company (eg Uber) to pay for those benefits?
actionablefiber 4y ago
> If the US had full employment and decent unemployment benefits (like it used to) jobs like these wouldnt exist. We don't, though, and that has much deeper causes than the existence of gig companies. A large swath of the American voting public supports political candidates who oppose providing an adequate backstop for people balancing on a knife edge. I think there's a legitimate market for people who want to earn cash in their spare time on their own schedule and gig companies seem like a good fit for those people, such as people who already have stable employment or cannot work regular hours for one reason or other. Very few industries/companies offer that level of flexibility to their workers. The issue is that gig companies are also gutting already-existing labor markets by burning investor cash to undercut established competitors, so people who have stable employment find themselves forced into precarity and turn to gig work due to the lack of full time employment in the industry combined with the lack of adequate support in the American social safety net.

jorvi 4y ago

Gig work normalizes the loss of the overall labor protections / amenities that were wrought so hard during the 19th and 20th century. Here in The Netherlands flexible labor and temporary rental contracts were introduced last decade, they were meant to increase the fluidity of both markets and take up a small amount of overall contracts, but have started to dominate both of them. Being on either basically erodes any certainty you could have had as a foundation to build your life on. Gig work is even worse than flexible contracts. Not only can you be ditched at any moment, in many ways you are considered self-employed which strips you of so many protections normally afforded to you. And whereas self-employed software developers (read: freelancers) are in an extremely powerful economic position, the usual gig worker has almost zero leverage. ‘Nuff said.

kareemsabri 4y ago

I don't think the GP does deserve a good rebuttal tbh, it's a pretty weak argument that I have a hard time believing someone could really think. The argument is, because these people "willingly" took the job, they cannot be being taken advantage of? I don't understand why people think "free will" means you cannot be taken advantage of. People can have both free will, and real economic / physical / legal constraints in my life that people could take advantage of if they are in a position to do so. It happens every single day all over the world. I'll take a stab at a strong argument for gig workers being taken advantage of. I don't think it describes _every single_ gig worker, but I'm sure there are some for whom it's true. There are individuals in precarious economic positions. They need income to survive, they are living one week to the next (meaning they pay rent weekly, and have no excess money at the end of the week). They need to provide for their families, maybe send money home to their families in another country because they are immigrants. Stuff like that. You can talk to them yourself, ride a cab in New York and ask the driver about his life, these stories are pretty common. Let's say they have limited skills. But they have a body. They can move around, drive a car, or maybe just ride an e-Bike. They could maybe drive a cab, but driving a cab costs you a a flat fee per month to rent the medallion, no matter what you make. I believe you need some upfront capital to get started. So they sign up for Uber Eats / DoorDash / Grubhub / pick your delivery app. The pay on DoorDash is very low, because consumers won't pay that much for food delivery. Out of that, the restaurant has to get paid, DoorDash has to get paid, and the gig worker has to get paid. Who has the least amount of bargaining power in this situation? The restaurant has other sources of income, so they can leave if they aren't happy with the cut. The platform obviously sets the terms, and there's a lot of people in precarious economic positions who need money. So the gig worker has the least amount of bargaining power. So he gets a pretty low pay. He lives in a one-room apartment with like, 8 other gig workers who all do delivery for Doordash, Grubhub, Uber Eats etc. (I'm not making this up, it's pretty common) and works 7 days a week. No time for learning some new skill, and since the wages are subsistence level, no ability to save and eventually move on to better work. So essentially, they need money to survive, the money they get from delivery apps gives them that, but no more. They would certainly prefer to do something else, but have no other skills. So these apps run on the labor of people in precarious economic positions with no better options. Of course he has "free will", but I'm curios what economic alternatives you think are on offer that make that free will a meaningful, and not simply philosophical, concept. Perhaps the phrase "taken advantage of" triggers some people. But it doesn't seem that controversial to me. The business works because there are people who need to work a job for very low pay. I don't think they love riding around picking up bags of food for $3-$5 each. Here's a thread on the DoorDash Reddit, I found it by scrolling down the front page, it's not old. https://www.reddit.com/r/doordash/comments/xeyvrg/the_soul_crushing_reality_of_being_a_dasher/ https://www.reddit.com/r/doordash/comments/xeyvrg/the_soul_c... Here's the top comment with 119 upvotes > I couldn’t agree more. The only reason I’m doing doordash currently is out of desperation. Plus, it allows me some much needed flexibility which is crucial given some difficulties in my personal life. I dunno what you consider that. But it's not like, an arrangement in which the worker seems to opting into this because they think it's a good deal out of their plethora of options. They do it because they are, in their words, desperate. Edit: I'm not saying gig companies are evil or something, or even predatory. It's unclear to me if they have sound unit economics, but that doesn't make them evil. The business just doesn't work without low delivery wages.

sidlls 4y ago

A comment laced with fallacies is effectively rebutted with a comment pointing that out. There is literally nothing of substance to rebut in the GP