4 ms·
That’s just one facet. It’s not just the gig economy is “full”, all economies are “full”. There are not enough jobs for the employable people.
by reactordev 10mo ago
That’s just one facet. It’s not just the gig economy is “full”, all economies are “full”.
There are not enough jobs for the employable people.
- petcat 10mo agoI saw a statistic that roughly 10% of the US workforce is in some form of "customer-facing service" role and I just have to wonder how many of those jobs are nearly gone, or already gone. Even if it's a 5% reduction, or 3% over the next decade, that seems catastrophic without a completely new category of jobs to replace them. I haven't talked to a cashier at a grocery store in years. It's all self-checkout. I stayed in a hotel recently and I didn't even talk to someone at the front desk. I just checked in at a kiosk and got my room card. There was no one else around. I guess the people that used to do those jobs are all just driving Ubers and Doordash now?
- jmathai 10mo agoThose who are still employed by my local grocery store don't seem too motivated to do their jobs. It's an unfortunate but foreseeable scenario that expedites the problem where people prefer self-checkout. I wish we'd pump the brakes on efficiency and profit.
- treyd 10mo ago> I wish we'd pump the brakes on efficiency and profit. This is not legal, executives of publicly traded companies are required to put maximizing shareholder value above all other considerations.
- overtone1000 10mo agoI suspect the implication was that consumers and voters would do the brake pumping. I don't think anyone expects CEOs or boards to be socially conscious anymore. The idea that companies would care about externalities is quaint.
- darth_avocado 10mo agoThat’s not true. Theoretical maximum shareholder value would be achieved by firing all employees and selling the company for scraps, yet we don’t see that happening. Fiduciary duty doesn’t mean you are required to squeeze profits above all else.
- treyd 10mo agoIt would be easy to argue that would usually not maximize value in the long run, which is why they don't do that. However, some PE firms have been successfully doing similar practices.
- Spoom 10mo agoIt's not that simple. I'll point you at this Harvard Law Review article[1] to start but shareholder value is not the only consideration for executives and doesn't even need to override. 1. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/will-the-real-shareholder-primacy-please-stand-up/ https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/will-the-real-sha...
- psunavy03 10mo agoThis is misinformation. They are accountable to whatever the board and shareholders require of them, so long as that is legal.
- MSFT_Edging 10mo agoHuh I wonder if this has anything to do why all our products are enshittifying.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 10mo agoIf it were that simple, businesses could never offer say a 10% discount or buy-one-get-one.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- triceratops 10mo agoNope nope nope. They are required to act in shareholders' interests. This is not the same thing as "stock price must go up".
- danaris 10mo agoThis is flat-out false. For reference: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354 > While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and benefits. (Emphasis added.)
- codyb 10mo agoThey're pretty good near me And of course, there's this idea everything needs to be done like the house is on fire, but I'm usually fairly happy if I see someone getting a break to look at their phone and doesn't notice immediately that I'm standing waiting or whatever. Or ambles over at a leisurely pace, that's fine, take your time, it's hard running around all day
- username223 10mo ago> take your time, it's hard running around all day This. I've asked grocery checkers why they sprint through scanning my things, then relax as I bag them, and learned that they're subject to some dumb system that grades them on how fast they scan. Ask them if they're on the boss's clock, and if not, take a minute to chat and give them a break.
- ghaff 10mo ago>then relax as I bag them Around where I live (Boston area), there are almost universally baggers. This was something that went away for a bit but, while I will if needed, I almost never bag my own groceries.
- reactordev 10mo agoUber and DoorDash are full… No, those people aren’t driving for Uber now. Let that sink in for a moment. Less hospitality jobs, less customer-service jobs, less retail jobs, no mall jobs, no manufacturing jobs, gig economy is full, corporate jobs being replaced by AI, trains going autonomous, trucks going autonomous, this is end game capitalism. Those who own, own it all. Those who don’t, own nothing, will never own anything, will only rent/lease/borrow their lives.
- metadope 10mo agoThis string of words made me shudder, gave me a chill. Too true.
- darth_avocado 10mo ago> I haven't talked to a cashier at a grocery store in years. It's all self-checkout That’s at least one trend I’ve seen reversed. All the self checkouts around where I am have been removed because the stores realized that the self checkouts and honesty system only works when the times are good.
- reactordev 10mo agoVideo surveillance and facial recognition is in use here to prevent that kind of thing. You should see what target does to all their stores…
- lazide 10mo agoSomeone still has to show up to deal with the perp. And the cops have been ‘quiet quitting’ for awhile.
- darth_avocado 10mo agoOnly works when the times are good though. If you’re getting 50-100 people a day trying to steal, the cops aren’t coming
- analog31 10mo agoIn stores I’ve been in the highest density of cameras is directly above the checkouts.
- jjice 10mo agoThe reversal of self checkouts has been one I've seen spottily, but I do totally agree. I've seen some Walmarts close their self checkout while others keep them open. I guess each store may do their out loss calculations and take action based on that. I personally like self-checkout a lot. At the grocery store I used to go to, I swear I could get my stuff scanned and bagged in half the time as the cashier, and that's not counting the time waiting in limited lines (since there are usually way more self checkouts so the time-to-first-scan is also lower). Very slow and they seemed to hate small talk (also a let down, because the only redeeming part of a manned line to me is casual conversation with the cashier and those in line).
- almosthere 10mo agoSo you've never had a cart FULL of groceries? Or are you one of those people that do 30 items at self checkout?
- Drakim 10mo agoBuying an entire cart full of groceries that will last for weeks is a somewhat American cultural thing. I'm not saying that I've never seen it, but the norm where I live in Europe is to have one of those hand-held baskets and getting enough for 2-3 days tops.
- reactordev 10mo agoDefinitely an American thing.
- ghaff 10mo agoOr they just don't live in cities which not everyone in Europe does either so they can't just walk a few blocks to grab supplies for a day or two.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- stvltvs 10mo agoI go to a cashier lane whenever possible because shakes fist at cloud no one's paying me to ring up and bag my groceries. Also, unless job automation is tied to some kind of UBI or Freedom Dividend or whatever, we're facing a dystopian future with a starving underclass. Automation is supposed to free us from drudgery and open up more fulfilling work and leisure, not siphon wealth to the capital class. What jobs are people supposed to move to?
- philipallstar 10mo ago> Automation is supposed to free us from drudgery and open up more fulfilling work and leisure, not siphon wealth to the capital class. What jobs are people supposed to move to? The most successful model in history is the "capital class" creating new middle class jobs by venturing their capital.
- Retric 10mo agoThat’s literally the opposite of what happened historically. Read up on the history of textiles for example and cottage industry created and then was supplanted by a capital class. Economies of scale require all sorts of things to get going like efficient transportation, but after a tipping point wealth centralizes not the reverse. Slowly clothing goes from something like 1/3 of all labor to a small fraction of our current economy.
- philipallstar 10mo agoAh yes, historically. I've heard of "history".
- Retric 10mo ago> Ah yes, historically. I've heard of "history". Heard of but never actually looked into? Sorry, you set yourself up for that one.
- prewett 10mo ago
- ghaff 10mo agoIt varies a lot in my local experience from no self-checkout, to a mix, to mostly self-checkout with one or two backed-up lanes of cashiers. Whether it's good or bad for me personally depends on the type of merchandise and how much I have. In general, I essentially always interact with a front desk at a hotel and it varies at a grocery store depending on lines and the merchandise I have.
- ridgeguy 10mo agoSelf checkouts are something I avoid unless I'm genuinely pressed for time and there's a self station open. It's a small thing, but I'd rather keep the human checkers employed.
- numbsafari 10mo agoThere would be if we were investing in our infrastructure the way we should be, rather than allowing an aging population to hoard their wealth and shirk their responsibilities.
- petcat 10mo ago> rather than allowing an aging population to hoard their wealth and shirk their responsibilities. Middle-class Baby Boomers hoarding their wealth is exactly what we've been teaching them to do for decades. Save save save. I've been hearing it since the 1980s. Social Security is not going to be there for you. And yet still a large part of them have no meaningful retirement, and no plan.
- reactordev 10mo agoFacts. My father passed last year, penniless after a 50 year career engineer. My mother passed penniless after a 40 year career. It’s so sad. They thought they did everything right. They thought they had enough saved. They didn’t. It took everything from them.
- Buttons840 10mo agoThere is a lack of competition. Watch and you'll see all sorts of things happening that shouldn't be possible in an economy with healthy amounts of competition. An example that has been on my mind recently is dynamic pricing [0], where everyone is charged a different amount based upon what an algorithm thinks the company can get away with. When healthy competition exists, you can't just arbitrarily charge people more, because they'll just go buy from a competitor. What does it mean when the things that happen in a healthy free market aren't happening? I grew up listening to right-wing news radio, and one of the first things I learned in the realm of politics is that "our economy is great; offer quality goods and services at a competitive price and you will make a modest profit and grow and succeed". My political journey in the following decades is a tale of me seeing more and more that idea is false. The companies that truly shape our world first curry favor from those who already have wealth and power, and then focus on crushing competition and establishing a monopoly rather than making a profit; that's why these huge world-changing companies go a decade or more without ever making a profit--the news radio people never gave me an explanation for that. [0]: https://youtu.be/16i7bPQtoCY?t=720 https://youtu.be/16i7bPQtoCY?t=720
- jack_tripper 10mo ago>When healthy competition exists, you can't just arbitrarily charge people more, because they'll just go buy from a competitor. Competition is meaningless when they're all owned by Blackrock and Vanguard to an extent. They can easily sacrifice a brand to test the waters, knowing consumers will move to buy from their other brands which the also own.
- reactordev 10mo agoMacro capitalism is pretty crazy stuff. Look at the US food industry how it’s primarily 5 companies that own ALL the brands.
- reactordev 10mo agoTo be fair, it was true when they said it, it just didn’t remain true and they kept on keeping on. The idea of not turning a profit was to keep reinvesting it into the company. Growing the business. This “eat it all and figure it out later” mentality grew Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, just to name a few. The goal was to become dominant so that the world depends upon your existence. Without being labeled a utility. You and I agree though that the moat has been carved pretty wide. The market is no longer a free market. It’s a “I must play to stay” market. Meaning that all these companies are depending on each other for specific goods as they have crushed competition to the point where there are, at most, 2 choices.
- ghaff 10mo agoAt the salaries they want at the salaries that employers are willing to pay for them.