10 ms·

The Gig Economy

143 points by ssclafani 11y ago

prostoalex 11y ago
Considering Instacart now offers its couriers an option to sign up as employees, I'd be curious to see how many take them up on that offer. A part-time employee status (vs contractor) generally comes with loss of control over one's working hours, 30-hour weekly caps (to avoid the ACA penalty), and compensation setup that involves some kind of (likely minimum) wage + bonus instead of straight-up 1099 income. Most of the gig economy (Uber, TaskRabbit, PostMates) is built around flexibility of hours, and freedom to not only accept a gig, but to refuse one (which you lose if you're in an employer-employee relationship and the boss is simply assigning it to you).
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  Doesn't Uber ban you if you don't accept almost all fares? The problem with this models is that you're not really an independent contractor - you're simply on-demand casual labour. The Internet element makes it unnecessary to stand outside the factory gates every morning, which is certainly a benefit. But all the obligations remain one way. You have to accept the work, but if you decide to take time out you can be "fired" from the system without notice, at will, at random, and with zero come-back against the "employer."
  - chipgap98 11y ago
    I think with Uber you can control when you do and do not show up as a driver, so its choose your own hours in that sense
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      Yet, if you don't log in during off-peak hours enough, you end up getting pushed down the list, essentially being punished for not working certain hours.
  - crazy1van 11y ago
    In my completely unscientific survey of asking my Uber drivers how they like their job, I've never had a single one complain about their employment arrangement. Most of them talk about how much they like the flexibility to work the hours they want. This is across a diverse group of drivers from young college kids, new immigrants, and semi-retirees. Is my sample set an anomaly or have others heard similar stories? If the workers in the "gig economy" really are generally happy and their employers are happy and their customers are happy, I'm not sure I see a good reason to toss new regulations into the mix.
    - x0x0 11y ago
      did it cross your mind that they may not bitch about their job to a person who can fire them (you)? If their rating falls below 4, they are essentially canned by uber. Also, there's plenty of room for regulation even if customers and employees are happy. Uber is a giant negative externality, and we should force them to internalize it.
      - seanflyon 11y ago
        > Uber is a giant negative externality Could you elaborate on this?
    - hayksaakian 11y ago
      Uber drivers who are unhappy probably leave uber more often than if they were happy. Therefore any random driver is more likely to enjoy uber instead of disliking uber.
      - beat 11y ago
        Right. That's a grain of salt I take when I talk to Uber drivers. That said, I've had several drivers who were former taxi drivers, and much prefer working for Uber. Here in Minneapolis, the taxi driver business is dominated by our large (30k+) Somali community. I'm starting to see Somalis and Kenyans more as drivers now, when just a year ago they tended to be caucasian. This tells me Uber is making a real dent in the taxi driver employee base.
  - prostoalex 11y ago
    The driver explicitly made himself available in the system, but the choice of hours and choice of location to idle by is still up to the driver. With employee relationship, Uber can mandate the driver be by the football arena at 6 pm.
- matthewowen 11y ago
  But if you want to work at hours convenient to you, then you probably won't make much money. Most people aren't out driving people to the airport at 5am for the fun of it. For people who drive Uber as a primary source of income, sure there's some notional freedom. But in practical terms, there are times that you can productively work at and times that you can't. Same thing goes for PostMates.
  - prostoalex 11y ago
    So in other words, the flexibility of those hours stays roughly equal. If someone is relying on Uber for their primary source of income, the 30-hour cap might be a definite turn-off. Now, it's not a given that Uber will institute that, but I think the way the laws are worded in this country every single part-time employer has that policy just to avoid future liabilities.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  Except, as has been shown time and again, people who take advantage of that flexibility end up being punished, making the flexibility not really flexible. Uber, for instance, will stop offering you gigs if you turn too many down, or don't drive often enough during peak hours.
rdudekul 11y ago
Flexibility of choosing the type & the time of work seems like a win, in the gig (freelance) economy. However commoditization of such jobs could force the income down for many. This may result in the increase in the number of hours people work and that could result in health issues. With no health insurance & other benefits, overall quality of life could decrease for many. However Gig economy is here to stay. In these conditions how can workers, government & businesses collaborate to provide better working conditions for those involved?
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > In these conditions how can workers, government & businesses collaborate to provide better working conditions for those involved? Solid safety net. Universal/single payer healthcare. A living minimum wage. Social support when you're unable to assemble enough income to survive (its been proven that its cheaper to give the homeless housing than to pay for the resulting issues of not providing housing).
  - asift 11y ago
    I'm a big fan of a basic income as a replacement to our existing welfare system, but this: >its been proven that its cheaper to give the homeless housing than to pay for the resulting issues of not providing housing is misleading and inaccurate. First, you could never prove something like this as the comparison is highly dependent upon the larger institutional framework a particular society is operating under. Second, even if it were demonstrably true in a given community at a particular point in time, there is no guarantee those same conditions would persist over time. That's not to say there aren't good arguments for providing housing or other forms of welfare, but we don't need to engage in overly sweeping or simplistic arguments to make that case.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      > but we don't need to engage in overly sweeping or simplistic arguments to make that case. Utah has shown, through data, that it is cheaper to provide housing directly to the homeless. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/housing-first-solution-to-homelessness-utah http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/housing-first-so... http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free
taylorwc 11y ago
One of Fred Wilson's partners, Albert Wenger, also penned a post touching on this today[0]. Both are worth reading. [0] http://continuations.com/post/124069363855/debating-the-gig-economy-going-past-industrial http://continuations.com/post/124069363855/debating-the-gig-...
- andyidsinga 11y ago
  Albert has a lot of good philosophical discussions in this area. his blog archives are worth a scan
return0 11y ago
If that were true only the most desperate would choose uber/airbnb/oDesk etc. I believe that's not true, even though low-value work is cheap, the good/popular ones can sell themselves at the price of their choosing. Isn't that plain free market with the flexibility of working whenever you choose, and a more productive/economic allocation of resources? Work history is an issue, but i cannot see why it cannot be easily solved with a law that gives these workers the rights to their work history. Will these companies object to that?
- Retric 11y ago
  You can't set your own rate with uber. There are also penalty's for rejecting to much work.
  - Animats 11y ago
    Which is why Uber drivers are employees. Uber should just accept that. They're being shut down, country by country and state by state, because of their resistance to labor law. Just since the beginning of this month, Uber has been shut down in France and two cities in Florida.
    - matthewowen 11y ago
      Uber (and other 1099 companies) don't want to do that, because their businesses are based on moving risk from the company (employing employees that they might not need) to their labor force (you can work whenever, but the amount you get paid is solely dependent on the demand that we may or may not generate for you).
_delirium 11y ago
As a bit of an aside, not everyone is convinced that there is an ongoing transition to a gig economy. Uber is just replacing one kind of freelancer with another one, so isn't a great example of a net shift. And the macroeconomic statistics if anything are trending away from self-employment towards full-time employment: https://www.economy.com/dismal/analysis/datapoints/255258/We-Are-Not-a-Nation-of-Freelancers/ https://www.economy.com/dismal/analysis/datapoints/255258/We... I think the questions the post raises are good ones, though.
- mahyarm 11y ago
  Most taxi drivers in the USA are also 'independent contractors'. Tomato tomatoe?
  - tosseraccount 11y ago
    "Don't have social security cards"
- dcosson 11y ago
  You're right that these companies could lose steam and this shift could never come. On the other hand, the macroeconomic stats could change incredibly quickly since these companies are growing exponentially. E.g. if a company is doubling every year, then by the end of 2017 they'll have 8x more freelance workers than they did at the end of 2014, 16x more in 2018, and so on. Based on how big of a change this could be it seems worth at least starting the discussion now rather than after the shift has already happened and there are millions of people without the protections they need. Also, with the Uber example in particular, they have their sights set on disrupting car ownership, not just the taxi industry. So there's a chance it will be a huge net shift.
- mrxd 11y ago
  Those predictions are based on the growth of contingent work. Self-employment is just one of the 6 classifications within contingent work.
ilurk 11y ago
This will only work if gigs are well paid and allow you to pay for expenses during the off periods. In theory this is great and already happens in the IT sector of some countries. In practice I suspect that as years go by the salaries will go lower as the gig-economy becomes standard. But by then there will be another problem too: robotics. In the end the solution will have to include a basic salary for everyone. Those who work get something extra.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  Yeah, that probably won't happen. There is simply too much political opposition to the idea of basic income in the US.
  - mc32 11y ago
    It would happen as soon as enough people were affected such that producers of goods as well as unemployed consumers demand it from the congress and the rest of society. What that tipping point will be I dont know, but it's almost inevitable, if the current trend continues unabated.
    - Daishiman 11y ago
      By that metric, the US should have had single payer health care years ago.
      - mc32 11y ago
        Better late than never. It did eventually happen, if late. I'm not saying basic income is on the horizon, but if trends continue into the future, we will see something resembling it. Nixon and team considered negative income taxes back in the seventies when it looked like we were in a downward spiral. Nixon might have been a thief and a liar but above all else he was practical.
        s73v3r 11y ago
        No it didn't. We don't have Single Payer here in the US.
tracker1 11y ago
I would say the biggest indentured worker class is the chicken farmer these days... mainly subject to the will of Tyson overlords.
adregan 11y ago
Benjamen Walker recently released a 3 part podcast called _Instaserfs_ examining the sharing economy. It's worth a listen: https://toe.prx.org/2015/06/instaserfs-i-of-iii/ https://toe.prx.org/2015/06/instaserfs-i-of-iii/
aresant 11y ago
Think about the political clout that the Public School Teachers union carries (with ~2.7m members) (1) The largest international employer stands as WalMart with 2.2 million employees (2). Uber just a few days back announced a plan to hire 1,000,000 WOMEN drivers over the next 5 years (3) Now posturing or not, assuming that somehow Uber pulled that off and they'll be the world's largest employer in less than a decade. It's amazing that politicians seem so slow on the up-take here and the opportunity to address the people that are caught in the machinery of the sharing economy. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trade_unions_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trade_unions_in_the_Un... (2) As of 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers (3) http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/10/technology/uber-women-drivers/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/10/technology/uber-women-driver...
- beat 11y ago
  As an aside for the subject of women drivers... last fall, I had a Muslim woman as my Uber driver for a ride. She said that she makes a point of picking up female passengers with less than five-star ratings. She thinks a lot of male Uber drivers will downrate female passengers in unfair ways, and a lot of Uber drivers in general won't give rides to passengers who have had bad ratings.
  - amyjess 11y ago
    As a woman who uses Lyft often, I can confirm that I've been treated like shit by a number of drivers in ways that I can't imagine a man would be treated. Stuff like how they would park a block away from me and make me walk the whole way to their cars (invariably, the people who do this are men who come from countries where women's rights are unheard of). I'm at the point where I'm seriously upset that Lyft doesn't allow women to specifically request a female driver. Hell, I'd be willing to pay extra to guarantee that my driver be a woman.
- RodericDay 11y ago
  > they'll be the world's largest employer Even Uber cheerleaders get it mixed up from time to time
brudgers 11y ago
The idea that "gigs" mean working when one wants and being off when one doesn't is a fantasy. Bars don't hire bands on weekdays while the kids are in school and they run open-mike on Tuesday nights and karaoke on Wednesdays. Cavete cooperatorem.
beat 11y ago
I strongly agree with Fred Wilson that Hillary Clinton's remarks were spot-on (or close enough), and that we should welcome this discussion in the political arena rather than bristling at it. The gig economy offers some very tangible and valuable benefits to both consumers and "employees", but there are a lot of unanswered questions regarding what this means for worker rights and quality of life. If we just handwave it away, we could wind up with decades or more of bad policy that keeps people poor and victimized, rather than better off and empowered. I was very glad that Hillary Clinton took a sophisticated view of the situation and didn't just bash on a fashionable subject. I hope other candidates follow her lead and we have an actual interesting discussion.
- bryang 11y ago
  In my view though, the gig economy is just not sustainable. Look at sites like 99 Designs... You have an incredibly large workforce with an incredibly large spread of skills doing a lot of work for marginal payout. As these populous-run services become more common, it will only dilute the value pool for those in it... If you have thousands of people saying they can do something for a fair or cheap price, it only reduces the ability of the next worker to charge more, despite the fact they might have better skills. Price wins over quality 99% of the time, in my experience. It's crazy because the competition is pretty much 100% internal and at some point, internal competition of anything will lead to systemic destruction of something critical if there is no authority figure demanding internal combat needs to stop. And let's face it, a company like Uber or Airbnb will never tell its participants that they can't drive more often or share more rooms because that will limit their product offering. Also, the government won't, can't, and shouldn't interfere either. It will solely rely for the workers of these sites to form unions agreeing upon their own quality standards and reflective pricing and will act as a group against the interests of the corporation they are inherently the product for... But pardon me for my cynicism, we're not at the point yet were self-preservation supersedes the desire for just a fractionally larger income.
  - beat 11y ago
    I don't think it can be generalized to the entire gig economy. In particular, things that require physical interaction (like Uber and AirBnB) do well, compared to remote-computer jobs like 99 Designs where everyone is competing with third world contractors who have much lower cost of living. I think we'll see some follow the Uber model as it evolves - subject to some reasonable regulation in the long run but still basically wiping out previous industries. And as much as I like Uber the product, I sure as hell do not want Uber the business setting labor standards that will govern the lives of millions in the 21st century. The business is great, the management is borderline evil. Which is better than the taxi industry where the business is awful and the management is totally evil but local only...
mseebach 11y ago
"We should not be afraid of this discussion. We should embrace it and have it." That's true, but that's not what happens when a politician, and especially one as highly profiled as Hillary Clinton, delivers a speech. Politicians never raise "hard questions" when then don't have the exact answer already worked out. This was not Hilary starting a discussion. This was Hilary pledging allegiance to the unions.
AznHisoka 11y ago
Yesterday, I read a few articles that blatantly accused Hillary of being against Uber... yet if what was quoted was actually said... I can't believe people are making such outrageous claims about her. I just lose some respect for some publications that did this.
amelius 11y ago
The problem with this is: if you already cringe at the idea of the government regulating a market, then see how much you like a company regulating it.
- zanny 11y ago
  Seriously, if any of the current crop of gig companies becomes too evil (and Uber has definitely proven themselves in that camp on a frequent basis) you are always able to use a competitor, work for one, or found one. Until the regulations happen that will inevitably prevent you from competing (which is basically every established industry today which is why the sharing economy is necessary to survive for so many) there is a critical threshold airbnb / uber / etsy cannot cross where their workers will jump ship at the opportunity cost of losing these companies huge viewships / audiences because the alternative becomes better, period. Yes, it means that the more popular the platform is the more the company can screw over its employees and customers because of mindshare. That happens in every industry, though.
curiousjorge 11y ago
meanwhile in Canada, our politicians will do everything to make sure Uber doesn't hurt the prestigous monopoly of overpriced and shitty taxi industry or anything.
tosseraccount 11y ago
Hillary is hedging. paraphrasing: "They're creating exciting new things but we need to regulate". Without many specifics; it's just not saying anything. Do you know what she's saying?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
paulpauper 11y ago
There is a major reason for this: Obamacare Small companies are more reluctant to hire for fear of having to pay employee insurance if they have over 50 employees, under the employer mandate. Other factors include the inexorable trend towards more efficiency and productivity. These are forces beyond anyone's control. Then you have huge competition for for even low-level service jobs, leaving many job seekers with no option but to choose 'gig' jobs. But you also have instances of people making more money with gig jobs than they would have in a regular job. Some people also hold gig jobs and regular jobs.
- emodendroket 11y ago
  The "major reason" is if you can just ignore various labor laws it's cheaper to operate but for some reason everyone jumps to "well then we should just make what Uber and co. are already doing legal!" instead of considering enforcement.
michaelochurch 11y ago
The Gig Economy happened before. In the 1930s, itinerant workers called "hobos" traveled the country looking for work and food. Despite the negative reputation of the word today, hobos were actually considered to be some of the hardest workers. They had to be; they were barely surviving. The difference now is that corporate executives, flush with VC money, are able to monetize the emerging desperation economy (oh, I'm sorry-- I forgot about HN's anti-"negativity" policy-- sharing economy) more effectively than ever before. The transition started with FMC (Former Middle Class) driving for Uber and subletting their apartments for extra cash, but it does seem to be spreading. For the record, I'm not especially against its existence. I would rather see our legislators interested in fighting the meltdown of the middle class itself than being focused on something that is, at worst, one of the symptoms.

143 points by ssclafani 11y ago

Considering Instacart now offers its couriers an option to sign up as employees, I'd be curious to see how many take them up on that offer. A part-time employee status (vs contractor) generally comes with loss of control over one's working hours, 30-hour weekly caps (to avoid the ACA penalty), and compensation setup that involves some kind of (likely minimum) wage + bonus instead of straight-up 1099 income. Most of the gig economy (Uber, TaskRabbit, PostMates) is built around flexibility of hours, and freedom to not only accept a gig, but to refuse one (which you lose if you're in an employer-employee relationship and the boss is simply assigning it to you).

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
Doesn't Uber ban you if you don't accept almost all fares? The problem with this models is that you're not really an independent contractor - you're simply on-demand casual labour. The Internet element makes it unnecessary to stand outside the factory gates every morning, which is certainly a benefit. But all the obligations remain one way. You have to accept the work, but if you decide to take time out you can be "fired" from the system without notice, at will, at random, and with zero come-back against the "employer."
- chipgap98 11y ago
  I think with Uber you can control when you do and do not show up as a driver, so its choose your own hours in that sense
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    Yet, if you don't log in during off-peak hours enough, you end up getting pushed down the list, essentially being punished for not working certain hours.
- crazy1van 11y ago
  In my completely unscientific survey of asking my Uber drivers how they like their job, I've never had a single one complain about their employment arrangement. Most of them talk about how much they like the flexibility to work the hours they want. This is across a diverse group of drivers from young college kids, new immigrants, and semi-retirees. Is my sample set an anomaly or have others heard similar stories? If the workers in the "gig economy" really are generally happy and their employers are happy and their customers are happy, I'm not sure I see a good reason to toss new regulations into the mix.
  - x0x0 11y ago
    did it cross your mind that they may not bitch about their job to a person who can fire them (you)? If their rating falls below 4, they are essentially canned by uber. Also, there's plenty of room for regulation even if customers and employees are happy. Uber is a giant negative externality, and we should force them to internalize it.
    - seanflyon 11y ago
      > Uber is a giant negative externality Could you elaborate on this?
  - hayksaakian 11y ago
    Uber drivers who are unhappy probably leave uber more often than if they were happy. Therefore any random driver is more likely to enjoy uber instead of disliking uber.
    - beat 11y ago
      Right. That's a grain of salt I take when I talk to Uber drivers. That said, I've had several drivers who were former taxi drivers, and much prefer working for Uber. Here in Minneapolis, the taxi driver business is dominated by our large (30k+) Somali community. I'm starting to see Somalis and Kenyans more as drivers now, when just a year ago they tended to be caucasian. This tells me Uber is making a real dent in the taxi driver employee base.
- prostoalex 11y ago
  The driver explicitly made himself available in the system, but the choice of hours and choice of location to idle by is still up to the driver. With employee relationship, Uber can mandate the driver be by the football arena at 6 pm.
matthewowen 11y ago
But if you want to work at hours convenient to you, then you probably won't make much money. Most people aren't out driving people to the airport at 5am for the fun of it. For people who drive Uber as a primary source of income, sure there's some notional freedom. But in practical terms, there are times that you can productively work at and times that you can't. Same thing goes for PostMates.
- prostoalex 11y ago
  So in other words, the flexibility of those hours stays roughly equal. If someone is relying on Uber for their primary source of income, the 30-hour cap might be a definite turn-off. Now, it's not a given that Uber will institute that, but I think the way the laws are worded in this country every single part-time employer has that policy just to avoid future liabilities.
s73v3r 11y ago
Except, as has been shown time and again, people who take advantage of that flexibility end up being punished, making the flexibility not really flexible. Uber, for instance, will stop offering you gigs if you turn too many down, or don't drive often enough during peak hours.

rdudekul 11y ago

Flexibility of choosing the type & the time of work seems like a win, in the gig (freelance) economy. However commoditization of such jobs could force the income down for many. This may result in the increase in the number of hours people work and that could result in health issues. With no health insurance & other benefits, overall quality of life could decrease for many. However Gig economy is here to stay. In these conditions how can workers, government & businesses collaborate to provide better working conditions for those involved?

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> In these conditions how can workers, government & businesses collaborate to provide better working conditions for those involved? Solid safety net. Universal/single payer healthcare. A living minimum wage. Social support when you're unable to assemble enough income to survive (its been proven that its cheaper to give the homeless housing than to pay for the resulting issues of not providing housing).
- asift 11y ago
  I'm a big fan of a basic income as a replacement to our existing welfare system, but this: >its been proven that its cheaper to give the homeless housing than to pay for the resulting issues of not providing housing is misleading and inaccurate. First, you could never prove something like this as the comparison is highly dependent upon the larger institutional framework a particular society is operating under. Second, even if it were demonstrably true in a given community at a particular point in time, there is no guarantee those same conditions would persist over time. That's not to say there aren't good arguments for providing housing or other forms of welfare, but we don't need to engage in overly sweeping or simplistic arguments to make that case.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > but we don't need to engage in overly sweeping or simplistic arguments to make that case. Utah has shown, through data, that it is cheaper to provide housing directly to the homeless. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/housing-first-solution-to-homelessness-utah http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/housing-first-so... http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free

taylorwc 11y ago

One of Fred Wilson's partners, Albert Wenger, also penned a post touching on this today[0]. Both are worth reading. [0] http://continuations.com/post/124069363855/debating-the-gig-economy-going-past-industrial http://continuations.com/post/124069363855/debating-the-gig-...

andyidsinga 11y ago
Albert has a lot of good philosophical discussions in this area. his blog archives are worth a scan

return0 11y ago

If that were true only the most desperate would choose uber/airbnb/oDesk etc. I believe that's not true, even though low-value work is cheap, the good/popular ones can sell themselves at the price of their choosing. Isn't that plain free market with the flexibility of working whenever you choose, and a more productive/economic allocation of resources? Work history is an issue, but i cannot see why it cannot be easily solved with a law that gives these workers the rights to their work history. Will these companies object to that?

Retric 11y ago
You can't set your own rate with uber. There are also penalty's for rejecting to much work.
- Animats 11y ago
  Which is why Uber drivers are employees. Uber should just accept that. They're being shut down, country by country and state by state, because of their resistance to labor law. Just since the beginning of this month, Uber has been shut down in France and two cities in Florida.
  - matthewowen 11y ago
    Uber (and other 1099 companies) don't want to do that, because their businesses are based on moving risk from the company (employing employees that they might not need) to their labor force (you can work whenever, but the amount you get paid is solely dependent on the demand that we may or may not generate for you).

_delirium 11y ago

As a bit of an aside, not everyone is convinced that there is an ongoing transition to a gig economy. Uber is just replacing one kind of freelancer with another one, so isn't a great example of a net shift. And the macroeconomic statistics if anything are trending away from self-employment towards full-time employment: https://www.economy.com/dismal/analysis/datapoints/255258/We-Are-Not-a-Nation-of-Freelancers/ https://www.economy.com/dismal/analysis/datapoints/255258/We... I think the questions the post raises are good ones, though.

mahyarm 11y ago
Most taxi drivers in the USA are also 'independent contractors'. Tomato tomatoe?
- tosseraccount 11y ago
  "Don't have social security cards"
dcosson 11y ago
You're right that these companies could lose steam and this shift could never come. On the other hand, the macroeconomic stats could change incredibly quickly since these companies are growing exponentially. E.g. if a company is doubling every year, then by the end of 2017 they'll have 8x more freelance workers than they did at the end of 2014, 16x more in 2018, and so on. Based on how big of a change this could be it seems worth at least starting the discussion now rather than after the shift has already happened and there are millions of people without the protections they need. Also, with the Uber example in particular, they have their sights set on disrupting car ownership, not just the taxi industry. So there's a chance it will be a huge net shift.
mrxd 11y ago
Those predictions are based on the growth of contingent work. Self-employment is just one of the 6 classifications within contingent work.

ilurk 11y ago

This will only work if gigs are well paid and allow you to pay for expenses during the off periods. In theory this is great and already happens in the IT sector of some countries. In practice I suspect that as years go by the salaries will go lower as the gig-economy becomes standard. But by then there will be another problem too: robotics. In the end the solution will have to include a basic salary for everyone. Those who work get something extra.

s73v3r 11y ago
Yeah, that probably won't happen. There is simply too much political opposition to the idea of basic income in the US.
- mc32 11y ago
  It would happen as soon as enough people were affected such that producers of goods as well as unemployed consumers demand it from the congress and the rest of society. What that tipping point will be I dont know, but it's almost inevitable, if the current trend continues unabated.
  - Daishiman 11y ago
    By that metric, the US should have had single payer health care years ago.
    - mc32 11y ago
      Better late than never. It did eventually happen, if late. I'm not saying basic income is on the horizon, but if trends continue into the future, we will see something resembling it. Nixon and team considered negative income taxes back in the seventies when it looked like we were in a downward spiral. Nixon might have been a thief and a liar but above all else he was practical.
      - s73v3r 11y ago
        No it didn't. We don't have Single Payer here in the US.

tracker1 11y ago

I would say the biggest indentured worker class is the chicken farmer these days... mainly subject to the will of Tyson overlords.

adregan 11y ago

Benjamen Walker recently released a 3 part podcast called _Instaserfs_ examining the sharing economy. It's worth a listen: https://toe.prx.org/2015/06/instaserfs-i-of-iii/ https://toe.prx.org/2015/06/instaserfs-i-of-iii/

aresant 11y ago

Think about the political clout that the Public School Teachers union carries (with ~2.7m members) (1) The largest international employer stands as WalMart with 2.2 million employees (2). Uber just a few days back announced a plan to hire 1,000,000 WOMEN drivers over the next 5 years (3) Now posturing or not, assuming that somehow Uber pulled that off and they'll be the world's largest employer in less than a decade. It's amazing that politicians seem so slow on the up-take here and the opportunity to address the people that are caught in the machinery of the sharing economy. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trade_unions_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trade_unions_in_the_Un... (2) As of 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers (3) http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/10/technology/uber-women-drivers/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/10/technology/uber-women-driver...

beat 11y ago
As an aside for the subject of women drivers... last fall, I had a Muslim woman as my Uber driver for a ride. She said that she makes a point of picking up female passengers with less than five-star ratings. She thinks a lot of male Uber drivers will downrate female passengers in unfair ways, and a lot of Uber drivers in general won't give rides to passengers who have had bad ratings.
- amyjess 11y ago
  As a woman who uses Lyft often, I can confirm that I've been treated like shit by a number of drivers in ways that I can't imagine a man would be treated. Stuff like how they would park a block away from me and make me walk the whole way to their cars (invariably, the people who do this are men who come from countries where women's rights are unheard of). I'm at the point where I'm seriously upset that Lyft doesn't allow women to specifically request a female driver. Hell, I'd be willing to pay extra to guarantee that my driver be a woman.
RodericDay 11y ago
> they'll be the world's largest employer Even Uber cheerleaders get it mixed up from time to time

brudgers 11y ago

The idea that "gigs" mean working when one wants and being off when one doesn't is a fantasy. Bars don't hire bands on weekdays while the kids are in school and they run open-mike on Tuesday nights and karaoke on Wednesdays. Cavete cooperatorem.

beat 11y ago

I strongly agree with Fred Wilson that Hillary Clinton's remarks were spot-on (or close enough), and that we should welcome this discussion in the political arena rather than bristling at it. The gig economy offers some very tangible and valuable benefits to both consumers and "employees", but there are a lot of unanswered questions regarding what this means for worker rights and quality of life. If we just handwave it away, we could wind up with decades or more of bad policy that keeps people poor and victimized, rather than better off and empowered. I was very glad that Hillary Clinton took a sophisticated view of the situation and didn't just bash on a fashionable subject. I hope other candidates follow her lead and we have an actual interesting discussion.

bryang 11y ago
In my view though, the gig economy is just not sustainable. Look at sites like 99 Designs... You have an incredibly large workforce with an incredibly large spread of skills doing a lot of work for marginal payout. As these populous-run services become more common, it will only dilute the value pool for those in it... If you have thousands of people saying they can do something for a fair or cheap price, it only reduces the ability of the next worker to charge more, despite the fact they might have better skills. Price wins over quality 99% of the time, in my experience. It's crazy because the competition is pretty much 100% internal and at some point, internal competition of anything will lead to systemic destruction of something critical if there is no authority figure demanding internal combat needs to stop. And let's face it, a company like Uber or Airbnb will never tell its participants that they can't drive more often or share more rooms because that will limit their product offering. Also, the government won't, can't, and shouldn't interfere either. It will solely rely for the workers of these sites to form unions agreeing upon their own quality standards and reflective pricing and will act as a group against the interests of the corporation they are inherently the product for... But pardon me for my cynicism, we're not at the point yet were self-preservation supersedes the desire for just a fractionally larger income.
- beat 11y ago
  I don't think it can be generalized to the entire gig economy. In particular, things that require physical interaction (like Uber and AirBnB) do well, compared to remote-computer jobs like 99 Designs where everyone is competing with third world contractors who have much lower cost of living. I think we'll see some follow the Uber model as it evolves - subject to some reasonable regulation in the long run but still basically wiping out previous industries. And as much as I like Uber the product, I sure as hell do not want Uber the business setting labor standards that will govern the lives of millions in the 21st century. The business is great, the management is borderline evil. Which is better than the taxi industry where the business is awful and the management is totally evil but local only...

mseebach 11y ago

"We should not be afraid of this discussion. We should embrace it and have it." That's true, but that's not what happens when a politician, and especially one as highly profiled as Hillary Clinton, delivers a speech. Politicians never raise "hard questions" when then don't have the exact answer already worked out. This was not Hilary starting a discussion. This was Hilary pledging allegiance to the unions.

AznHisoka 11y ago

Yesterday, I read a few articles that blatantly accused Hillary of being against Uber... yet if what was quoted was actually said... I can't believe people are making such outrageous claims about her. I just lose some respect for some publications that did this.

amelius 11y ago

The problem with this is: if you already cringe at the idea of the government regulating a market, then see how much you like a company regulating it.

zanny 11y ago
Seriously, if any of the current crop of gig companies becomes too evil (and Uber has definitely proven themselves in that camp on a frequent basis) you are always able to use a competitor, work for one, or found one. Until the regulations happen that will inevitably prevent you from competing (which is basically every established industry today which is why the sharing economy is necessary to survive for so many) there is a critical threshold airbnb / uber / etsy cannot cross where their workers will jump ship at the opportunity cost of losing these companies huge viewships / audiences because the alternative becomes better, period. Yes, it means that the more popular the platform is the more the company can screw over its employees and customers because of mindshare. That happens in every industry, though.

curiousjorge 11y ago

meanwhile in Canada, our politicians will do everything to make sure Uber doesn't hurt the prestigous monopoly of overpriced and shitty taxi industry or anything.

tosseraccount 11y ago

Hillary is hedging. paraphrasing: "They're creating exciting new things but we need to regulate". Without many specifics; it's just not saying anything. Do you know what she's saying?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

paulpauper 11y ago

There is a major reason for this: Obamacare Small companies are more reluctant to hire for fear of having to pay employee insurance if they have over 50 employees, under the employer mandate. Other factors include the inexorable trend towards more efficiency and productivity. These are forces beyond anyone's control. Then you have huge competition for for even low-level service jobs, leaving many job seekers with no option but to choose 'gig' jobs. But you also have instances of people making more money with gig jobs than they would have in a regular job. Some people also hold gig jobs and regular jobs.

emodendroket 11y ago
The "major reason" is if you can just ignore various labor laws it's cheaper to operate but for some reason everyone jumps to "well then we should just make what Uber and co. are already doing legal!" instead of considering enforcement.

michaelochurch 11y ago

The Gig Economy happened before. In the 1930s, itinerant workers called "hobos" traveled the country looking for work and food. Despite the negative reputation of the word today, hobos were actually considered to be some of the hardest workers. They had to be; they were barely surviving. The difference now is that corporate executives, flush with VC money, are able to monetize the emerging desperation economy (oh, I'm sorry-- I forgot about HN's anti-"negativity" policy-- sharing economy) more effectively than ever before. The transition started with FMC (Former Middle Class) driving for Uber and subletting their apartments for extra cash, but it does seem to be spreading. For the record, I'm not especially against its existence. I would rather see our legislators interested in fighting the meltdown of the middle class itself than being focused on something that is, at worst, one of the symptoms.