Slashdot Mirror
What If the "Sharing Economy" Organized a Strike, and Nobody Came?
Nerval's Lobster writes "In Boston, a number of UberX drivers reportedly planned to strike yesterday afternoon in response to a rate cut. (UberX is a low-cost program from Uber, which is attempting to "disrupt" the traditional cab industry via a mobile app that connects ordinary drivers in need of cash with passengers who want to go somewhere.) Uber tried to preempt the strike with a blog posting explaining that the rate cut actually translated into more customers and thus more revenue to drivers, but it needn't have bothered: according to local media (the same media that reported a strike was in the making) a strike failed to materialize. Many of the biggest firms of the so-called 'sharing economy,' such as Uber and Airbnb, are locked in battle with some combination of deeply entrenched industries and government regulators. But if the 'labor' that drives the sharing economy becomes more agitated about its compensation, it could create yet another interesting wrinkle. The Boston strike may have fizzled, but that doesn't mean another one, in a different city, won't enjoy more success." Free (or freer) entry makes occupation-based roadblocks harder to enforce, though, so Uber and other crowd-sourcing matchmakers are tougher to pin down and disrupt in the way that more tightly controlled enterprises are. (Not that city councils and other bodies aren't trying to corral crowd-sourced undertakings into their regulatory purviews, putting a damper on some of that freewheeling disintermediation.)
Look, nobody likes taxes, licensing restrictions, having to clean your car, or requiring you don't just hang out at the airport where people will pay tons of money.
The reasons we have those is that unlicensed cabs were a big problem.
Unlicensed cabs were a big problem because cabs and customers were not regulated.
The government stepped in and cleaned up the cabs, enforcing a standard of quality control of the cabbies but not the customers. It's the "regulation" model, and it was appropriate for its time, but it only addressed half the issue: a customer could jump out and run away without paying, could slit the seat, could vomit in the seat, or do other unsavory things.
Over time the regulation became less enforced, watered down, corrupt, and fewer people cared. This has resulted in the situation we have now, where many cabs are filthy and disgusting, the cabbie will screw you out of money in various ways (jimming the meter, taking the long route, &c), and it's not particularly safe.
In game theory terms, it's two kids dividing a cake: mom tells one kid to divide the cake equally, then leaves.
With the rise of ubiquitous communication we can now go to a newer model: both cabbies and customers can be vetted by the system. The cabbies are reviewed by the feedback of customers, and the customers are reviewed by the cabbies. Anyone who slits a seat or vomits will get a bad review and won't have access to the drivers in the future. Anyone who drives a filthy car will get a bad review and not have access to passengers in the future.
The game-theory model is different. Instead of one side promising to obey regulation, it's two sides regulating each other. It's the "one child divides the cake, the other child chooses which piece to eat" model.
This is an example of bad regulation which stifles innovation. Cab regulation ensured quality and was done with the best of intentions, but it's been subverted and there's now a better way.
We should embrace the better way.
I wasn't aware that the laws of biology and physics had been canceled. Can you forward the memo?
A living wage is just that, the minimum wage on which people can LIVE. If a living wage is not paid by one's employer, the person must either die or receive the missing portion from another source. Right now that other source is the state in the form of food stamps and other benefits. Employers know that. McDonald's and Wal-Mart have entire departments dedicated to helping their workers get whatever they refuse to pay them from the state.
McDonald's bitches that if they paid a living wage the price of a BigMac would go up by whatever and the consumer would therefore have to pay more. Guess what? The consumer ALREADY pays more in the form of taxes that are then used to pay for benefits that help poorly paid MCDonald's employees.
And in reality McDonald's doesn't have to raise prices. They can also lower their profits (i.e. allocate more of their earnings towards paying for labor). They can afford it. There is no doubt about that.