Slashdot Mirror
The Gig Economy Celebrates Working Yourself to Death (newyorker.com)
Writing for The New Yorker, Jia Tolentino documents stories of several people -- a nine-month pregnant Lyft driver, for instance -- who contribute to companies that work on the model of gig economy. Through these tales, Tolentino underscores an increasingly growing pattern in the Silicon Valley (and elsewhere) where companies offer hard-labor contracts to people, pay them peanuts (with little liabilities), and yet find a reason to celebrate their business and encourage more to come onboard. From the article: Fiverr, which had raised a hundred and ten million dollars in venture capital by November, 2015, has more about the "In Doers We Trust" campaign on its Web site. In one video, a peppy female voice-over urges "doers" to "always be available," to think about beating "the trust-fund kids," and to pitch themselves to everyone they see, including their dentist. A Fiverr press release about "In Doers We Trust" states, "The campaign positions Fiverr to seize today's emerging zeitgeist of entrepreneurial flexibility, rapid experimentation, and doing more with less. It pushes against bureaucratic overthinking, analysis-paralysis, and excessive whiteboarding." This is the jargon through which the essentially cannibalistic nature of the gig economy is dressed up as an aesthetic. No one wants to eat coffee for lunch or go on a bender of sleep deprivation -- or answer a call from a client while having sex, as recommended in the video. It's a stretch to feel cheerful at all about the Fiverr marketplace, perusing the thousands of listings of people who will record any song, make any happy-birthday video, or design any book cover for five dollars. I'd guess that plenty of the people who advertise services on Fiverr would accept some "whiteboarding" in exchange for employer-sponsored health insurance. At the root of this is the American obsession with self-reliance, which makes it more acceptable to applaud an individual for working himself to death than to argue that an individual working himself to death is evidence of a flawed economic system. The contrast between the gig economy's rhetoric (everyone is always connecting, having fun, and killing it!) and the conditions that allow it to exist (a lack of dependable employment that pays a living wage) makes this kink in our thinking especially clear.
companies report record profits and the rich get richer.
guillotines are being prepared.
I thought this was a slashvertisments for whatever that 'fiver' company is, but after reading the summary, I still have no idea what that 'fiver' company is, or what the hell this story is about.
"The campaign positions Fiverr to seize today's emerging zeitgeist of entrepreneurial flexibility, rapid experimentation, and doing more with less. It pushes against bureaucratic overthinking, analysis-paralysis, and excessive whiteboarding."
Whoever came up with that deserves excessive waterboarding.
Celebrates trolling people into clicking on bullshit.
Who is the sucker here?
> the American obsession with self-reliance, which makes it more acceptable to applaud an individual for working himself to death than to argue that an individual working himself to death is evidence of a flawed economic system.
It's a choice between community and individuals. Self-reliance was great back in the day when you could (in theory) walk into the wilds and build your own civilization, but if you want a modern standard of living there are simply too many things to do, too much to know. We rely heavily on people taking on highly specialized roles and ultimately everyone lives better as a result.
Modern 'self-reliance' is more like modern 'fuck you, I got mine'. It's people exploiting others and making them like it by holding out the carrot of their own anomalous success. And we eat it up because the human brain is shitty at probabilities... we all think WE are going to be the next big exploiter when the odds are far better that we'll win the lottery, and the truth is we're more likely to die by lightning strike than have either of those things happen.
Americans have to get over their fear of socialism and accept that, all other things being equal, a community that works together is stronger and more prosperous than one that does not. Or they can watch wealth disparity continue to increase, a smaller and smaller portion of the population living like near-Gods while the greater portion has less and less. It'll take time for that to become apparent, so long as bellies are full and everyone has an Internet connection, but eventually the mob rises up and you get a revolution.
This all stems from the widespread adoption in America of the the Puritan philosophy of human worth, best summed up as "the quality, quantity, and duration of achievement."
So, yes, by their standards the ultimate goal is to work hard, until death, to earn a place by the side of god as the most righteous. The bonus is that this also allows the hardest workers in life to demean those who have not worked so hard.
http://moscowproject.org/
to keep up.
Oh, what a relief! For a moment there I thought Microsoft was going into the dairy business.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Wouldn't you be better off pestering your Facebook friends selling pyramid scheme essential oils or something?
“You eat a coffee for lunch,” the ad proclaims. “You follow through on your follow through. Sleep deprivation is your drug of choice. You might be a doer.”
I'll see you and raise you this:
"The busy man is never wise, and the wise man is never busy".
- Lin Yutang
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Coders always be high paid millionaires in demand! Just keep your skills up bro! Framework of the week is where it's at dude!
You should probably seek some medical attention.
I don't respond to AC's.
I'm not aware of people saying "gee, I really don't want that nine-to-five job, I want to be an uberer/fiverr/lyfter". They* are taking those jobs because they don't have anywhere else to go
*I fully expect a few "disproving anecdotes", the best kind of science. But its overwhelmingly true.
Ah, the great "meaning" argument. Whether they were intended as full-time work originally or not, they most certainly have morphed into that. And I don't really care about motivation as much as impact. And Uber/Lyft with their car leases, definitely are trying to make you think of it as a full-time job.
Which isn't at all the message Fixerr/Uber/Lyft are putting out there.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Jokes on you, I'm posting from the psych ward of a federal prison.
The last time that you could get a decent permanent job without solid skills and education was the 70s. But they weren't easy jobs - things like auto plant worker. And many of those jobs vanished in the 80s. Today's WSJ has an article why... basically people got progressively more expensive, while automation got less expensive. The "gig economy" is no different than what people did before about it... Amway or Fuller, or holding Tupperware parties, or starting a lawn care or housecleaning service, or starting your own cab/limo company before cities regulated and medallioned that option off the list. The unfortunate part is that we fall for the sob stories, the anecdotes of emotion, and then close off another rung on the upward-mobility ladder in the name of protecting the people that, as a result, are held down more firmly.
Yeah, the OP sounds close to a burnout.
SV is one huge company town right from the last century. The only thing that is missing is Pinkerton thugs cracking skulls.
This is the logical conclusion of all union-busting that we have done last 25 years. While you might hate unions, the alternative is much worse.
The gig economy is just gigs for some cash not full time employment.
I frankly don't buy it! There are small groups of people who are interested in that sort of thing. Teenagers who still are largely fed/clothed/housed by their parents, perhaps a stay at home parent needing something to do while the kids are at school, retirees who don't perhaps have savings for entertainment and actually want light work as a diversion. Maybe some trust fund babies that want to make a few bucks without rules attached. I am sure there are others. I am also sure this isn't a large enough labor pool to meet the demand in terms of scale companies like Lyft, Uber, fiverr, Amazon (turk) etc in vision.
The rest of the labor force isn't taking gigs because they want to! They are taking gigs because they are trying to meet needs or at least perceived needs. Most sensible after working a 40-60 hour week want to use their remaining time, to enjoy the home they secured, eat a nice meal, watch a movie, watch the world go by, read a book, talk to family, see friends, etc. Some people who are self employed might be self motivated to work 9 hours + and that might make sense if they are doing it so they can 'get a head' and eventually not have to work so hard etc. Its also different in that they are working for something that is their own, in the same way some of us would work DIY remodeling our own home etc.
Really do think that Uber driver would not be somewhere else if they did not feel like they really needed the money at least on some level? They are doing it out of some kind of insecurity, tangible or emotional. Don't tell me some people just like driving either, I love driving. I take my Sunday drives on the Blue Ridge Parkway either by myself or with my wife. I don't play taxi driver for randos downtown. I don't believe anyone else would either if they were 'entirely free' to decide.
There is some external pressure and its almost certainly in the form under employment, unemployment, under paid and without negotiating leverage, trade competition and similar. The capital owner element of the gig economy is keenly aware of this, its the reason they have a labor pool to hire. I am not saying its exploitative, people should be free to make whatever contract, work whatever job they wish. I just don't have any illusion that this is a bunch of people out there looking to make a little mad money. There are major structural factors at work here and the market is simply responding. I am also of the belief that its response isn't unaffected by governmental policy. They people we voted for are doing this to us.
They have been doing it to us since the 60's. People are getting fed up. Trump is just the tip of the ice burg (hopefully)! The capital class that owns the media and dominates politics are reacting virulently to his populist message and that tells me they are frightened it could endure beyond his presidency. Perhaps someone a little more politically savy will be able to take the Trump ball and run with it.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Yes, ideally this would work. However, if you are charging X and your competition is charging 0.1X, you're not going to get any business until you drop your rates to theirs.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
it's doing it to the folks who want to hire their workers for peanuts. From what I can tell it's a platform to connect people to Uber cheap (pun intended) labor overseas. It's actually terrifying. One of the few good sources of jobs left in America is small businesses too tiny to outsource. Fivver might kill those too. If you're a consultant and you're reading this you should be sweating bullets right about now.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
And what about those people who make mistakes and have to deal with the consequences... Should people have to live awful lives working themselves to death because of a bad decision decades ago? Isn't that like saying to sick people "Fuck you, pay for medical care or die. You shouldn't have gotten sick in the first place, and this all could have been avoided"? Not everyone has the aptitude that you have, does that mean that they need to be relegated to a life of wage slavery, working more and more for less and less just to not starve to death?
American society has always had the obsession on self-reliance, but I'm glad people are starting to see gig economy jobs for what they are. The question is what we do when the possibilities of realistically supporting yourself evaporate completely, and we go back to a semi-feudal system -- the nobles having all the power and letting the peasants who serve them exist at the bare minimum standard.
For decades in the US, the formula was simple:
- If you're smart, go to college and study anything. A large company will hire you at the entry level and take you through to the end of your career
- If you're semi-skilled, go to trade school, become an apprentice and join a trade union; there will be work until you retire.
- If you're less skilled, go join a union and work in a factory -- same deal, there will always be work.
It seems to me like this is gone, and no one noticed until now, or brushed it off. The modern economy is built around steady paychecks -- people can't buy a house for cash, they have to get a mortgage and pay it off as they earn. Same thing for consumer credit...no one is going to go into debt if they feel they can't pay for it, and debt is what drives the economy to some extent.
Steady paychecks are one of the reasons I've stayed out of the IT contracting world, even though I've been told I'd be excellent at it. It's stressful worrying about your job, or where the money is going to come from, and having to constantly hustle to find new work.
So, to summarize what you said: "FUCK YOU! GOT MINE!"
Die now, old asshole.
If more of the same people who are decrying a pregnant woman burning the candle at both ends for Uber would back Trump on crippling the ability of employers to profit heavily from international labor arbitrage, among other things. But we can't do that, that would violate someone's rights and make it harder for a SF Bay Area entrepreneur to outsource some work to China.
Going off-grid an living in middle of nowhere sounds better every day. Of course that is not a effective and sustainable solution that can accomodate everone. :D
Just working hard and long is not the road to a great life if you are working on the wrong thing. Lyft, Uber, Fiverr etc. are among those. Working hard at creating those companies might have been.
People hate on unions, then wonder why they are treated like crap by employers.
I'm glad you said it so I didn't have to write it all out.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
What is your suggestion? That these people whose alternative is no job take that alternative? That the employers raise prices to support higher wages for their workers, leading to much reduced demand and most of their current workers bring out of work? That the employers start printing money so they can pay more than they take in?
How many commenters have I seen here saying people are poor because they're not taking risk on starting a business and being successful. That requires debt!
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
"Self-reliance" does not mean working yourself to death for peanuts. Oh, are we going to have the government step in, because you're too stupid to keep a reasonable work/life balance and negotiate fair compensation? Ultimately, you're going to want to progress from the tier of self-employment to owning your own business, because in the long term owning your own job means having no paid vacation or sick days. But self-employment is often the next step on getting out of the employment scam. You know the one: the claim that if you can just get a college degree, you'll get a safe, secure job and work until your comfortable retirement. Millennials, if anyone, should know this is hasn't been true for their entire lifetime. And government isn't going to get one for you, either.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
What does this have to do with voluntarily working more hours? Mary, the first subject of the article, made a choice and it had consequences. She was not forced to work, she chose to work. She decided to take the risk, and she put herself and her riders in a precarious situations. This was not Lyft's fault. This was 100% Mary's fault. Did she do it because she truly needed the money because she was about to give birth and not be able to work? Maybe, but that still isn't Lyft's fault that she made that choice. Working McDonald's isn't for everybody. Working Lyft isn't for everybody. That doesn't mean you won't find yourself needing to do something you don't really want to do as a job when you need money for food, shelter and bills. But that still isn't Lyft's fault. The entire problem I have with this article is somehow because Lyft and others follow the "gig" business model that FORCES people to make bad choices and risk themselves and others. Argue all you want that Lyft's pay scale or lack of benefits isn't reasonable, but Mary knew that when she signed up. People need to take responsibility for themselves and not expect the world to be covered in soft blankets and warning labels. That doesn't mean companies, society, or friends and family shouldn't help, but articles like this try to pin blame in a way that absolves people of personal responsibility for their choices.
There are absolutely companies who take advantage of their workers. They know they can corral them into working long hours for nothing. The "gig" economy is specifically counter to that because it exists to be a "use it when you want to" job. Got extra time? Go be an uber or lyft driver if you want to make a few bucks. This article this goes further and calls America's desire for self-reliance an obsession in a bad way. When it fucking comes down to it, there is literally only one person you CAN rely on. And that's YOU. The more you give that self-reliance up, the less free you are and eventually there won't be anything left. And if you think that's utopian, then I would never want to see your idea of Utopia even from a distance.
Anecdotes are useless, but many of the people I have met riding Lyft/Uber do it as something a few hours a day, either semi-retired, between jobs, learning a new city, housewives getting out of the house, etc. Most are doing it full time, or effectively full time, but ~20% outside New York seem to do it kind of as intended.
Yeah, they may "pay them little". But if the people taking these jobs had higher paying alternatives, they would be taking them. So, "paying them little" is better than getting no money at all.
Unfortunately this has been proven time and again to be wrong, at least as far as the smart use of credit is concerned. If you want to own a home you're almost always going to have to finance it. If you want to own a car that will give you more than a decade of service with few issues you're probably going to need to finance it. Hell, if you have a skill in a profession that requires materiel or tools that can make you a good income, you might have to finance some business expenses for those tools or for that materiel in order to get the ball rolling. The trick is to set a reasonable debt limit for yourself and to stick to it- don't take all the financing that they'll offer, be reasonable about what you can afford and take only what you need. This has even worked among poor populations like in India, where poor people, offered small loans by our standards, have been able to establish what they need to start businesses to provide services to those in the same situation, become profitable, pay back the loan, and slowly move themselves up to a better standard of living.
The stupid use of credit, whether it's to buy items far beyond one's means (keeping up with the Joneses), or to finance means to then make money without work and without having something to serve as collateral (speculation on the stock market with borrowed money) is obviously another matter. If the bank is willing to loan you $400,000 for a house, you shoul probably look for a house in the $250,000 range. If you regularly have to carry a balance on your credit cards then you need to evaluate your spending patterns; that $100 pair of shoes shouldn't really cost you $200. And you definitely shouldn't buy things like stocks that cannot serve as their own collateral on credit, that's the fastest way of having literally nothing but debt to show for it.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I'll offer the same advice to the gigsters that is (heretofore exclusively) provided to the poor white slobs of WV et al; move to where the good jobs are learn the new skills and also stop being ignorant. It's your own fault because you make bad decisions.
There. All fixed. Enjoy.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
That's a straw man, and you know it. This is a separate issue from things like health care. We could have universal health care and still support gigs.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I take personal responsibility. That is all. I don't want government or anyone else feeling like they have to baby me for me to get through that scary thing called life. Lyft and other "gig" based work companies are creating work for people who either don't have 100% availability or just want to earn a few bucks here and there. If you turn that around and take every "gig" and fill in 24 hours a day all week, or drive passengers around when you're 9 months pregnant that wasn't Lyft hurting you. That was you hurting you. So what? Make it so Lyft drivers can't work as much as they want to? Or that they have to submit to medical evaluations once a week and have a doctor's note saying they can drive? What is the warning label going to say "Warning: While most people realize you can't work 24/7 without dying, the surgeon general wants you to know that you can die from working."
I have told more than one friend that I think they are working themselves too much. Some take that advice and slow down, some just keep on trucking. But it's their choice. It isn't up to their employer(s) or the government to say "Hey, slow down". How's a gig company gonna know if you worked 80 hours at five other jobs so you driving for them for 20 hours this week was actually detrimental to your health? What exactly is wrong with gig companies existing to let you the worker choose just how much you're comfortable doing? And how are you so weak minded that a commercial/slogan that implies you should work hard would suspend all of your common sense and just keep working harder?
At some point you have to call a spade a spade and look at how much opportunity the average low-income person really has to pull them selves out of the state they find themselves in. A person needs enough to live, so the less they make the more they have to work.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
If their business model can't support paying a living wage, it SHOULD go away rather than damaging the economics of more adequate employers.
I am using healthcare as an example to show that the statement "It's up to you as a free fucking human being to figure out how much you can handle and how much you want to work." is false. It is not up to me as a human being to figure out how much work I can handle and how much work I want to do. It is up to my requirements to live. I need to afford food, water, shelter, etc. If I cannot afford those things I die. This is directly related to the current US healthcare model, or at least the one that our politicians in power favor... if you can't afford to pay for healthcare, you die.
Tools like Fiverr, Mechanical Turk, etc are an amazing way to create positive trade with low-income nations. They get a living wage, we get cheap labor, everyone wins.
They are an abysmal way to run a sustainable first-world economy, due to all the problems listed in the many comments above.
But don't let the shittiness of a gig economy in the US, EU, and other prosperous areas overshadow the value they have in allowing poor areas of the world an instant economic advantage. The Internet has allowed us a way to provide aid without creating beggers, to create a cash flow where value is moving in the both directions, and to allow for economic success in developing nations without sweatshops and mines, without employers siphoning off most of the wealth, or warlords stealing the crops.
Five dollars for an hour of work is shitty here, but when five dollars can be a days wage (or a weeks) in many places it's amazing. If they can get Internet access (and that's a big if...) then it opens up a huge economic opportunity for many of the poorest nations. This kind of opportunity is why Google projects to get the Internet out to rural Africa, India, and South America are so vital.
So yes, it sucks for us here. It should be fought. But the idea itself has merit, it's just where it's being applied that is inappropriate.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
And you don't think they need to be paid back at some point?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The weirdest part about all this is that it's not even new. Look at the works of writing that were representative of the era of the Great Depression. If they deal with the subject of poverty, they usually contain some reference to a person doing "odd jobs" because they cannot find other employment. What do you think uber/lyft/fiver are other than a modern portal for what would have previously been termed an "odd job"? What is a "gig economy" other than a large number of people relegated to "odd jobs" to make ends meet?
It was never a symptom of a healthy shift in modern economics. It was a symptom of past economic problems happening again with a modern spin.
But I'm sure there were people in the 1930s who would claim that people who did "odd jobs" were perfectly happy with their new kind of employment too.
How can you not see that you are agreeing?
How is, "When you don't owe anybody anything, it's amazing how rich you really are; having 'fuck you' money is really just being debt free," agreeing?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
This article doesn't introduce grey. It is firmly on the idea that poor worker bees have no self control and will die working themselves to the bone solely because gig companies promote working when you can.
I've been one for three decades now. Self-employed is, and always has been, a recipe for way more work. The benefit, of course, is way more control; you're expected to translate that control into less work over time -- either by shifting the type of work, or by proceduralizing the efforts involved.
A gig, as is being discussed, doesn't provide any control benefits. A lyft driver can't outsource the driving, can't build the better car, and can't make better routes. Similarly, most of the other gigs are already fully proceduralized, and hence are already so commodity-based, that there is no legitimate benefits for improvement. This results in the up-front huge efforts similar to any self-employment, but without any opportunity to reap the benefits of that extra work.
Secondly, and this is probably the bigger deal, most of these gig-workers aren't entrepreneurs. Instead, they are would-be-factory-workers, lured by more-and-flexible hours, unable to see what they've lost as a result. Typical wage-earners usually work full weeks, for reasonable pay, with reasonable hours and reasonable benefits, but dream of "more hours" and "more flexibility". These gigs offer both of those, but don't translate into "more money".
But that's always been the farce of "the american dream". You can come to america, and you have every opportunity to make-it-big. You can be the next mcjagger. Of course, so can everyone else, so you aren't at all likely to be. What percentage of garage-bands become the rolling stones? You're much more likely to fizzle -- on the order of a 100 to 1. Think about it. 300 million americans, 1% make it big, 297 million don't -- and 200 million don't even come close, with 100 million failing miserably.
Uber never struck me as intending to be someone's full time 40 - 60 hour working job. The early (innocent) model to me seemed more as the post above stated -- "Got extra time?" then yeah, put that idling car to work. But then people viewed it as a potential for a full-time job when it never really seemed to have the foundation to be such a thing. That said, I fully acknowledge that there was an aggressive ad campaign showing how much people could make driving for Uber Black etc. But I think it's a similar thing with AirBnb -- the original "model" as I saw it, was a forum for people to rent out a room BnB STYLE. Where you wake up, and have breakfast with the owners of a property in a far off land before you go off and do a tourism thing or play a gig. But then it's descended into a glorified lodging site to a profitable ends for many. I think that's part of the issue with the whole gig-economy. Lack of controls around this mean there will be people that try to profit from a model that wasn't quite intended to be used in such a way, and then those that try and squeeze wages out of a job that doesn't really have that much fruit to bear (that again, are hit with the marketing campaigns that also seem to fall outside of any control mechanism).
Lyft doesn't exist and Mary, subject of article, wouldn't have even had that option for income. How dare Lyft exist and provide Mary with a way to make cash through her entire pregnancy.
You can work too hard at any job. I could have 3 jobs working 40 hours a week each, none of them "gig" jobs and be carted off the the loony bin after a few months. I take major exception with bullshitters like the article writer saying the gig economy forces or tricks people into working too hard for their own good. Hence my "go fuck yourself" laden original post. And just to make the article even more of a idiot-fest, the writer bashes the idea of self-reliance. Because relying on the government/corporation to take care of you is exactly what you want, right? Fuck that.
A commercial? No of course not. But how about HAVING to work 3 jobs just to make ends meet because you're paid SO little money that you have no CHOICE!
See how quickly that "self reliance" and "free fucking human being" goes out the window?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Pay peanuts, get code monkeys.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Except that isn't at all what this disgusting article is about. It's about how gig economy jobs supposedly trick you into trading your welfare for pittance. "Normalizing" the idea that earning $11 is more important than seeking urgent medical care? What the actual fuck? Writer takes what Mary said was the reason and says no wait but what if it's because her logical decision making has been compromised by evil Lyft and other gig company marketing. Because Mary is a stupid moron who can barely tie her own shoes? No, Mary made a choice. Perhaps out of her circumstances she felt it was worth the risk. Are we really so worried that people can't think for themselves that we're ready to excoriate an entire business model? If people's minds are that weak, then this is the last area we need to be worried about. Think about all those horrible TV shows and movies that just come right out and say so many horrible things are okay! Now we're past "but think of the children!" we're now at "but think of the morons"!
And further how will your government reliance treat you when suddenly that government can't support you any more? Sequestration? Country in bankruptcy? What about when the world all goes to shit and it's anarchy? Where is your communist/facist god now? I tell you where, he's standing over your corpse taking your supplies.
The point is exactly that Mary more often than not does not have that choice. Her choice is to either take a crappy gig that she knows isn't going to pay enough or to NOT have any money whatsoever.
You call that choice? Are you high?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Nobody is talking about government reliance. I'm talking about a job that pays decent money instead of forcing people to sell themselves into slavery.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What equity do most impoverished people have??
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
It's a choice between community and individuals.
With one statement, you show yourself the fool, utterly lacking in understanding of what individualism is about, or the power of what it can do - not for a person, but for the COMMUNITY.
Individualism is not "I got mine". At the heart it is, if possible do not be a burden to others, because you have taken care of yourself as best you can. If you are personally in good shape then it makes it far easier to help others.
Your philosophy is the truest form of selfishness because it encourages members to leech off others with no return. Individualism is the simple common sense of "put your oxygen mask on before assisting others". Is that wrong?
Individualism is making sure that AS MANY members of the community are in a position to help others as possible, so that when the need arises people can get help instead of everyone assuming "the community" is helping someone while they freeze to death in a ditch.
Individualism is about looking out for other individuals, because a little assistance early heads off major and possibly impossible assistance later.
Americans have to get over their fear of socialism
Yeah, no reason to be afraid of a philosophy that has killed hundreds of millions, sometimes brutally and sometimes through sheer indifference.
Go visit Cuba or some former communist nations to see just how much communism should not be feared.
P.S. What is the deal with you communists forcing Trump into office? What did you think you'd get out of that anyway?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Argentina got in trouble larger for relying on a single product: oil. This mistake can happen in capitalism also, as the Irish potato famine showed. If anything, Adam Smith's "comparative advantage" encourages one to put too many eggs in one basket.
Greece got in trouble for overspending on lots of different things, including the Olympics. Politicians both left and right over-spend. Bush and Reagan were yuuuge spenders (and during non-slumps). I believe our military is too bloated, yet GOP wants to bloat it more.
I'm for a balanced budget amendment as long as it allows for stimuluses during slumps or emergencies. But that's nothing to do with capitalism versus socialism.
Table-ized A.I.
because the really, really, really hate being told what to do by a boss. The one I know lives in a dilapidated trailer without a roof (seriously, he couldn't afford to fix it so he put a tarp over it) in the middle of nowhere. Their hatred of bosses borders on mental illness and they trade just about everything else in life to avoid it. Most of them had/have failed businesses. There's enough of them you can make good money taking advantage of them. Sorta like how we've got all those scams targeting old people with failing mental facilities. For a brief period of time after 1940 society was actively trying to protect folks like that. Didn't take much to get us to turn on them...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Yes it is still a choice. Not every choice has a pretty, happily ever after option. If Lyft gigs didn't exist, she wouldn't even HAVE that option. In Jia Tolentino's opinion, that's better for Mary...to not have the choice of working a Lyft. Because it's better not to have the option to work for money you think is worth it because someone else thinks it's too little money for you to make?
Without Lyft, who is Mary going to get this money from that she apparently needs to much that she puts her health in danger to get it? Reduce the number of options you have and you put supply even further below demand and that puts the suppliers (employers) in a position to offer lower wages. Jia hates the idea of praising people for doing what it takes to make ends meet and be successful. Jia is a moron. Jia wants a participation trophy for only giving 25% effort.
The fallacy is that if you take away a bad business that there will be no business. Guess what: Just because we disallowed you from having slaves doesn't mean that there was no cotton to be picked anymore. The work still has to be done, if you can't get slaves to do it, you might have to pay workers to do it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As said before, the work still needs to be done. The difference is that it's not going to be done by a slave driver using slaves to get it done.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yes, and healthcare isn't free to create. What right do you have to the doctor's time? Se paid for her education, she took the time to get it. She put in all the hours of residency etc... to make it happen. Working back to back to back to back 18 hour shifts. And the medical device company who spent billions building that latest tech? Are you also entitled to their time and money? Drug company spends billions on a drug over a decade or more and suddenly you get to have it for free? Guess how long that doctor, medical device company, and drug company exist even if they are free to use? They would be gone faster than you can say "but think of the children." You are free to go start your own drug company and give away the fruits of your labor all you want. But you won't last. Go to 12 years of college and give away your services if you want, but you won't be able to buy your family dinner on gratitude. You know what happened a lot in early United States? Pioneers died of starvation and dehydration if they didn't get food and water on their own. Now we expect those things to be given to us? All it will take is one major event keeping the nanny state from shoving its teat in your poor incapable mouth and all the Jia's of the country will be dead in a week.
Cable co's / fedex / others have misclassified 1099's for years before this gig work thing really got started. The thing is that the places like home joy and others want the control of a W2 but not the cost of them and hell with a 1099 we can even make money by forcing them to buy there tools and other stuff from us!
Is a good indicator some shenanigans are going on.
...
So tell me what you really think
There is some external pressure and its almost certainly in the form under employment, unemployment, under paid and without negotiating leverage, trade competition and similar. The capital owner element of the gig economy is keenly aware of this, its the reason they have a labor pool to hire. I am not saying its exploitative, people should be free to make whatever contract, work whatever job they wish. I just don't have any illusion that this is a bunch of people out there looking to make a little mad money. There are major structural factors at work here and the market is simply responding. I am also of the belief that its response isn't unaffected by governmental policy. They people we voted for are doing this to us.
At the end of the day these companies facilitate the connection between a producer and consume and then take a cut ( albeit a large one ) for the connection. I just don't see how these companies owe more than the contract specifies. Let's say i'm a graphic designer and I hire a leads company to generate leads for me and I pay them a percentage of a completed project originated from their lead. Does the leads company owe me full employment and benefits?
Also, how does our elected leaders even factor in here? What could they possibly do? Should the government require Uber to pay drivers a living wage ( assuming "living wage" can be defined )? Go back to my analogy with the leads company, now they too should pay me a living wage.
It's hard for to me to understand how anyone can seriously think these things.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
Lyft isn't a bad business. Jia is a slacker who wants something for nothing. Lyft provides a service and pays a certain rate. People choose to use it or work there. So take lyft out of the equation. What would Mary have done for money? Some magical job that paid more that appeared because Lyft wasn't there?
And if you do, well you've already fucked yourself by being stupid as fuck and society doesn't need that stupidity in it.
Are you unaware that half half of the population is less intelligent than the other half? Are you suggesting that since the more intelligent half of the population is more knowledgeable and probably less likely to make poor decisions, that the less intelligent half should be exploited due to their lack of knowledge in the matter?
Oh but I'm sure you are so much better than all those stupid fucks on the bottom half. You made it clear in the above. All those stupid fucks can continue to make poor decisions and hurt themselves and hurt others because who gives a fuck about them. Hope they don't make a poor decision that hurts you though. That would be tragic. Poetic justice on their part, but tragic.
Rubbish. You're just picking winners (e.g. the small number of taxi drivers) over losers (the huge number of Uber or Lyft drivers). And your living wage shtick is fucking risible. It's an analog of the Parable of the Broken Window. Why, if we just make employers pay people more, everyone will benefit because then people will have more money to spend!
Good luck with that in a global economy. I'm sure China and India will be happy to play by those rules and force their own employers to pay people the equivalent of $35k a year or whatever insane number you and your ilk think Americans should be guaranteed. That's so laughable that it has no basis to even be in a reality based discussion. And in reply to your inevitable "but muh services are different from muh goods!!!!" prattling, in 15 years we will have automated cars. If you force the market by banning Uber/Lyft type services it will be in less than 8 years.
Your policies would only hasten us to the inevitable UBI system before we're really ready for it. And yes, I agree at some point some major changes will need to be made like a UBI.
People still need to be transported.
Mary may not be the one doing the transportation, but someone will. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter whether it's Mary, Peter or Paul who does the job.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's so absurd. If you look at 10k years ago humans probably had an 18 hour a day, 365 days a year "workday" just to survive. 200 years ago, the average person probably needed to work 90 hours a week to have a lifestyle equivalent to a lower (but not lowest) class Indian or Chinese person.
And now people bitch and whine and moan because people who live like kings relative to most of humanity's history have to get by with only enough income to eat, have shelter, and have modern conveniences and entertainment. Oh, the fucking humanity.
The worst are the "but muh wage slaves!!!" people and the "work life balance!" assholes. Oh noes, you have to work in order to get other people to work for you (which is all money really is, a proxy for other people's labor)?!?!! Poor fucking babies.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should have anarchy and poor farms and shit like that. I believe in a reasonable welfare state, but jesus christ enough whining about needing to work to live like a king vs. merely a lucky American.
So you're going to penalize Mary because she is willing to work the job for less. The grand scheme of things doesn't care about anybody doing the job. The grand scheme of things is the universe of which we are an inconsequential part. In Mary's grand scheme of things, Lyft was a good option. In Paul's or Peter's maybe it isn't. So Paul and Peter choose not to work for Lyft while Mary does. I don't see any problem with that.
Actually, pre-agriculture, they didn't. Of course, they likely died of disease at a relatively young age.
right here.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and declared it pretty much inevitable. Hell, by today's standard's he'd be a bomb-throwing leftist.
You're living in a dream world if you think you'll ever see the world of small communities you're talking about. You can't have it because the ruling class doesn't want it. You have to bend or break the ruling class to your whim with the shear weight of numbers that is the working class. That's what the laws, regulation and wealth redistribution of socialism does. You have to be equally careful that the powerful apperatus you built to do that doesn't get turned against you.
Government is a tool. A powerful, and dangerous tool. Like fire, guns, electricity or any of our other major discoveries you don't just give up on it because it's dangerous. You can't. If you leave a tool like that lying around unattended somebody else is gonna pick you up and brain ya with it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
UBI is fine by me. A gig economy would be just fine as long as the UBI was covering at least the basic cost of living.
But we don't have the UBI now, and so the gig economy isn't supportable. One or the other condition must go.
Right now, it seems more likely that the Troglodytes running things will impose some limits on the gig economy (if only because of bribes) than they are to implement UBI.
If half the population was dumb enough to need all these warning labels, they would already have weeded themselves out. We're playing to a lowest common denominator here. Correcting for an issue for everybody when it's really just a PERCEIVED issue for a few. Did you know you can die from drinking too much water? This Jia character hates hard work. She thinks everyone should be able to put in minimum effort and get the same as those that go all out. Pursuit of excellence or as she called it an obsession with self-reliance is CORE to the American Dream. Land of opportunity. Not land of guaranteed income and all needs met for you. Opportunity is not taken advantage of for you on your behalf. You have to go get it. Some people have to work harder than others to get it for so many reasons. Equal opportunity just means the opportunties are there for everybody, not that it takes the same level of effort to achieve. If I'm willing to work twice as hard for half as much as another person, then that is my opportunity to take. I grew up in a poor household. My parents lived with my mom's parents because they couldn't afford a house of their own. I could have easily settled into McDonald's job at 15 and cruised along at that and been living in a crowded home making a little over minimum wage at 25 years old. But I told myself I wouldn't settle for easy. I had dreams and I knew what I needed to do to achieve them. And I did what it took to achieve them. Now because someone is too dumb to realize Lyft is exploiting them (even though they aren't) then I have to suffer whether it's paying more in taxes or not having a service like Lyft available. To steal Obama's socialist/communist bullshit: You didn't build that! Hence my original post referring to those who think they know better what is good for me or any other free citizen: GO. FUCK. YOURSELF.
So, your answer is, those people whose alternative is no job should just be happy to have no job.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
My guess is that Uber won't want to sink without a fight. They might even become desperate enough to pay a living wage and find a way to make it work. In the end, the market abhors a vacuum. Someone would come along paying a living wage and filling the void. So long as there's a void to fill.
One way to balance the negotiation would be the UBI. Give people enough that they can walk away from a bad deal and the deals will get better fast.
I'm sorry but I never was able to put someone who still owns a car into the "desperate" category.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
This article is spot on. I have long said the country is great except for one major flaw: TOO MUCH WORK ETHIC! And this new generation has just gotten so much work. I try to tell these millennials there is more to life than work work work. But they don't listen! All they want to do is select the most profitable college major and work 120+ hour weeks in an office until they die. This massive work ethic is really making the rest of us look terrible, not to mention drastically increasing the effective labor supply, this depressing wages.
So, millennials, I know all you want to do is work harder than your parents ever did, but take a breather, would ya?! I need to catch up to you.
At the end of the day these companies facilitate the connection between a producer and consume and then take a cut ( albeit a large one ) for the connection. I just don't see how these companies owe more than the contract specifies.
They don't or at least I agree with you I can't think of a reason they owe more. Our elected leaders figure in though because my larger point is there are structural issues in our economy. An economy that their polices shape which create a level of desperation among a sufficiently substantial part of the work force that people will supply labor to the 'gig economy' companies at 'real' rates that in seem well below what people would have accepted in recent history.
Low relative compensation for labor is creating greater wealth separation between the capital owner class and laboring classes. I don't know anyone who really thinks that is positive trend. Even the most ardent anarcho-capitalists would probably characterize that as a simply fact without placing a value judgement on it. I for one don't think an expanding wealth gap is good for society writ large. I don't think the answer is socialism either. I think the more government you just trade community for bureaucracy. Bureaucracy does not scale in the end, and it does not for a full and fulfilling life make, its absolutist nature (these are rules and you're going to follow them) tend to be anti-freedom and progressively more so as it expands into other areas of life. I would like to see us persue a populist communiterian solution but that does imply some government.
It implies capital controls - you can't send big piles of money abroad, but you can spend freely domestically. You can't hire foreign labor and if you want to import good that have a large foreign laybor component well there are going to have to be tariffs, tariffs high enough that you will decide to make things domestically instead. In other words the tariffs are not designed to increase tax revenues for government re-distribution, they are designed to restrict trade by being high enough few would choose the pay them, but still allow goods and services into the country that cannot be sourced locally at least not in the short term.
It requires tight restrictions on immigration, because communities will need to absorb and integrate new members. A solution like a large immigration tax would probably be in order. Want to stay in the US more than few weeks $50K! Want to be on the citizenship/green card tack $80K!
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
People who own a car, are not desperate. People who possess a car can certainly be. Possessing a car is not a sign of non-desperation anymore. They will finance anyone, with no money down. You'll maintain negative equity for 5-odd-years, and likely have it repo'd before that 5-year period is up (in which case, no problem, they'll sell it to the next guy). But car loans are the new subprime mortgage.
Plus, Uber and Lyft will finance your car for you! Heck, your payment on your Lyft car depends on the hours you work.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Forgive my interpretation, but if 80% of the people are doing it fulltime, then it's a fulltime job. With some dabblers.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Plus, Uber and Lyft will finance your car for you! Heck, your payment on your Lyft car depends on the hours you work.
I stand corrected. I never knew this.
I mean, wow, that's a new level of low.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
We could treat Uber like a real job, where they have to pay $X / hour and depreciation on the car, etc. We could insist that someone who was going to Uber fulltime get things like matching social security, predictable shifts, and so on. We could require that Uber follow the labor laws of the countries they operate in.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
But according to leading entrepreneurs, tax breaks and subsidies will do a better job of creating jobs.
At the end of the day these companies facilitate the connection between a producer and consume and then take a cut ( albeit a large one ) for the connection. I just don't see how these companies owe more than the contract specifies.
It implies capital controls - you can't send big piles of money abroad, but you can spend freely domestically. You can't hire foreign labor and if you want to import good that have a large foreign laybor component well there are going to have to be tariffs, tariffs high enough that you will decide to make things domestically instead. In other words the tariffs are not designed to increase tax revenues for government re-distribution, they are designed to restrict trade by being high enough few would choose the pay them, but still allow goods and services into the country that cannot be sourced locally at least not in the short term.
It requires tight restrictions on immigration, because communities will need to absorb and integrate new members. A solution like a large immigration tax would probably be in order. Want to stay in the US more than few weeks $50K! Want to be on the citizenship/green card tack $80K!
I think what you're talking about is the effects of globalization on the cost of labor. From that perspective Fiverr is different in that it is a global "gig economy" company and the buyer gets to choose between everyone on earth and not just their local neighborhood. In that way I would agree elected leaders could have an affect and, I would say, are obligated to protect their constituents. However, globalization is a very different discussion and has impacts far beyond just the gig economy in the US.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
In case of healthcare what the United States does is an immense failure. Trillions wasted on middle men, advertisement, their private death panels, cost of poor health and premature deaths, and the best is when people show up on the emergency room costing $100,000 or $200,000 (if not more) whereas in a more sensible system a poor person will make a doctor visit, costing perhaps $50 or $100 for the doctor and the medication. (with an "immoral" $0 bill for the user)
You're free to be right-wing, libertarian, whatever but this is where I draw a figurative line, your "go home and die" attitude is vile and pointless. I guess you're pissed by the fire department as well.
Even more pointless since private healthcare plans amount to private taxation anyway. Might as well wish for medieval warlords to assault and ransom you every time you try to go the next town over. Universal healthcare is similar but with a bigger pool and cheaper.
And while there is plenty of blame for "the system", I would not say that the people are much better. It is a mixture of envy, hubris and a greed that makes the gig economy so attractive to many people: they think that professionals just rake in the money (uber driver trying to be a rich cabby), they overestimate themselves and their business skills, and they fail to account for the operating expenses and costs of providing a service.
In the past, you often have to satisfy a certain standard to run a business or provide services, and that standard would require formal teaching in your subject area and in business. Now we have "deregulated" the market, and everybody can do everything, including working themselves into the ground. It turns out that "the freedom to work yourself into the ground" is not that great after all. As I said, hubris is part of it.
I want to (preemptively) add that in a putative society where you have small government that only do a few things like Police and I don't remember what.. Why not, just add universal healthcare to the very small list. Abolish everything else if you wish, but this is the last thing that should be removed. Actually, it's a product of 2nd Industrial Revolution capitalism and there were also hospitals in feudal times, so if that's good for capitalists and feudal countries why wouldn't it be good for minarchists/libertarian etc.
You like money and lethal force I think, but nothing else. Money, lethal force and healthcare : having all three suits human nature better.
You lived in a house with your parents and grandparents. This is a nice thing, many should envy you. Really, lol.
And I don't want to dispute your poverty credential or something like that. Maybe Western society is going to the crapper due to the nuclear family - even the supposedly great two-parent family isn't all that great when the parents are apathetic, then there are the household with one parent, and the young adults on their own who can't dream of a min wage job for life.
Now the SMS girls and Pokemon kids are having kids I guess. Shit will hit the fan.
Now because someone is too dumb to realize Lyft is exploiting them (even though they aren't) then I have to suffer whether it's paying more in taxes or not having a service like Lyft available
What if Lyft is running an illegal employment scheme and you have to suffer whether it's paying more taxes or having less customers for your business.
The problem is the race to the bottom. Given enough pressure, you'll get people working for less than it costs them to recover the cost, working for just enough money to cover running costs but not cover for the investment (i.e. their car in this example). Any businessman working like this WILL go out of business eventually when his machines break down and he only tried to recover running costs but never fixed costs.
People do not know that. And even if they do they cannot afford to take it into consideration because according to your model, they only have the choice between accepting that they will be starving in 2 years when their car breaks down and they cannot replace it or starve today by not accepting it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
To me it is more important that Mary's child doesn't have to live their entire life in a society that has become violent because the average person doesn't get what they need.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Do you have scientific evidence backing your claim or only require it of others? I hired someone to clean my apartment for a move out through Task Rabbit and paid them $250 for a day's work. They told me that they travel the world using apps like Task Rabbit in any city they choose and it is way better than the nine-to-five job they used to have. The nine-to-five job is not the ideal way to live one's life, it's just the social norm that people seem to love defending for seemingly legitimate reasons.
Think globally but act within local variable scope.
I agree, I was very lucky to have a roof over my head. It was miserable at times, sleeping in the dining room every night, no privacy, but I never had to sleep in an alley. My senile great grandmother calling out in the night to the birds she saw in the patterns on the wall, but I pretty much always had food.
However my real point was that I didn't let that keep me down. My two siblings didn't have the same level of drive that I have. They both basically just stopped going to school and while they've had flashes of trying to make a better life, they've fallen back on the easy road every time. My entire point was I wanted better so I did better. I did better and I got better. This poison spewing asshole Jia would want me and my siblings to both get the same reward because society shouldn't reward hard work.
Lyft is not running an illegal employment scheme. I don't care about what-ifs when we're talking about what is really happening.
Yes, an actual race to the bottom may eventually drive someone out of business. But that doesn't make competition bad. However, over time, all things race towards the bottom. What was incredibly expensive or even impossible 50 years ago now costs a few pennies to produce. Yes, if you made the expensive version 50 years ago and 25 years later someone figured out how to make it for 10% the cost, you will be hurt by this. Society can't stand still. It is always moving forward. A lot of times that happens at a pace that generally people don't notice when things become obsolete. However, there are also many times especially with technology where it is a dramatic enough change that society takes notice. And sometimes that means people have to adapt quicker than they'd like. Uber and Lyft didn't just shake up the taxi industry, they also created a market for rides where people would NOT have taken a taxi. Now you can find a ride at almost any time of night in places where taxis certainly aren't patroling and many times won't even go. This will eventually make taxi companies rethink their model to compete. Taxi service hasn't had real competition in a long while, and that made some people comfortable that shouldn't have been.
That doesn't mean that Lyft or Uber couldn't do some really stupid things to try to cut costs to compete, but if I sign up as a driver knowing I'm going to make $10 an hour equivalent and I decide to work 100 hours a week, that's on me. Uber and Lyft existing did not force me into a $10/hour job. But that's clearly what the market will bear. Uber and Lyft don't just compete for customers (riders) they also compete in some areas for drivers. And that is a GREAT thing for drivers. It may help keep wages/prices steady, it may make them go up, it may make them go down. But that's all based on real economics. We as consumers who know what we absolutely need to make to survive must adapt constantly to changing conditions. Sometimes that's easy, sometimes that's hard. Maybe it means finding a new job. Maybe it means working harder at your current job. Exceptionalism isn't comfortable. It means always moving forward. Maybe some day society will achieve a level where for most things there isn't a benefit to making it better or more efficient. I don't see how that will be anytime this century or even millenium, but who knows.
A lot of people don't want nine-to-five jobs. They aren't full time Uber/Lyft drivers, but they do "gigs" like web design, development, media, bartending, and so forth. Save up a few thousand, take a trip or something and go back to gigs. Or have seasonal work like being a NFS firefighter or professional sailor, where they work four~five months a year 24/7 and use the funds to support themselves on the other months.
The nine-to-five grind works for some people, but it's definitely not for everyone, so I wouldn't hold it up as an ideal of what everyone wants.
That said, as is usually the case, there is some truth in the hyperbole. In particular, the gig-economy presumes that people are actually fiscally self-aware enough to understand that making a living means selling your time, and if you don't want to have to sell your time till the day you have no time left to sell (as in, you are dead), you'd better be banking some income today so you can become a capitalist tomorrow (where a capitalist sells the time and values of assets they own, their capital, aka, "retired" from the simple business of selling time).
So, the gig-economy assumes people are fiscally self-aware, but experience suggests that many people grossly underestimate the costs of maintenance, operating costs, etc as they drive their assets around town trying to make money for today, but not necessarily making money for the future.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
Sounds like it was written by a communist who hates all free enterprise! 8-P
No one wants to work themselves to death. But if someone wanted to, do you have a right to force them not to? That way truly lies slavery!
Save other people if they give you their permission, but don't take away their right to refuse.
Government regulation of large companies is necessary, as a balance of their power (in both directions). But regulation of people's life choices is extreamly dangerous.
Sometimes you don't have the right to "fix things". ;-)
I'm not aware of people saying "gee, I really don't want that nine-to-five job, I want to be an uberer/fiverr/lyfter". They* are taking those jobs because they don't have anywhere else to go
*I fully expect a few "disproving anecdotes", the best kind of science. But its overwhelmingly true.
Not quite, Uber, Lyft, et al. still have enough starry eyed suckers who dont quite realise that they wont make money that they cans still afford to be picky. This will change rapidly of course and we'll end up with the scenario you describe. The only people driving for Uber will be those that the likes of McD's literally will not hire.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
He's a Libertarian(*). Libertarians believe that coercion only comes at the point of a gun or other direct violence. They don't see exploiting people by saying "work for fuck all or starve/watch your children starve to death" as being anything even remotely similar to coercion. They believe that it's a "choice", freely entered into. They don't even see it as coercion when it's completely fucking obvious that the conditions enabling that exploitation have been deliberately engineered and maintained.
that's because they're fucking stupid selfish cunts.
(*) American-style Libertarianism. The word originally meant socialist, but was stolen by Rand-lovers, anarcho-capitalists ("regulations are evil!!!") and property worshippers suckered into believing that whatever is good for business and corporations is good for freedom, even as they're being driven into slavery by those corporations. Most of them are just deluded losers holding onto the dream that one day they'll be the one holding the whip. The word is tainted now, so non-american libertarians refer to themselves as libertarian socialists or left-libertarians.