Service for Some, Slavery for Others | Hacker News Reader

Service for Some, Slavery for Others

gerrymcgovern.com

35 pointsingve35 comments

Good customer support agents are highly valued by many tech companies where support is a key value-add to their solution. Three of the companies I have worked for paid very well for top-tier CX employees.

Just like some developers are treated by their companies as an expense, other companies highly value developers and pay them well. This is the same with customer support, and good support agents who are feeling mistreated find higher-end jobs.

Good waiters at restaurants work at high-end establishments and make good salaries. In a free society, people flow towards better jobs that are a better match for their skillset.

You don't need to feel that you live in a digital hellscape populated by slaves, as the author proposes. The person driving your Uber likely chose that to make money, rather than all the other ways they could have made money, because they prefer it.

There is a popular theme lately being promoted by educated, well-off people that society is being destroyed by mobile apps, Facebook, on-demand food-delivery service, etc. It's really not. Go enjoy your day and stop getting yourself worked up.

> The person driving your Uber likely chose that to make money, rather than all the other ways they could have made money, because they prefer it.

or didn't perceive the other ways, or didn't have resources for other ways, or wasn't approved for the subset of other ways that they both perceived and had resources for

You assume that uber drivers are ignorant. I assume that people know how to live their own lives. They had the resources to acquire a car and a driver's license. There are many, many worse jobs out there than driving a car.

Most ridesharing drivers are ignorant of the expenses they're incurring, and therefore the effective wage they're receiving. Just because you know how to survive doesn't mean you know how to calculate the return on your time and vehicle investment (clearly, as American personal finance education is woefully inadequate).

I find arguments such as that put forth as deeply disingenuous, that most people are rational, exceptionally educated economic actors (if you can convince someone to give you an auto loan and a drivers license, which are extremely low bars, than you can clearly determine if gig economy work is in your best interests), when overwhelming evidence proves otherwise. To me, it comes off as justifying exploitation (ie "the gig economy"), which clearly has no place in first world countries or this century. But, with the number of tech workers who are employed at highly compensated at exploitative entities, I am not surprised in the least.

I would assume there are things you also haven't been exposed to that would help you reach your goals faster and be more fulfilling than what you currently do.

I wouldn't use the word ignorant for that, but I also wouldn't argue about whether the definition would apply.

Something I learned very, very rapidly when I started building things that other people actually used: one of the absolute worst things you can do is assume that the people using what you make either 1) know what they are doing 2) skimmed the manual/docs 3) are capable of doing anything that isn't explicitly stated in their list of things to do.

There are of course underlying reasons for these issues - lack of sleep, the marathon of raising children, the struggle of staying on top of bills, too many things to do in too few hours - but that does NOT invalidate them and you cannot design a system that ignores those issues and depends in part on human interaction and expect it to actually work consistently and properly.

A couple things I have read this past year suggest that mainstream economists are finally waking up to what people in tech support have known for decades. Never assume someone is acting rationally/has all the information/doesn't have extenuating circumstance, because you will probably be wrong.

Perhaps your assertion that we worry about this too much is true, but I do take issue with your hidden assumption that merit is directly proportional to effort. That is, the org chart you present presupposes that only lazy, ill-motivated people stay at the bottom.

But the truth is that some people are not very good at anything, and many people will never be the best at anything, no matter how hard they try. Some people are born mentally slower, more socially inept, physically weaker than others. Some people are born into bad circumstances (and a bad childhood can screw your whole life up at worst), others are dealt a shit hand by fate. (Your insurance company can pay for your back surgery if you're rear-ended, but they can't guarantee it's fixed, or even bearable...)

None of the people in these categories are less motivated or more responsible for these problems than others...although, indeed, we tend to despise laziness more if the person is already bad at their job, and it is easy to mistake incompetence for a moral issue. (After all, why the cliché about malice and stupidity if not?)

So yes, all of the talented, motivated people with prolonged bouts of stable home lives, good backgrounds, good health, etc., will rise to the top and get paid accordingly.

Some of those talented and motivated people will be left behind by the system. Personally, I do think it matters what the system does in moderate case.

Most systems that work at all correctly reward and punish best cases and worst cases. But what about the middle? People who are not especially talented or especially qualified or especially stable or especially healthy? When these people enter the system, what happens to them?

If you are of the view that everyone does what they do because they're somehow economically forced into it then you're going to see the world as a very dark place indeed.

Whether you're correct in that view or not is almost irrelevant because the effect will be the same. It's going to infect your every interaction.

Honestly, I find this more of a common sentiment amongst historically well off folk. I grew up poor and this sort of "everything is awful because we're slaves" mindset didn't exist.

Not everyone has the skill or capital to apply for any job or start any business tomorrow. That much is obvious. That's a very different concept from slavery.

I hate "analysis" like this, which is divorced from data or trends over time to make fair comparisions. Here are some actual questions worth answering, and likely could be, based upon data:

- What income levels are Uber drivers (and others being paid by these companies) within their region? How do these wages compare to other non-skilled, non-physical labor?

- When asked, what do these workers say about their working conditions? Why do they choose to work for these companies vs some other low-skill job?

- What about mobility? What is the average duration of a person's "career" as an Uber driver? What is the distribution of outcomes? What events typically cause entry and exit from a contract relationship with Uber?

I am genuinely curious if the prevalence always-available of low-barrier-to-entry/exit, low physical labor "gigs" like Uber has resulted in increased income mobility, standard of living, etc, for those working for these companies. It seems that the kinds of questions by this author are only relevant insofar as companies like Uber have displaced other opportunities or driven down the standard of living of their contractors. One factor that seems particularly troubling is the fact these contractors are not employees, and so have no bargaining power, benefits, etc, which may become normalized due to the introduction of these jobs as other companies try to compete for these workers.

It's unclear to me if Uber et all simply add more jobs for the unskilled labor pool to consider or in fact are having a negative effect on bargaining power, average wages, and income mobility compared to the previous regime of unskilled, non-physical labor opportunity pool (retail, fast food, etc.)

It sure would be nice if there was a clear answer to this question based upon data.

When asked, what do these workers say about their working conditions?

My sample is quite small, but from quick chats with Uber drivers they seemed to like it.

You won't become a millionaire driving Uber, but it's better than being a deli clerk in a grocery store next door.

I wonder how their feelings might change when the maintenance costs come home to roost, when their frequent driving involves them in an accident their insurance company refuses to cover (because they have personal use insurance), and now they have neither car nor job, etc.

Basically, it seems to me that there is a lot of deferred cost and risk and that people are, in general, very bad at assessing. Perhaps the job is not worth it if you factor in these long term factors, but most people have not yet had to factor them in. (As our OP said, data would be nice here. When do these costs come home for drivers? What do they say then?)

One thing I will say. Professionalization and licensure certainly brings its own hazards, but one thing it almost always does is drive up wages for the licensee. The taxi market in NYC is wacked out, but taxi drivers can usually enjoy a decent standard of living in major metros with licensed taxi systems.

FWIW, Uber provides insurance for its drivers.

The problem is much bigger than the existence of these gig economy services. The deeper issue is that demand for unskilled labor has become weak enough that, for many people, this is their best option relative to their skill set. Working conditions are terrible, but I don't think it would be a good thing for the world if Uber and the rest of the gig economy services magically disappeared one day: it would simply put the drivers into a financial tailspin with no real chance of escape. Moreover, Uber and Lyft are in a race to the bottom in terms of prices, and neither can unilaterally raise driver wages without pushing riders to the other app. The global economic rat race to drive down prices is unrelenting.

I suspect that universal basic income will become extremely popular in the public view, bordering on necessity, to offset the rise in inequality in the United States.

We are all a slave to the needs of our own body. When I'm hungry for instance (or anticipate being hungry), I act to serve that slave master.

If you offer to pay me to drive you from point A to B and I freely accept, you do not become my slave master just because you exploit my need to serve my true master. I would be worse off if you failed to exploit that need.

The final slave master is mother nature, and she's a heartless bitch. It's frequently easier to blame our fellow slaves. The true slave masters are the ones that offer pain instead of cash for your labor.

If you want to blame an actual person for your pain and identify them as your slave master, the one with the most choice in the matter was probably your mother. Blame her. And also give her a call and tell her you love her, because it's almost Mother's Day, and there are good parts to being alive too.

Hmm I feel like Billionaires are an easy target. And while the narrative is easy to sell, I doubt it’s the real answer. My belief is that wrong kind of complexity created the current state. Take Healthcare, Manufactured scarcity of doctors, lawsuits, layers of insurance, pharmacy benefits managers, mergers of hospitals all lead to the present dysfunctional state. Did few billionaires profit off of it sure, but the blame lies on overly complex system of intermediary agents all bleeding the system. The answer might as well be Medicare for All.

Uber is making life of Uber drivers better, by giving them the option to be an Uber driver and providing customers and rules of engagement. It creates new means of earning a living, instead of taking it away. What is even the question? It is not the best job in the world, but surely beats no job at all.

"no job at all" means welfare, which may give you the time and training opportunity to get a better job

There are many people who are not allowed or don’t have the opportunity to get welfare (immigrants, people who lose the competition for welfare — it is not a straightforward process, etc.) Not to mention that welfare is not limitless and usually quite low compared to working income, even from driving Uber.

There's an argument to be made that Uber is tricking people into making bad decisions; by easy upfront money, gamification and what not.

Some studies have shown that after taxes, gas, wear on cars etc. many drivers are really losing money: https://www.fastcompany.com/40538647/nearly-a-third-of-uber-...

Perhaps. However, this is a problem with Uber’s dark practices, not the service economy in general. I have a friend who is a successful full-time Uber driver, bringing home about $5000 each month (this is Switzerland, so it is not a huge salary, but about what a non-immigrant retail worker makes here — and such jobs becoming increasingly rare here).

I vehemently disagree with this.

It was maybe true in the beginning when payouts were subsidized by VC, but the most recent rounds of driver payout cuts have led to a situation where a lot of drivers are recent immigrants who “lease” cars on a daily basis (at a rate around 75% of what they make a day). Many speak next to zero English; but that’s ok because Google Maps is localized in their native tongue. I’d say most of the drivers on the east coast fall into this category.

Does that sound familiar? Because it’s exactly how the legacy taxi industry worked. People would bring their relatives over, have them drive a taxi they owned, and collect nearly all of their earnings from providing a room to sleep in and a car to drive. It’s exploitative, yet it’s often one of the only jobs available to these communities. And Uber has zero disincentive to just pretend this old business model hasn’t just carried over into the new world where there’s no government regulation to address it.

Yes, and yet people still do that voluntarily. Because it beats staying in their home countries. It provides them with the means to adapt to the new place of living, and then move to a better job. Without this step on the ladder, they would live much more miserable lives.

So that means we should encourage low-wage slavery?

I am an immigrant, from Russia to Switzerland. I don’t have any right to Swiss social security and welfare (despite paying taxes here). I am happy that I have at least something by default if I won’t be able to work in my profession for any reason anymore. Uber is my safety net — if I still can drive a car, I can sustain my living. It works the same for other immigrants.

And yes, I much prefer driving an Uber here to living and working in Russia.

Can't you also say that being a slave assigned to cotton-picking is better than being destitute, in the middle of nowhere, with no food? Or being whipped to death, which is what the master is "forced" to do in cases of extreme disobedience? You can defend literally anything saying they give a choice that gives the victim a better option.

I love how it's Uber that is giving drivers a rational option instead of the drivers giving Uber a rational option. It could go the other way, and be people giving Uber a "choice" of paying better and halting self-driving research or go out of business.

Nobody whips Uber drivers or forces them to drive Uber.

With the same thinking, you should also praise sweat shops in developing countries - better to earn $0.10/hour than no income at all, right?

If nobody forces people to go there and artificially limit their options and competition, yes, these are better than the alternative (dying from starvation). Is there anything wrong with the logic there?

> For instance, Uber seeks to ride to a mega IPO on the backs of its slave drivers.

Note that a "slave driver" is a kind of overseer that makes the slaves work harder. "Drivers who are slaves" might work better here.

This kind of perspective is pretty much the standard perspective of the European left. Saying these things is almost like saying nothing, because it's what you expect.

If the proverbial 'man from mars' took a look at developed Western society what might he see? A middle aged man gets up at 7am and climbs into a car, conveniently parked right beside the shabby dwelling he sleeps in. He then spends the next 18 hours ferrying other people from location to location stopping only to use the toilet. He eats when he can - maybe a rushed sandwich during a 5 minute quiet period until he is again summoned to the next person. At the end of the day he returns to his starting point and, exhausted, collapses into his bed. The next day he repeats this.

The man from mars concludes that this person must be a slave.

Could you not apply the same logic to any occupation?

I get out of bed, head to an office and build software on the orders of those who pay me, I get summoned to meetings at their behest, I work long hours, only stopping to go to the toilet, I too get home and collapse into bed to repeat the next day.

No, man from Mars sees somebody who is poor.

The author takes the etymology of the word service notices that it is based on the word slavery and decides to conflate all service jobs with slavery.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com