Hacker News Reader

Comment by bpodgursky | Hacker News Reader

Someone should let the gig workers know!

I bet they'd quit if they knew how miserable they were.

Did it occur to you that some people could be in situations where they simply cannot quit a job no matter how miserable it makes them?

It probably did occur to GP, that's the whole point (if I'm right to be charitable).

Top comment is arguing that these people should be laid off as part of a government initiative to reshape the economy. If these people can't quit, what will happen if they are laid off? Is there any policy that could help these workers? My best guess is UBI, but that is another discussion.

I would be more charitable to calls to destroy the gig industry if the proposals were coupled with any realistic path to retraining or alternatively-employing the employees.

When the comment is just "this job should not exist" I just know there's no intellectual consistency behind it. They want to punish employers they don't like, and don't especially care who is hurt in the process.

That's going to be bad news when it gets legislated away then, isn't it.

The solution to a race to the bottom, or to other kinds of prisoner's dilemma, is frequently to outlaw the option of racing to the bottom. Healthy bread can't compete because bread with sawdust is cheaper? Outlaw adding sawdust to the bread. Environmentally conscious factories can't compete because it is cheaper to pollute? Outlaw polluting to make a level playing field. Companies that pay their workers a living wage cannot compete with those who don't? Outlaw paying workers below a living wage, so that companies paying a living wage can compete.

In this case, I'd also want to see some form of UBI.

The best kind of safety nets are ones you set up BEFORE you throw people off the bridge.

If you want to protect the workers, set up a UBI now. Then destroy the jobs. Don't talk about hypothetical-might-maybe-work solutions to fix the problem you're about to create. Focus on making things not worse, not punting and hoping you can save the workers from homelessness later.

I don't know you circumstances but it is possible to still do something out of desperation - possibly to feed your family - and hate it.

So in that hypothetical scenario, would that person be better or worse off if they were denied the option to do that thing they're doing that they hate?

Worse off. Feeding their family is probably a higher priority than a shitty job.

It doesn't change the fact that the job is rubbish.

Lots of people do jobs that they hate. It’s common in practically every industry.

On the off chance you’re unfamiliar with the term, I suggest you learn about wage slavery.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

That sounds bad! It sounds almost as bad as unemployment slavery, or homelessness slavery!

Yes, exactly. People shouldn't need money to live.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com