Hacker News Reader

> There are individuals in precarious economic positions.

This is true across all income classes, because the classes are a distribution. While I agree that those in "precarious" positions may be concentrated in the gig economy for the reasons you suggested, this argument is an insufficient rebuttal.

> The pay on DoorDash is very low, because consumers won't pay that much for food delivery.

OK, so costs go up, consumers don't participate in the market, and the gig economy collapses. Are we in a better or worse position now?

> Here's a thread on the DoorDash Reddit

Do these individuals think the picture would be more rosey if they didn't even have this work for income?

> This is true across all income classes, because the classes are a distribution. While I agree that those in "precarious" positions may be concentrated in the gig economy for the reasons you suggested, this argument is an insufficient rebuttal.

That wasn't the entire rebuttal. But people in other income classes don't have anything to do with DoorDash. People in other income classes can be taken advantage of too (I believe there's a thread about SBF buying crypto companies on the cheap as they are on the brink of collapse). Another example might be loan sharking.

> OK, so costs go up, consumers don't participate in the market, and the gig economy collapses. Are we in a better or worse position now?

I believe this is what's called a false dichotomy. But I agree with you it's better to work on DoorDash than have no work and no money at all, if that's what you're offering up as an alternative. The fact that you acknowledge that is the only other alternative is actually a point in favor of it being "taking advantage".

> Do these individuals think the picture would be more rosey if they didn't even have this work for income?

Surely not. But what's your point?

> I believe this is what's called a false dichotomy.

i'm interested in how this is false. if the person could have worked for higher wages before the gig economy, then surely they would not need to rely on the this economy to exist. but those who are unemployed or underemployed clearly see the flexibility as an acceptable compromise for either lack of better skills (and time/money needed to acquire them) or no work at all.

i think the people who can be taken advantage of are those who cannot improve their situation (health issues, mentally or physically impaired, undocumented immigrants, elderly who cannot easily learn new skills or commute to a farther work location), but this is not gig workers as a whole.

people have a habit of complaining that the skills they refuse to advance dont pay much (fast food workers, coal miners). it's always the employer not paying enough, not the fact that someone treats a cashier position as a career rather than a temp job. my parents delivered pizza when we moved to the US in 1991 with $500 to their name. needless to say, they didnt deliver pizza for long despite living in a motel with two kids to raise and nearly non-existent english.

I meant it's false in that it implies there are no other possible solutions that could alleviate this problem.

But if it's not false, and it truly is their least bad option they are choosing over destitution, I would think that's a strong argument for it being "taking advantage". I guess I don't follow the logic of, essentially, "yes I admit this is a terrible job, but your alternative is nothing / starvation, so I'm not taking advantage!"

> i'm interested in how this is false. if the person could have worked for higher wages before the gig economy, then surely they would not need to rely on the this economy to exist

Companies like Uber, Doordash etc. are price dumping because they have unlimited investor money. Their competitors cannot compete, and go out of business. As a result you have a choice of either starving to death or working for these companies.

> it's always the employer not paying enough, not the fact that someone treats a cashier position as a career

A person working as a cashier has a right to a decent living. This has nothing to do with "career".

> A person working as a cashier has a right to a decent living. This has nothing to do with "career".

i think people have a right to food, clean water, shelter, and healthcare. regardless of their employment status. no one should be homeless. but 'decent' is an odd word. should a cashier have a right to 'decently' raise/feed/house 6 kids? i'm not sure. should a cashier have a right to a decent living in the most expensive city in the world? that's a tough one; all cities need cashiers. probably they should be able to afford to rent a studio apt at least, that's not a 60min commute.

What about ~2.1 kids? As that is how many kids people need to have to at least maintain a replacement rate population.

i dont know what the number should be. but when it comes to supporting dependents, i would say that we as a society do not have an obligation to make every job - no matter how trivial/approachable/unnecessary - sufficient for the task.

So, you are going to draw a very arbitrary line where you define a human life to be worth it.

Do fast food workers qualify? Garbage collectors? Store clerks? Mailmen? Taxi drivers?

There are millions of jobs that you routinely depend on in your life. But sure. "We as society don't owe them anything".

the flip side of this is, of course, should every job be subsidized to support any lifestyle? i'm guessing that the answer is "no". so there is in fact a line to be drawn.

shoe repair doesnt pay what it used to a century ago, but somone can definitely start a business doing it in 2022, and then discover that it's a job that cannot sustain a family of 4. so the person will need to seek greener pastures. how is the gig or unskilled labor situation any different? if it doesnt pay enough to support dependents, then you have to do something else.

i think it's reasonable to say every job should support one person, but more than this should require more than minimum effort.

some of the jobs you listed can pay pretty well (after some time), actually. but bagging groceries at a supermarket is not one of them.

> should every job be subsidized to support any lifestyle

What do you mean by subsidize? You don't "subsidize jobs". You provide a living wage.

What do you mean by "this lifestyle"? It's not a "lifestyle" to have a decent life.

> how is the gig or unskilled labor situation any different

Because, as it was already pointed to you repeatedly, there might not be a choice of greener pastures. Besides this, why do you insist that a person working 8 hours in the hell that is fast food industry isn't worthy of having a decent life outside work? Who is worthy then? You? Why? Where do you draw the line?

I mean, you probably wouldn't last more than a few days in most "unskilled labor" jobs (which actually require quite a lot of skill). But sure, do tell me how you're better.

> I mean, you probably wouldn't last more than a few days in most "unskilled labor" jobs (which actually require quite a lot of skill).

you seem to know a lot about me, and what i've been through.

> i think the people who can be taken advantage of are those who cannot improve their situation

If all the large tech companies conspired to halve wages by agreeing not to hire each other’s employees, and succeeded, would you consider those workers affected to have been taken advantage of?

halving wages by itself, im not sure. if apple decided to take an 80% cut of app sales in their walled garden and made it unprofitable to develop apps there for indie developers, would they be liable for some people not being able to make a living off their platform? do we even know that tech companies are not taking advantage with current wages. apple makes $400k profit per employee, etc.

these gig economies owe their entire existence as a direct result of being mediated as walled gardens. if uber's app vanished tomorrow, so would millions of gig jobs.

but not hiring each other's workers, yes. and in general, price fixing and anti-colluding laws should be enforced to ensure a competative market.

If working for DoorDash is their best available option, I'm inclined to point the finger at every other company first. Why is it that DoorDash and the other Gig economy companies are offering the best available work option for so many? Where are the rest of the companies and the government? I've never really understood blaming the best available option for the lack of alternatives. There are also enough gig economy companies that if one of them was especially bad then workers could easily switch to the competitor.

You're correct that blaming the delivery apps is looking in the wrong place. If the government doesn't want people in precarious employment they should provide a social safety net. Then if the gig jobs were so bad, they would have no workers and would cease to exist. Otherwise, they must be ok.

> There are also enough gig economy companies that if one of them was especially bad then workers could easily switch to the competitor.

And if they're all the same since they all run the exact same business in the exact same markets?

> And if they're all the same since they all run the exact same business in the exact same markets?

The FTC says they're going to take a look to see if there is any collusion. There's a reason those laws are on the books and real harm to workers could happen if they were colluding. It seems like these gig economy companies are spending a lot of time and effort to entice workers from other gig economy companies to join them, so maybe it's actually working correctly already.

This makes a good point.

Every person “above” these people in the economic hierarchy benefit from their dire situation, and there is very little incentive to change that structure.

“I’ll do whatever I can to help you from suffering from me being on your back, except getting off your back.”

> I dunno what you consider that. But it's not like, an arrangement in which the worker seems to opting into this because they think it's a good deal out of their plethora of options. They do it because they are, in their words, desperate.

and is his situation better if he cannot do doordash?

or to rephrase it. suppose I dont like mowing my lawn, but I dont want to pay what it costs for a professional lawn care service to do it. For the sake of argument, say the lawn care service charges $200, but I would only pay $20.

A desperate guy comes by, needs $10 for a mcdonalds meal or he goes hungry, he also needs $1000 to save towards getting an apartment. and i say "give you 20 bucks to mow my lawn", he figures he kinda has no choice, he does it "out of desperation", I "take advantage of him".

now suppose everyone in town has same policy as me, and its through lawndash.

Is the desperate guy worse off? how exactly are things better if i said "well.. I would pay you $20, but well... it almost seem cruel not to pay $200, so im gonna pass on that. Good luck getting a bite to eat though!" ?

Do you not understand that if some services are too expensive they will not exist? Would you pay $1000 for a 10 min busride to/from work(each trip)? no.

delivery of food has a certain price, if it is beyond that, it simply will not be done, and the gig workers are no worse off.

seeing as how this is the case, nobody is being taken advantage of. Its a choice, it may not be much, but he can just say "no" and be 100% as well off as if proud communist unions had their way and forbade these jobs.

I suspect you would not make this argument if the prospective employee were a four year old child and the service to be rendered was sweeping your chimney. But according to what principle do you distinguish the two cases?

I would also rather a 4 year old have $20 for working than starving (in some fictional scenario where those are the two options). Given such an option the only reason I would refuse the child the work would be for legal liability reasons.

IMO if a child is so desperate for food that they must work, then pretty much all other options have failed, and they should be allowed to do it.

I can tell you I have had children ask me for work before. When I was struggling to pay for my own family, I had to refuse them work. Instead they simply stole things from me when I wasn't home. That is illegal too, although stealing from people tends to get you put in jail even faster, so I can tell you there seems to be kids in America where this is a real thing it just ends up being the 'work' they do is something illegal since they're not allowed a legal channel to work.

Well you’re consistent, I give you that.

What I would say is that collectively we decide on the rules of society— what conditions are acceptable and so on. And just as we have decided in the US that it is unacceptable to allow four year olds to sweep chimneys, so too can we decide that, in the words of Franklin Roosevelt, “no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.”

The question isn't whether he's worse off or not. I don't know why you're moving the goalposts. It seems obvious that if you are presented with only two choices, one between $3 an hour and one between $0 and hour, that $3 an hour is better. The post is about whether they are being taken advantage of.

> Do you not understand that if some services are too expensive they will not exist?

No please explain more to me about how the fundamentals of economics and business work.

I will not extend a 100% valid offer for you to come clean my entire house, i will pay you $100 for it.

have I now taken advantage of you?

you CAN say no!

There's a reason it's called "splitting hairs" and isn't generally looked upon favorably.

If they have “no other skills” who is going to hire them?

Nobody, but that doesn't change anything about whether they're being taken advantage of. In order to be taken advantage of, desperation is a helpful precondition.

So, while everyone is so keen on “helping” them by reforming Uber, what are the policies you propose to not keep them homeless?

Also, what about all of the Uber drivers I meet who I talk to that do just consider this a part time hustle? I’ve met a few grandparents when I travel to Nashville for work for instance who say they love the flexibility of Uber. They said it gives them a little extra travel money.

Another point about the laws that California passed to “protect freelancers” had other unintended consequences.

Jason Snell, the former editor of MacWorld went independent and now makes a living via podcasting, blogging and the occasional freelance writing gig for Macworld. He said AB-5 was going to make it harder for him to be a freelance writer in California.

I assure you that Jason Snell isn’t a right wing conservative by any stretch of the imagination railing against “big government”.

https://www.rocketlawyer.com/business-and-contracts/service-...

I didn't propose to reform Uber, and actually didn't make any policy recommendations at all. I engaged on the narrow question of whether some gig workers are being "taken advantage of", which GP claimed was essentially impossible since they have "free will", which I think is a simplistic philosophical / economic argument.

For specific policy, I would probably support something like a federal jobs guarantee, so employment is available to anyone who wants it that sets a wage floor in the labor market. Then those offering gig work will have to compete with that minimum wage floor. But it's really not my area of expertise.

A federal job doing what? It would also be a job that most people wouldn’t “want” and now the government is involved in “indentured servitude”.