Hacker News Reader

The article, and study, refer to several kinds of jobs with variable pay including sales people who get commission.

The disconnect is hn users writing 3 full paragraphs about gig workers without apparently reading beyond the headline of what they are ostensibly responding to.

I'm sorry if I touched a nerve. I read the article and even managed to identifiy that they used self reported data to prove a narrative that conveniently aligns with a current proposal by the US federal government to classify contracted gig workers as employees. Again, absolute detachment from reality.

Self reported data for

"poor sleep quality, headaches, stomach issues and back pain."

That's the normal way data is collected for those things in routine healthcare. We will prescribe drugs based on those self reports.

> We will prescribe drugs based on those self reports.

Let's not get started about the US healthcare system and prescribing a drug for every possible condition. Lots of things can help those symptoms...not just drugs.

I'm in the UK but yes, we also prescribe physiotherapy and exercise based on self reports. My point was we don't always need an MRI to corroborate what the patient tells us.

"Volatile pay linked to health problems" is not an endorsement of full time employment. There is no need to force this into a false dichotomy between full time employment and volatile pay. In fact, the article specifically mentions an instance in when they happen at the same time:

>Sayre conducted a final online survey with 252 higher-income employees in finance, marketing and sales who relied on commissions or bonuses for a smaller fraction of their income. The workers completed monthly surveys for three months, and pay volatility was less harmful to health when they were less reliant on commissions or bonuses.

Stress is bad for your health. Pay volatility causes stress.

This is not academics advocating for full time employment. This is academics advocating for less volatile forms of payment.

I'm a little surprised that a community that traditionally receives a percentage of our compensation in nebulous equity that can be worth either nothing or millions wouldn't understand that uncertainty over your compensation is frustratingly stressful.

Exactly! Between Uber and Airbnb I was to keep my family off the street while I recovered from some serious medical problems.

Some days changing a room over took me 30 minutes. Some days it was six hours. Same amount of work. Sometimes I drove for 10 hours. Some days I couldn’t drive at all.

Did this for a year. Would have died if not for these companies.

If people are using gig economy jobs to make ends meet, doesn't it still seem possible that they could suffer from the volatile pay? Why can't someone have their "freedom" and also have some negative effects?

if someone is struggling to find a job and they are able to pick up a 'volatile' job, could that also have some positive effects?

> These gig jobs are used by millions to be able to make ends meet during difficult times.

Many countries have a better solution for this. It's called a social safety net.

>> and they enjoyed the freedom and the ability to lease a nice car while also paying their rent.

You keep talking about "reality", but the actual reality is that these gig jobs don't pay nearly enough to be able to cover these costs. After all is said and done, a lot of gig workers end up breaking even at best, and sometimes even losing money.

I was talking about reality because I personally know people who have and are currently doing it and they are able to cover these costs.

This is exactly the academic math which is the problem.

If you buy a $30,000+ car exclusively to drive for Uber and have it serviced at the dealership instead of doing it yourself, you're probably losing money. But if you have an existing used car that you already need for other reasons, most of the cost (tax, insurance, time-based depreciation) are sunk and the gig can be net profitable while giving flexible hours.

People have the right to make that choice for themselves. Anyone who doesn't want it can go take any of the less flexible jobs that would be their only alternative if you prohibited these.

>> But if you have an existing used car that you already need for other reasons, most of the cost (tax, insurance, time-based depreciation) are sunk and the gig can be net profitable while giving flexible hours.

Most of the costs aren't sunk though, because they increase when you start driving your car a lot more. For example, you need to upgrade your insurance to a commercial vehicle insurance, and in many jurisdictions also register your car as such. Failing to do so can result in denied claims, canceled insurance, fines and penalties.

That depends on the jurisdiction and policy and is a choice people can make for themselves.

It certainly isn't always worth it, but in the event that it isn't, you don't need a law to prohibit it because it's already not something people have the incentive to do.

And if they're doing it anyway, the assumption should not be that they're idiots who need to be prohibited from doing something they apparently choose to do of their own volition, it's that they maybe know something more about their own circumstances than far away bureaucrats do.

Anyone can make bad financial decisions. It's not like people are being scammed into buying a car. And that car provides significant value beyond its use for work. If someone is only breaking even or losing money from their work, they should stop that work, and 99 out of 100 times I believe they will. So the number of people out there continually "losing money" from gig jobs must be tiny.

The detachment from reality is thinking that your few moments of contemplation on this topic is worth more consideration than someone’s expertise.