^ - Worth in the Marxist sense, the intrinsic value of something, not the purchase price of the current highest bidder.
What has surprised me is the lack of community centric responses. For example, to my knowledge, there is no communalist Uber. This is a system where the drivers are owners in the process. They pay the devs to maintain the system, but people could join and get a better share of the service funds. I take this to mean the Marxists out there just talk a big game.
However I agree that the gig economy artificially distorts the employment statistics by creating jobs that should, perhaps, not exist at all. A significantly increased unemployment rate might have a real impact on politics.
>Same for Airbnbs, which already cost 30-50% of a hotel.
Have rarely used them but it's probably more than that. For vacation houses, they're competing with other services like VRBO.
It's a 30 minute round trip from my home to the Chinese takeaway and back.
If I go myself, it costs fuel and 30 minutes of a person's time.
If I have Uber Eats bring it to me, it still takes fuel and 30 minutes of a person's time. Plus any time idle between orders. And on top of that, Uber's cut. And on top of that, the taxman's cut.
The economics make a lot more sense as the gap between rich and poor widens. Or if the drivers stack orders, and let the food get cold. Or in cities where most people don't have cars.
You see this in many places in SE Asia a lot where people who are not really rich have drivers, live-in housekeepers/cooks, etc. Hard to make that work in the US even if you are pretty well-off but not genuinely very rich.
Hustling people has become a big part of entrepreneurial "genius". Sure, it creates "jobs", but some jobs are awful and degrading. That's the sticking point.
Anyone on DoorDash can leave literally any time. There is no contract whatsoever .
It's hard to argue in good faith that drivers are being exploited when they willingly, actively participate in the act.
I've seen this in-person... friend was a single-mom trying to get by. These gigs market themselves in ways that are dishonest in order to get participants. Sure, there is high turnover, but that doesn't make it OK.
And yet the people voluntarily choosing to take these "jobs", apparently find their lives are in some measure better by doing the job than by not doing it.
Do I like the idea of people doing things that are awful and degrading? No. Do I think these companies should be praised for operating the way they do? Also no. But I also don't feel that I have any standing to tell people that they shouldn't do something that they find value in, because I judge it undesirable.