The Gig Economy represents the decline of the American Middle Class, as people who would have been able to find white-collar work or stable and well-paying blue-collar work 15-20 years ago now have to enter the service economy and perform low-level jobs, many of which require little or no specialized skills.
For some reason we celebrate this trend as a society and laud its positives (e.g. being able to determine one's own work schedule), but in a decade or two the problems will become obvious and hard to ignore, as many gig workers find themselves too old to work but with no retirement savings, for example.
We laud(ed) this largely because most are consumers and are enjoying a nice consumer surplus from the development. Also for some workers, it's been a nice way to turn spare time + depreciating capital into short term income. In a vacuum it looks like a clear win for all involved.
The larger trend is where it looks worrisome, and that's basically what we're considering as some time has passed.
> as people who would have been able to find white-collar work or stable and well-paying blue-collar work 15-20 years ago now have to enter the service economy and perform low-level jobs, many of which require little or no specialized skills.
Anecdotally, I've met a number of Uber/Lyft drivers that told me driving allowed them to quit their past shitty job and choose a flexible schedule that worked well with raising their kids.
Also, drivers that quit their jobs to pour energy into their family business with some extra cash from driving when needed.
The gig economy would likely exist even if the middle class wasn't declining. In fact, there would likely be even greater demand for gig economy work if the middle class were thriving.
e.g. being able to determine one's own work schedule
This is, of course, something of a Hobson's choice. They can't work their own schedule; they have to work to the schedule of the temporary employer. The choice they have in this is to simply not work at time X, rather than move their work to time X.
Is there any evidence that people participating in gig economy are former blue-collar workers with 15-20 years of experience forced into it because they were unable to find any other jobs?
My personal experience haven't been so - most "gig" services I've got were from people for which is was complementary income and which never intended to hold a full-time blue-collar job. Some of them could have 15-20 years of past blue collar experience only if they joined the ranks of workers straight out of kindergarten.
But my perspective is necessarily narrow and accidental - so I wonder, are there any data on it?
> perform low-level jobs, many of which require little or no specialized skills.
These jobs need to be performed. So who should be performing them?
> many gig workers find themselves too old to work but with no retirement savings, for example.
You are assuming these people would always hold these jobs until they retire. Why? Most people that drive for Uber or do gigs on taskrabbit or fiverr do not see it as a lifetime career, as far as I know. Just as a teenager getting min wage in McDonalds does not plan to do the same until she's 65. So asking "how can you retire on McDonalds salary?" doesn't make a lot of sense.
Why does everything that might be flawed about the economy have to tie into the "American Middle Class". It seems almost this fabulist's position of Things Were Better Back Then, And Can't We Make America Great Again?
> now have to enter the service economy and perform low-level jobs, many of which require little or no specialized skills
have to implies there's a wealth of "white-collar work or stable and well-paying blue-collar work" out there but people are forced or coerced to act against their best interests.
What's the alternative? Let's say the government decides to step in and make a structural change by changing the rules on W-2 employee vs 1099 contractor treatment. Will this lead to a resurrection of the American Middle Class?
The fact the gig economy job exists does not take away from the high paying job. If it didn't exist, these people would not be working or working at their local retail/restaurant store instead.
The social problems of the low-income job lifer is not new.
>Since workers for most gig economy companies are considered independent contractors, not employees, they do not qualify for basic protections like overtime pay and minimum wages.
It concerns me how eager we are to be to roll back the hard won protections that our forefathers fought for. Time and again we see that the vast majority of businesses only look towards maximizing the short term, and exploit any loopholes that allow them to.
I find it funny that the news media treats working for yourself as a new relatively phenomena fueled by a few companies when Daniel Pink (and others) were thoroughly documenting the shift from salaried to self-employed as far back as 2002.
All the current crop of companies did is reduce the transaction costs low enough to democratize working for yourself just about anything can participate. Once anyone can participate, it's a natural outcome that earnings in these markets will deflate and stabilize around the price that the least skilled/educated are willing to work for.
The biggest irony is that without these companies, a lot of the people doing this kind of would probably be unemployed or underemployed. There was a LOT of latent demand that went unsatisfied.
Transportation network companies haven't just taken away some of the demand from existing options like taxies and livery companies, but have increased the size of the market by at least one other of magnitude in terms of rides and miles driven. AirBnB enabled people to capitalize on under-utilized real estate assets that they own or rent with a little administrative overhead as the only labor input.
The real failure isn't the gig economy, but government economic policy that drives some aspects of living costs higher while real income drops. The biggest culprit here are housing costs. Deflation in real income isn't a problem if there is a corresponding deflation in cost of living expenses as well.
I agree, gig economy is just a symptom. College grads aren't working as baristas and Uber drivers by choice, it's because the economy is absolute garbage and has been for nearly a decade now.
"AirBnB enabled people to capitalize on under-utilized real estate assets that they own or rent with a little administrative overhead as the only labor input.
The real failure isn't the gig economy, but government economic policy that drives some aspects of living costs higher while real income drops. The biggest culprit here are housing costs."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
you praise airBnB for unlocking economic value yet demonize housing costs. the discordance here is that airBnB encourages rent-seeking behavior which will worsen housing costs, as that rental value gets priced into the cost of the home over time.
for economic stability's sake, we should favor labor over asset ownership in our economic policy.
What's weird to me is the addictive qualities of "gig economy" jobs. I have friends who had real jobs and could have them again, but continue to drive full time for uber/lyft/postmates/whatever because they insist it's better. They're working 80+ hour weeks and still never have money for anything, but that's okay because they don't have time to go out either. Being able to set which hours you work is meaningless if all you can do with your time off is sleep.
Have you asked them over other intangibles that may be driving them to choose 80 hours of lower pay over 40? Some may find the corporate environment so emotionally taxing that the alternative is still a better solution.
> What's weird to me is the addictive qualities of "gig economy" jobs. I have friends who had real jobs and could have them again, but continue to drive full time for uber/lyft/postmates/whatever because they insist it's better.
Maybe "addictive" is more apt than you realize. Just spitballing, but maybe driving for Uber has the same reward mechanism that makes gambling addictive. Each big win, no matter how infrequently it might occur, keeps the gambler chasing the next one through loss after loss. Perhaps an Uber driver gets such a rush when he makes $60 for a short trip during peak demand that he can't help but endure long slow hours behind the wheel waiting for the next big score.
If only we could somehow prevent Uber from forcing people to drive for them, we could solve this problem once and for all...
I really just can't understand the mentality of "These people are too stupid to realize they're being taken advantage of, let's write opinion pieces to enlighten these poor simple minded masses to the errors of their ways."
It just feels so condescending and elitist to me to take this viewpoint.
If it really is a bum deal, people will figure it out and quit. Uber will either go out of business or work harder to retain drivers. Or if customers get too upset at always having a new driver they'll seek other options.
> I really just can't understand the mentality of "These people are too stupid to realize they're being taken advantage of, let's write opinion pieces to enlighten these poor simple minded masses to the errors of their ways."
The good news is that you don't have to understand that mentality, because no-one has it. At no point does the article suggest that Uber drivers are stupid. It suggests that they have fewer options than other Americans, and are driven into these jobs by a lack of alternative. The article even mentions an effort by these drivers to unionize - hardly the actions of a bunch of stupid idiots. They know what they are doing, but their unionization effort was blocked by a federal judge.
> It just feels so condescending and elitist to me to take this viewpoint.
Frankly, to me, the condescending and elitist viewpoint is the one that assumes no-one really needs employee protections (while you enjoy them) and assumes that jobs are so plentiful that anyone doing a job they don't like is surely a fool who can't take control of their own life. Or that "the market" will fix all of this, when we now have decades of evidence showing "the market" failing to do so.
It would seem that up until this point, Uber+Lyft has represented the transfer of billions of dollars from very wealthy individuals and organizations, to the lower working class.
There is another paradox here, that poor people use Uber+Lyft too. Most municipalities within the US do not have a functional, cheap public transportation systems.
Sometimes you have to take a bum deal, even if you know you're being exploited. This article isn't about telling Uber drivers that they're being exploited (the article references a number of cases where the drivers have sued Uber over it).
Mass affluence seems to be a historical anomaly. Most would agree it has been very hard on the earth's ecosystem. Following that, it may not be sustainable no matter which economic policy choices are made.
The alternative being what? I think this might be trues simply becase we work for the economy and not the other way around.
To me, we've been sold (though many of us don't believe) this notion that the economy is some kind of natural system that we simply have to accept. I'm not advocating communism necessarily but yes, the economy as designed and implemented may not create a stable middle class world for us to live in naturally, but does that have to mean there cannot be one? I think those who are accumulating the vast majority of the wealth would be happy to see it as natural selection but I think the system is much more artificial than that.
The economy has been tweaked and tuned to favor the wealthy even if it also naturally would do the same thing. Tweaking the system to maintain or increase the standard of living for the society is much easier than convincing said society that it should be done for some reason I have yet to figure out.
This analysis, like many others, compares gig economy workers to their full-time equivalents and therefore misses a lot of the positive aspects.
The flexibility has huge value that is difficult to quantify, especially for folks that are augmenting an existing job, a school commitment, retirement, family obligations, or some other constrained situation.
Consider the same at work in two different arrangements: one with a very rigid schedule that pays X dollars per hour, and the other with a completely flexible schedule that pays Y dollars per hour. What's the ratio of X to Y?
A previous generation of the 'gig economy' hype was 'Free Agent Nation', a 2002 Daniel Pink book that extolled the virtues of being your own boss. The economy was cratering and in reality it became a game of musical chairs for what work was available.
This all promotes a race to the bottom for least pay and lack of benefits IMO. Given that medical costs are a cynical for-profit business in the USA it's odd there is such enthusiasm in some quarters for these ideas.
I do know several people who fly around the word making money hand over fist speaking about the joys of this brave new era...presumably lots of people are showing up to hear the dream...
I think a better discussion is how almost none of them appear to understand the correlation between negative unit economics and writing a bullshit, "At least I tried!" failure-disguised-as-success Medium post about how your company failed.
I really do like to bash on the gig economy, and while I don't expect much from the editorial section... The article uses insufficient data to make any strong arguments, Two anecdotes and the actions of one minor company.
I'm surprised they mentioned the $30,000 number multiple times in the article. How much someone makes without the context of how many hours they drive is meaningless.
It would be prudent for the policy-inclined among us to work with the state houses to develop a third category besides contractor or employee. As Homejoy's founder correctly pointed out, a gig worker coordinated by a central company falls in the cracks.
It's incredibly important to get law to properly regulate this space in a sane way that levels the playing field and guarantees worker protections.
"Since workers for most gig economy companies are considered independent contractors, not employees, they do not qualify for basic protections like overtime pay and minimum wages."
"Most [drivers] said the money they earned from online platforms was essential or important to their families."
What do you think would happen to the average driver if the government or labor organizers came in and mandated that these workers receive overtime pay, minimum wage or other benefits? Would ride costs be the same? Would Uber be able to hire the same number of drivers? The space is competitive, it's not like Uber has a monopoly. They make 19 cents a ride on average and lost a bunch of money last year.
If anything, Uber should be celebrated for the fact it allows low skilled people without many other alternatives to be productive. Or would it be better if these people without many alternatives had... one less alternative?
In reality, there is no utopia at companies like Uber, Lyft, Instacart and Handy, whose workers are often manipulated into working long hours for low wages while continually chasing the next ride or task. These companies have discovered they can harness advances in software and behavioral sciences to old-fashioned worker exploitation, according to a growing body of evidence, because employees lack the basic protections of American law.
The gig economy is feedback-based, meaning those who get a lot of good feedback can possibly generate a decent self-sustaining business from it, but the wages often still don't pay well relative to the amount of work involved, especially for Americans on Fiver who have to compete with workers from developing countries, and feedback means gig employees are 100% accountable for whether they succeeds or not.
This is good for the economy and the consumer because it means more efficiency, lower prices, and better service, but harder for the gig workers. For non-gig jobs, the entire company bears the costs of sub-100% productive employees, but gig workers bear full responsibility, thus any sloth directly impacts gig workers instead of being redistributed among an entire company (like Dilbert, where all the employees but Dilbert and Wally are kinda incompetent).
In a way, cushiness was forcefully taken away via democritization. Just as a rich father may gives his son a sinecure, a rich country gives its citizens sinecures out of excess wealth.
Competition amongst people though rapidly reduces the sinecure to no longer be sinecures. Taxi cabs may have had a monopoly, and people were willig to work for less to driver ubers (eg poor college students) but they did not have a sinecure. Many were struggling to make ends meet.
And they had been struggling for years. And so did not have the energy to pursue, say, learning Haskell.
Just as there are laws to prevent olympic atheletes from taking a super drug, breaking all records, and then dropping dead, what governs society should have rules to prevent people working themselves to death.
Unions were once the answer, but their major drawback is reducing competitiveness. In attempting to keep sinecures sinecures, you become less competitive. Meanwhile, the peasant rice farmer is saving every penny to buy his kids a better education and even beating them when they get too low of a math score.
An american who is used to runnning water, electricity, and all night raves who is struggling to pass his college algebra class has nothing on the poor farmers son who grew up in a mud hut and was forced into learning calculus in high school at belts end.
Who deserves the cushy job? The college student example may outwardly express a desire to have a fairer world, but also may resent the poorer peasant racing them to the bottom and the more educated peasants rapidly surpassing them in salary, (eg they get a tech job).
What isn't a scam these days? Scams have only become more modular and probably smarter; so there are scams targeted at simpletons (e.g. the Nigerian Prince Plot, which apparently still works af), the middle class (e.g. the importance of working hard at your 9-5 job so you can move up the ladder, probably pay off that mortgage and send your kids to college, both of which have a low chance of occurrence especially in SF & co.) and the elite (e.g. investing your money in 2/20 hedge funds, attributing more value to expensive wines, etc.)
At different points in your social and economic development, different modules of the scam program are working to deceive you and emphasize unimportant details rather than big picture perspectives.
Techno-utopianism has always been a smoke screen for good old fashioned unfettered capitalism. It's the same system that's been trying its best to screw over workers since the dawn of industrialization. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The "Gig Economy" may have started off with good intentions, but it's obvious to me that its really just a "Transition Economy". Almost all of those jobs are on the front lines when it comes to automation.
One interesting thought experiment is to imagine how "rough" that transition would be if we didn't have these gig economy companies bridging the gap between labor and automation in a variety of markets.
Instead of less desirable work options, they likely would have few if any work options.
[+] [-] enraged_camel|9 years ago|reply
For some reason we celebrate this trend as a society and laud its positives (e.g. being able to determine one's own work schedule), but in a decade or two the problems will become obvious and hard to ignore, as many gig workers find themselves too old to work but with no retirement savings, for example.
[+] [-] fullshark|9 years ago|reply
The larger trend is where it looks worrisome, and that's basically what we're considering as some time has passed.
[+] [-] acchow|9 years ago|reply
Anecdotally, I've met a number of Uber/Lyft drivers that told me driving allowed them to quit their past shitty job and choose a flexible schedule that worked well with raising their kids.
Also, drivers that quit their jobs to pour energy into their family business with some extra cash from driving when needed.
[+] [-] malandrew|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EliRivers|9 years ago|reply
This is, of course, something of a Hobson's choice. They can't work their own schedule; they have to work to the schedule of the temporary employer. The choice they have in this is to simply not work at time X, rather than move their work to time X.
[+] [-] smsm42|9 years ago|reply
My personal experience haven't been so - most "gig" services I've got were from people for which is was complementary income and which never intended to hold a full-time blue-collar job. Some of them could have 15-20 years of past blue collar experience only if they joined the ranks of workers straight out of kindergarten.
But my perspective is necessarily narrow and accidental - so I wonder, are there any data on it?
> perform low-level jobs, many of which require little or no specialized skills.
These jobs need to be performed. So who should be performing them?
> many gig workers find themselves too old to work but with no retirement savings, for example.
You are assuming these people would always hold these jobs until they retire. Why? Most people that drive for Uber or do gigs on taskrabbit or fiverr do not see it as a lifetime career, as far as I know. Just as a teenager getting min wage in McDonalds does not plan to do the same until she's 65. So asking "how can you retire on McDonalds salary?" doesn't make a lot of sense.
[+] [-] pnathan|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prostoalex|9 years ago|reply
have to implies there's a wealth of "white-collar work or stable and well-paying blue-collar work" out there but people are forced or coerced to act against their best interests.
What's the alternative? Let's say the government decides to step in and make a structural change by changing the rules on W-2 employee vs 1099 contractor treatment. Will this lead to a resurrection of the American Middle Class?
[+] [-] mahyarm|9 years ago|reply
The social problems of the low-income job lifer is not new.
[+] [-] moonka|9 years ago|reply
It concerns me how eager we are to be to roll back the hard won protections that our forefathers fought for. Time and again we see that the vast majority of businesses only look towards maximizing the short term, and exploit any loopholes that allow them to.
[+] [-] malandrew|9 years ago|reply
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/165415.Free_Agent_Nation
All the current crop of companies did is reduce the transaction costs low enough to democratize working for yourself just about anything can participate. Once anyone can participate, it's a natural outcome that earnings in these markets will deflate and stabilize around the price that the least skilled/educated are willing to work for.
The biggest irony is that without these companies, a lot of the people doing this kind of would probably be unemployed or underemployed. There was a LOT of latent demand that went unsatisfied.
Transportation network companies haven't just taken away some of the demand from existing options like taxies and livery companies, but have increased the size of the market by at least one other of magnitude in terms of rides and miles driven. AirBnB enabled people to capitalize on under-utilized real estate assets that they own or rent with a little administrative overhead as the only labor input.
The real failure isn't the gig economy, but government economic policy that drives some aspects of living costs higher while real income drops. The biggest culprit here are housing costs. Deflation in real income isn't a problem if there is a corresponding deflation in cost of living expenses as well.
[+] [-] cmahler7|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clairity|9 years ago|reply
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
you praise airBnB for unlocking economic value yet demonize housing costs. the discordance here is that airBnB encourages rent-seeking behavior which will worsen housing costs, as that rental value gets priced into the cost of the home over time.
for economic stability's sake, we should favor labor over asset ownership in our economic policy.
[+] [-] xanderstrike|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FilterSweep|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhapsodic|9 years ago|reply
Maybe "addictive" is more apt than you realize. Just spitballing, but maybe driving for Uber has the same reward mechanism that makes gambling addictive. Each big win, no matter how infrequently it might occur, keeps the gambler chasing the next one through loss after loss. Perhaps an Uber driver gets such a rush when he makes $60 for a short trip during peak demand that he can't help but endure long slow hours behind the wheel waiting for the next big score.
[+] [-] brettproctor|9 years ago|reply
I really just can't understand the mentality of "These people are too stupid to realize they're being taken advantage of, let's write opinion pieces to enlighten these poor simple minded masses to the errors of their ways."
It just feels so condescending and elitist to me to take this viewpoint.
If it really is a bum deal, people will figure it out and quit. Uber will either go out of business or work harder to retain drivers. Or if customers get too upset at always having a new driver they'll seek other options.
[+] [-] untog|9 years ago|reply
The good news is that you don't have to understand that mentality, because no-one has it. At no point does the article suggest that Uber drivers are stupid. It suggests that they have fewer options than other Americans, and are driven into these jobs by a lack of alternative. The article even mentions an effort by these drivers to unionize - hardly the actions of a bunch of stupid idiots. They know what they are doing, but their unionization effort was blocked by a federal judge.
> It just feels so condescending and elitist to me to take this viewpoint.
Frankly, to me, the condescending and elitist viewpoint is the one that assumes no-one really needs employee protections (while you enjoy them) and assumes that jobs are so plentiful that anyone doing a job they don't like is surely a fool who can't take control of their own life. Or that "the market" will fix all of this, when we now have decades of evidence showing "the market" failing to do so.
[+] [-] AJ007|9 years ago|reply
There is another paradox here, that poor people use Uber+Lyft too. Most municipalities within the US do not have a functional, cheap public transportation systems.
[+] [-] peacetreefrog|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] earthtolazlo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] surfaceTensi0n|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Paul-ish|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arkis22|9 years ago|reply
Why are there expectations for a taxi dispatching service to be the savior of the middle class?
The gig economy may make "false promises" about how happy their workers are to get more, but I would consider that marketing.
People need to check their assumptions and expectations.
[+] [-] s73ver|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] balozi|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AJ007|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] okreallywtf|9 years ago|reply
To me, we've been sold (though many of us don't believe) this notion that the economy is some kind of natural system that we simply have to accept. I'm not advocating communism necessarily but yes, the economy as designed and implemented may not create a stable middle class world for us to live in naturally, but does that have to mean there cannot be one? I think those who are accumulating the vast majority of the wealth would be happy to see it as natural selection but I think the system is much more artificial than that.
The economy has been tweaked and tuned to favor the wealthy even if it also naturally would do the same thing. Tweaking the system to maintain or increase the standard of living for the society is much easier than convincing said society that it should be done for some reason I have yet to figure out.
[+] [-] payne92|9 years ago|reply
The flexibility has huge value that is difficult to quantify, especially for folks that are augmenting an existing job, a school commitment, retirement, family obligations, or some other constrained situation.
Consider the same at work in two different arrangements: one with a very rigid schedule that pays X dollars per hour, and the other with a completely flexible schedule that pays Y dollars per hour. What's the ratio of X to Y?
[+] [-] olivermarks|9 years ago|reply
https://www.amazon.com/Free-Agent-Nation-Working-Yourself/dp...
This all promotes a race to the bottom for least pay and lack of benefits IMO. Given that medical costs are a cynical for-profit business in the USA it's odd there is such enthusiasm in some quarters for these ideas.
I do know several people who fly around the word making money hand over fist speaking about the joys of this brave new era...presumably lots of people are showing up to hear the dream...
[+] [-] exogeny|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lithos|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teej|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pnathan|9 years ago|reply
It's incredibly important to get law to properly regulate this space in a sane way that levels the playing field and guarantees worker protections.
[+] [-] peacetreefrog|9 years ago|reply
"Most [drivers] said the money they earned from online platforms was essential or important to their families."
What do you think would happen to the average driver if the government or labor organizers came in and mandated that these workers receive overtime pay, minimum wage or other benefits? Would ride costs be the same? Would Uber be able to hire the same number of drivers? The space is competitive, it's not like Uber has a monopoly. They make 19 cents a ride on average and lost a bunch of money last year.
If anything, Uber should be celebrated for the fact it allows low skilled people without many other alternatives to be productive. Or would it be better if these people without many alternatives had... one less alternative?
[+] [-] paulpauper|9 years ago|reply
The gig economy is feedback-based, meaning those who get a lot of good feedback can possibly generate a decent self-sustaining business from it, but the wages often still don't pay well relative to the amount of work involved, especially for Americans on Fiver who have to compete with workers from developing countries, and feedback means gig employees are 100% accountable for whether they succeeds or not.
This is good for the economy and the consumer because it means more efficiency, lower prices, and better service, but harder for the gig workers. For non-gig jobs, the entire company bears the costs of sub-100% productive employees, but gig workers bear full responsibility, thus any sloth directly impacts gig workers instead of being redistributed among an entire company (like Dilbert, where all the employees but Dilbert and Wally are kinda incompetent).
[+] [-] dlwdlw|9 years ago|reply
Competition amongst people though rapidly reduces the sinecure to no longer be sinecures. Taxi cabs may have had a monopoly, and people were willig to work for less to driver ubers (eg poor college students) but they did not have a sinecure. Many were struggling to make ends meet.
And they had been struggling for years. And so did not have the energy to pursue, say, learning Haskell.
Just as there are laws to prevent olympic atheletes from taking a super drug, breaking all records, and then dropping dead, what governs society should have rules to prevent people working themselves to death.
Unions were once the answer, but their major drawback is reducing competitiveness. In attempting to keep sinecures sinecures, you become less competitive. Meanwhile, the peasant rice farmer is saving every penny to buy his kids a better education and even beating them when they get too low of a math score.
An american who is used to runnning water, electricity, and all night raves who is struggling to pass his college algebra class has nothing on the poor farmers son who grew up in a mud hut and was forced into learning calculus in high school at belts end.
Who deserves the cushy job? The college student example may outwardly express a desire to have a fairer world, but also may resent the poorer peasant racing them to the bottom and the more educated peasants rapidly surpassing them in salary, (eg they get a tech job).
[+] [-] techterrier|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skynode|9 years ago|reply
At different points in your social and economic development, different modules of the scam program are working to deceive you and emphasize unimportant details rather than big picture perspectives.
[+] [-] LordHumungous|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sixQuarks|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malandrew|9 years ago|reply
Instead of less desirable work options, they likely would have few if any work options.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cmahler7|9 years ago|reply
(delivered by grubhub)