The gig economy is literally a product of a lack of economic security. As I've mentioned before, if suddenly people had enough money or assistance that they didn't need to gig to make ends meet, businesses like Uber and Lyft would have no more "independent contractors". They'd probably fold or have to raise prices above that of Taxis.
Maybe it's a different situation in other countries, but in New Zealand, a lot of uber drivers are actually former taxi drivers. They (at least used to) make more money driving for Uber than driving a taxi.
Taxis have always been a gig economy, it's just that you used to have a big sticker on the side of your car. Taxi drivers have never been paid a wage.
It's absolutely a desperation career. Those always exist somewhere in any economy, and arguably there should be options available for desperate people, but the sheer volume of them is getting sad. It's like the US has a very poor, developing country double-exposed over an insanely wealthy and advanced one, both occupying the same territory. I'm not a historian but it strikes me as very strange and somewhat new to the world.
It should be the other away around. The gig economy should only be for people that have economic security. If you've got food & rent covered some other way but want some extra cash for luxuries, it's nice to have the option to pick up a few gigs.
Much of the marketing for Uber drivers implies this fantasy.
In my experience here in Indy, a large number of Uber (mind you, the bulk of my experience is Uber Eats) drivers are individuals that appear to be in their 60's, presumably retired persons looking to supplement their income and/or just have something to do.
I'd say roughly 5% of my drivers have appeared under retirement age. I wonder what the age statistics look like nationwide.
> On average, it estimated they were making $10.75 per hour in the Houston area, $8.77 per hour in Detroit, and $13.17 in Denver, which was slightly less than Walmart’s average full-time hourly rate in 2016
I'm not saying this is ok, but I think there are also more intangible things that come into play here. Working for Uber gives you the freedom to work when you want. You don't have to call in sick or find someone to take your shift. You just don't get in the car that day.
Which really, I think, is the allure of a lot of gig jobs: the ability to be your own boss (kinda).
It's the allure for sure but I imagine quite quickly gets proven wrong as you find yourself working certain hours due to higher rates and/or increased demand. With wages that low (these are Uber's own figures too) and close to no upward mobility career wise, it seems like a colossal dead end one could easily become trapped in.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of drivers failed to adequately budget for the maintenance costs of their car being used that more heavily too, which could abruptly land them in the red when a garage bill comes in.
The allure of gig jobs is the ability to turn an arbitrary number of your unproductive hours and an idle car into money. Sometimes you really need that money.
I know some people who landed in hard situations where their usual day job would not be enough to cover rent + food + bills. But working the day job and spending 5-6 nights a week driving Uber would be enough. Granted: that's at the expense of not sleeping, not resting, running up their car's mileage, and possibly ruining their health. But the availability of the app has literally saved people from homelessness.
And in countries that have sick leave, it means that you don't get paid for your day off sick.
You also don't have a minimum wage as a contractor, because when you're not driving a passenger, you're not "working". For countries with strong labour laws like Australia, it's a massive erosion of workers rights. Most Uber Eats drivers and riders are also making less than minimum wage for the hours they are working. Plus there are no penalty rates for working nights, weekends, or public holidays.
I wonder how much the true cost is to the driver, not only are they having to pay fuel costs but the more miles a car does the less it's worth. It's almost like swap deal, swapping the future value of your car in return for cash today.
Is the hourly rate before or after taxes? Don't forget as independent contractors you have to pay way more in tax than as W2 employee, so take home income will be significantly less.
The gig economy is already bad enough for workers but in the US it's even worse due to the health care situation. We should get rid of any advantages corporations have over individuals like health insurance.
Absolutely. As an independent contractor with an autoimmune disorder, I make good money but it's still an absolute nightmare. I really hope the current administration doesn't bring back the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage for a pre-existing condition, because I can't imagine a reliable way to secure coverage that never has any gaps.
Amen. I'm making a career change and my wife is going bay to work and half our questions about a new job... healthcare benefits, not necessarily the better career choice...
There's a very reasonable proposal right here that would do it: https://berniesanders.com/medicareforall/ It could happen in a few years. Something to look forward to. :)
We need to stop importing children and adults until we make sure all current citizens have jobs. Not everyone has cancer nor needs healthcare. The truly broke get it for free. Only thing not covered is cosmetic dentistry like non silver fillings and partial dentures and brand name medication.
For non-speakers of American English: though "gig" is well known to mean "short-term/casual work", the use of "gigged" in the title is likely a pun: "gigging" or "to gig" is to hunt small game with a pronged spear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigging
A usage which sadly underlines the fate of most gig workers.
Keep this gig economy thing away from me. Companies promoting this business model (whether car lifting, food delivery, or temporary housing) are exploiting all parties involved, while damaging the local environment. Everyone, except them, is getting the short end of the stick.
Have you eaten in at a take out place lately? It's literally nothing but ageing, disheveled looking people who could barely operate a smartphone running in and out desperately, working either Uber Eats, Doordash, etc. stacking orders, getting stressed out over maybe making $3. It's the most depressing fucking thing I have ever seen.
Maybe there's an argument to be made that these people are better off than they would be otherwise. But I'm not so sure it's that simple. You have this zero sum game where the health and well being of humanity is being arbitraged for VC profits and increased efficiency for the restaurant owner.
Are you joking that the low wages are flowing through to VCs?
Some people wonder whether the VCs will even make out their invested money in Uber/Doordash cases. I've heard that in many cities Uber/Doordash/friends are subsidizing the marginal order in order to grow.
Make no mistake, currently the marginal gains are flowing through to customers. We like to blame faceless large corporations, the "others" for the fall of liveable, stable, wages. But the fault in some sense is in our selves. We, the individual customer, are driving this dynamic by being huge sticklers for the lowest price possible.
We individuals talk a good game about a fair livable society, until it comes around to saving $1 on your next Uber / Doordash fare.
Totally agree- have seen the vibe you describe above at numerous restaurants lately. The part that saddens me is the food recipient tends to take it out on the delivery person, "Food was cold!! ZERO STARS, NO TIP!!" when in actuality that person was given an impossible task- to deliver more food per hour than the laws of physics over time and distance would allow without teleportation.
I work in property development and also see this happening more and more frequently for contractor and appliance delivery people... instead of showing up to deliver your appliance, they mark you as "not home" or "unavailable" and skip attempting delivery or install altogether- that way they get to bring the stuff back to the warehouse, don't have to bother wasting time attempting to delivery it and the guy on the next shift has to deal with it.
Not only that but as a consumer the experience doesn't feel that much better. Sure there are lots more places that deliver but I now feel like I pay more after delivery fee+ service fee + tip.
The wait staff at the restaurants usually don't get tipped on those kinds of orders either. And in most of the US the wait staff are only making $2.13 an hour or something like that.
In Australia, the people who look to be doing deliveries of this sort (by bike, etc) seem to be students. Actually, I can't recall ever (20 years+) having had takeaway delivered by anyone who looks over about 30-35yo.
Waitstaff in restaurants are typically younger here too. In visiting the US, it's seemed that there are a lot more "career" waitstaff whereas in Australia that happens more in small owner-operator establishments, or very premium restaurants.
On the one hand my first impulse is to ask “What’s the supply-side version of caveat emptor?” but if companies like Uber are hiding the true pay of their IRS-1099 “gig workers” then I have to wonder if they aren’t running afoul of disclosure or fair labor laws as well.
I never had a full time job, and i think of it as of a very, very odd thing. I know there are areas where it is necessary (say upper levels of management, public servants, and doctors in areas of healthcare where it's all about collective efforts, not private practice).
But for the most people, being full time is nothing but a form of psychological exploitation. People were generationally taught to value the (false) sense of stability it provides in return for being paid much less, and many social institutions such as mortgages, were built on top of that to reinforce, and take advantage of, that odd thing.
If it dies for about 80% of population i'll see it as a benefit, and i feel totally comfortable with it. I fully realise that i am totally unemployable as i am: hiring me full time and paying me what i make will be simply unprofitable for almost every potential boss. And many better qualified people than me 'happily' work for the fraction of what i make because they are addicted to these guaranteed twice a month paychecks, unable to imagine their life without these 'guarantees', which are nothing but guaranteed misery.
If there is anything beautiful about Uber it's that the marketplace maintained in each city is a relatively pure expression of supply and demand.
A recession in which unemployment rates increase would probably lead to an increase in drivers (supply) from the displaced employees and a decrease in people with disposable income to take Ubers (demand) leading to a reduction in cost per ride and the associated driver wages (unit price). Given the sheer number of countries Uber operates in, the company has probably already seen this happen more than once. What happens to driver wages and Uber as a company in the event of a global recession is harder to predict since that would be unprecedented for the company.
Maybe having Uber available as a source of income during a recession would be a good thing for the recently unemployed?
Reminds me of "The Market Fairy Will Not Solve the Problems of Uber and Lyft":
> Here is the thing about Uber and Lyft (and much of the “sharing economy”).
> They don’t pay the cost of their capital.
> The wages they pay to their drivers are less than the depreciation of the cars and the expense of keeping the drivers fed, housed, and healthy. They pay less than minimum wage in most markets, and, in most markets, that is not enough to pay the costs of a car plus a human.
Like with the electric scooter companies. You're not paying for the scooter, you can buy one of those. You're paying for the service of being able to leave your scooter in public somewhere and have someone else collect and recharge it.
Seriously, watch the video. Professor Richard D Wolff.
Long story short, when taxis first came out, we saw the following: unsafe everything, assaults, kidnappings (pay more or you get dropped in $bad_location), wrecks and injuries and no insurance. The result of that was regulation, which improved conditions for riders and drivers both, but raising the bottom line.
It's only time until the regulation hammer hits Uber and similar businesses.
The gentleman in the video has a couple of good points (and it is likely that Uber will eventually get regulated). That being said, the premise here seems to be confused on a number of issues.
+ "Unsafe everything, assaults [and] kidnappings" are in fact already illegal. More regulation will not make them more illegal. Claiming we need a taxicab commission to enforce basic laws is a non-sequitur of breathtaking scope.
+ There was a vibe that Uber will compromise the customer experience to make more money. This is nonsense, uber is operating in a cut-throat environment where any cost savings will be passed directly to consumers who are getting what they pay for. As one questioner pointed out at the end, Uber isn't actually making a profit. Any cuts in quality are being passed on to the customer in reduced fares.
+ Insufficient insurance. This one is one that is up for debate; but the message of 'insurance good, profit bad' is probably oversimplifying the issue and likely pushing an outcome where everyone has to pay more for transport without a proportional improvement in outcomes. The speaker might feel better about that, but I doubt the Uber passengers would.
[+] [-] peterwwillis|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toomanybeersies|7 years ago|reply
Taxis have always been a gig economy, it's just that you used to have a big sticker on the side of your car. Taxi drivers have never been paid a wage.
[+] [-] vertexFarm|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|7 years ago|reply
Much of the marketing for Uber drivers implies this fantasy.
Maybe BI will make this fantasy a reality.
[+] [-] FundThrowaway|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanmercer|7 years ago|reply
I'd say roughly 5% of my drivers have appeared under retirement age. I wonder what the age statistics look like nationwide.
[+] [-] marsrover|7 years ago|reply
I'm not saying this is ok, but I think there are also more intangible things that come into play here. Working for Uber gives you the freedom to work when you want. You don't have to call in sick or find someone to take your shift. You just don't get in the car that day.
Which really, I think, is the allure of a lot of gig jobs: the ability to be your own boss (kinda).
[+] [-] JansjoFromIkea|7 years ago|reply
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of drivers failed to adequately budget for the maintenance costs of their car being used that more heavily too, which could abruptly land them in the red when a garage bill comes in.
[+] [-] tetromino_|7 years ago|reply
I know some people who landed in hard situations where their usual day job would not be enough to cover rent + food + bills. But working the day job and spending 5-6 nights a week driving Uber would be enough. Granted: that's at the expense of not sleeping, not resting, running up their car's mileage, and possibly ruining their health. But the availability of the app has literally saved people from homelessness.
[+] [-] TheSpiceIsLife|7 years ago|reply
When you’re earning so little you don’t have the freedom to take a day off because you feel unwell.
[+] [-] toomanybeersies|7 years ago|reply
And in countries that have sick leave, it means that you don't get paid for your day off sick.
You also don't have a minimum wage as a contractor, because when you're not driving a passenger, you're not "working". For countries with strong labour laws like Australia, it's a massive erosion of workers rights. Most Uber Eats drivers and riders are also making less than minimum wage for the hours they are working. Plus there are no penalty rates for working nights, weekends, or public holidays.
[+] [-] FundThrowaway|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] suyash|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lynnah|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cornellwright|7 years ago|reply
It makes people stick in bad situations and disadvantages small businesses both financially and in wasted time.
[+] [-] maxxxxx|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vertexFarm|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duxup|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jadedhacker|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] srslymissng|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gumby|7 years ago|reply
A usage which sadly underlines the fate of most gig workers.
[+] [-] expertentipp|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aphextron|7 years ago|reply
Maybe there's an argument to be made that these people are better off than they would be otherwise. But I'm not so sure it's that simple. You have this zero sum game where the health and well being of humanity is being arbitraged for VC profits and increased efficiency for the restaurant owner.
[+] [-] adrianratnapala|7 years ago|reply
At this point I was expecting an explanation of how an similar number of low-skilled people would have jobs if these services didn't exist.
Instead you give the unexplained assertion
> You have this zero sum game ...
Which game is it? Who are the players? What is zero-sum about it?
[+] [-] fanzhang|7 years ago|reply
Some people wonder whether the VCs will even make out their invested money in Uber/Doordash cases. I've heard that in many cities Uber/Doordash/friends are subsidizing the marginal order in order to grow.
Make no mistake, currently the marginal gains are flowing through to customers. We like to blame faceless large corporations, the "others" for the fall of liveable, stable, wages. But the fault in some sense is in our selves. We, the individual customer, are driving this dynamic by being huge sticklers for the lowest price possible.
We individuals talk a good game about a fair livable society, until it comes around to saving $1 on your next Uber / Doordash fare.
[+] [-] randycupertino|7 years ago|reply
I work in property development and also see this happening more and more frequently for contractor and appliance delivery people... instead of showing up to deliver your appliance, they mark you as "not home" or "unavailable" and skip attempting delivery or install altogether- that way they get to bring the stuff back to the warehouse, don't have to bother wasting time attempting to delivery it and the guy on the next shift has to deal with it.
[+] [-] gehwartzen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toastermoster|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prawn|7 years ago|reply
Waitstaff in restaurants are typically younger here too. In visiting the US, it's seemed that there are a lot more "career" waitstaff whereas in Australia that happens more in small owner-operator establishments, or very premium restaurants.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mikece|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dredmorbius|7 years ago|reply
How do you mean?
"Employer beware" would be cave dico. Provider beware, provisor cave.
Though it's not clear what dynamic you're pointing to.
[+] [-] anovikov|7 years ago|reply
But for the most people, being full time is nothing but a form of psychological exploitation. People were generationally taught to value the (false) sense of stability it provides in return for being paid much less, and many social institutions such as mortgages, were built on top of that to reinforce, and take advantage of, that odd thing.
If it dies for about 80% of population i'll see it as a benefit, and i feel totally comfortable with it. I fully realise that i am totally unemployable as i am: hiring me full time and paying me what i make will be simply unprofitable for almost every potential boss. And many better qualified people than me 'happily' work for the fraction of what i make because they are addicted to these guaranteed twice a month paychecks, unable to imagine their life without these 'guarantees', which are nothing but guaranteed misery.
And yes i am 38 and have a family.
[+] [-] dev_north_east|7 years ago|reply
What's false about it?
[+] [-] brohoolio|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abvdasker|7 years ago|reply
A recession in which unemployment rates increase would probably lead to an increase in drivers (supply) from the displaced employees and a decrease in people with disposable income to take Ubers (demand) leading to a reduction in cost per ride and the associated driver wages (unit price). Given the sheer number of countries Uber operates in, the company has probably already seen this happen more than once. What happens to driver wages and Uber as a company in the event of a global recession is harder to predict since that would be unprecedented for the company.
Maybe having Uber available as a source of income during a recession would be a good thing for the recently unemployed?
[+] [-] DrScump|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxxxxx|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carapace|7 years ago|reply
> Here is the thing about Uber and Lyft (and much of the “sharing economy”).
> They don’t pay the cost of their capital.
> The wages they pay to their drivers are less than the depreciation of the cars and the expense of keeping the drivers fed, housed, and healthy. They pay less than minimum wage in most markets, and, in most markets, that is not enough to pay the costs of a car plus a human.
http://www.ianwelsh.net/the-market-fairy-will-not-solve-the-...?
Like with the electric scooter companies. You're not paying for the scooter, you can buy one of those. You're paying for the service of being able to leave your scooter in public somewhere and have someone else collect and recharge it.
[+] [-] sjg007|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crankylinuxuser|7 years ago|reply
Uber is an Old Scam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGwZcR0q6VE
Seriously, watch the video. Professor Richard D Wolff.
Long story short, when taxis first came out, we saw the following: unsafe everything, assaults, kidnappings (pay more or you get dropped in $bad_location), wrecks and injuries and no insurance. The result of that was regulation, which improved conditions for riders and drivers both, but raising the bottom line.
It's only time until the regulation hammer hits Uber and similar businesses.
[+] [-] roenxi|7 years ago|reply
+ "Unsafe everything, assaults [and] kidnappings" are in fact already illegal. More regulation will not make them more illegal. Claiming we need a taxicab commission to enforce basic laws is a non-sequitur of breathtaking scope.
+ There was a vibe that Uber will compromise the customer experience to make more money. This is nonsense, uber is operating in a cut-throat environment where any cost savings will be passed directly to consumers who are getting what they pay for. As one questioner pointed out at the end, Uber isn't actually making a profit. Any cuts in quality are being passed on to the customer in reduced fares.
+ Insufficient insurance. This one is one that is up for debate; but the message of 'insurance good, profit bad' is probably oversimplifying the issue and likely pushing an outcome where everyone has to pay more for transport without a proportional improvement in outcomes. The speaker might feel better about that, but I doubt the Uber passengers would.
[+] [-] suyash|7 years ago|reply