A Driver’s Suicide Reveals the Dark Side of the Gig Economy

a reply to: seasonal

I just looked up the definition of a gig economy and it doesn't seem to be about automation, it's about the disappearance of full time work in favor of contracted work. I agree that's probably not a great thing for economy, but it does make finding entry level jobs easier even if they're less reliable. I also agree a lot of people will probably get screwed in a highly automated economy, although it's hard to say how bad it will be because it could also have a lot of positive benefits, and socialists tend to argue that automation is the way to the future where no one has to work.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Would you agree that uber is part of the gig econ?

Would you agree that uber is going to shIt can the drivers for automated cars ASAP?

Perhaps the definition is not complete yet.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Would you agree that uber is part of the gig econ?

Would you agree that uber is going to shIt can the drivers for automated cars ASAP?

Perhaps the definition is not complete yet.

Just saw a reporter shaming the owner of Uber for being unwilling to ride in a "driverless" car. Ran up to him with a microphone after he got out of a SUV with a DRIVER behind the wheel... The CEO ran into the building (away from her) as fast as he could.

a reply to: seasonal

Well based on the definition they certainly seem to be part of it. And yes I agree they will replace drivers with AI when it becomes safe enough to do so. But I don't necessarily think it would be a bad thing, maybe those Uber drivers will then move onto a more serious job with more security, and I kind of like the idea of ordering an autonomous taxi to be honest.

a reply to: carewemust

What is the point?

The CEO is supposed to use a tech that isn't available? Or he should use Uber drivers for everything?

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: seasonal

Well based on the definition they certainly seem to be part of it. And yes I agree they will replace drivers with AI when it becomes safe enough to do so. But I don't necessarily think it would be a bad thing, maybe those Uber drivers will then move onto a more serious job with more security, and I kind of like the idea of ordering an autonomous taxi to be honest.

You do realize there is only so many or those secure jobs. And with more people chasing that "secure" job it is going to have serious ramifications with pay and working conditions. And those ramifications are not good.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: carewemust

What is the point?

The CEO is supposed to use a tech that isn't available? Or he should use Uber drivers for everything?

I don't know what point the reporter was trying to make. It was just funny...and reminded me of this thread. That's all.

originally posted by: Willtell

If the system took care of everybody then greed might have a justification but in America, unlike somewhat civilized Europe, they discard the leftovers like their garbage.

Uh huh... why then does the US have a lower homeless percentage of the population than the UK? And what do you make of this: Homelessness and housing problems reach crisis point in all EU countries – except Finland

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: nightbringr

I answered your question.


The PTB can easily devise fair solutions in this case and others.

You clearly deferred answering my question onto TPTB. I simply don't understand how you can rage about such injustices, all while never being able to offer a solution, or even attempt to put one fourth.

It's noble you want to save the world, but there is no point tearing it all down if you don't know how to put it back together again.

a reply to: seasonal

Well the way I see it, there's not much we can do to avoid the slow disappearance of full time jobs, so we should do something to reduce the impact of that trend. Unemployment levels could be much lower if we all chose to work a little bit less, the main issue is there's just not enough work for everyone, so spreading out that work between more people seems like a good option. Of course this would also require people to be paid a bit more so they can afford to live the same life style, but it could work because even though businesses would pay their employees more, there would be more people with money to spend and they would have more time to spend it. I wrote a thread some time ago about a core issue with the western businesses system, which is that we all work at essentially the same time, and when we do have time to spend our money a lot of businesses are closed because we all stop working at basically the same time. If almost everyone was working only a small number of hours each day this problem wouldn't have such an impact and we'd all be happier for it.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I agree with your ideas, for the most part.

Social costs are of no concern for corps, Walmart using social safety nets to supplement employees pay comes to mind.

Corps will have to be forced to do the right thing. And there are many ways to accomplish that.

I sorry but if you are working 100+ hours a week and are barely scraping by its time for either a lifestyle change or a career change.

Ride-sharing is a criminal scam. If not for low-IQ bribe-taking regulators who literally destroyed transportation industry - all these gig-scams would be worth their true value. ZERO.

Stop looking for definitions. These gig-parasites will morph into whatever to claim "expansion, popularity and profit". They're notorious for "bending" laws, tax codes, regulations, even ethical norms we all would accept. In short - it's a sick greed that is masqueraded under a guise of "technology". It's greed - nothing else. Only they placed "gig" and "technology" over it.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
I sorry but if you are working 100+ hours a week and are barely scraping by its time for either a lifestyle change or a career change.

I truly hope you don't really mean what you just posted. People have lives built for decades around their main occupation. Fake tech applications such as "gig economies" are no reason to "disrupt" (read: destroy) their lives. Uber and other gig-artists could have easily work with existing transportation providers but instead chose to cut them down.

a reply to: RickyD

He doesn't find fault, the insurance company does. The weren't there either, but will always find fault hitting from behind.

originally posted by: eventHorizon

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
I sorry but if you are working 100+ hours a week and are barely scraping by its time for either a lifestyle change or a career change.

I truly hope you don't really mean what you just posted. People have lives built for decades around their main occupation. Fake tech applications such as "gig economies" are no reason to "disrupt" (read: destroy) their lives. Uber and other gig-artists could have easily work with existing transportation providers but instead chose to cut them down.

So you suggest they continue to work at a job 100+ hours a week for little pay instead of bettering themselves and increasing their quality of life? You know jobs are decreasing moving forward as automation increases. Burying your head in the sand and wishing it all away won't work.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: AMPTAH

And then the auto industry will also be in peril

Very few people will "own" cars in the future.

You won't be able to "drive" a car. It will all be automated.

There maybe some "special cars" built for the police that enable both automated and human driving, so that the cops can have more liberty to take actionable maneuvers to catch law breakers.

But, the average joe will only be allowed a self-driving car without steering wheel.

You will not need driver license, nor car insurance. The car manufacturers will provide all the auto insurance, since it is their software driving the car.

The reason that the average citizen will be denied the ability to steer the car himself or herself, is that the cars will be equipped with sensors and wifi broadcast chips to detect and tell other cars where they are, and automatically avoid collisions in an increasingly dense and packed "drive paths". Those "drive paths" will be elevated off the ground when the cars get the ability to "fly" , and to handle the complexity of lots of cars moving about in "free space" there must be automatic implementation of rules.

Most people will simply call a car when they need one. They won't buy cars. So, the car manufacturers will build and run "car services". The manufacture will retain ownership of its cars, and rent out the "service" of transporting people from point to point.

It's unclear whether anybody will be allowed to even buy a car. But, considering that the rich always like to have what other people don't, this "luxury" of owning a car may well still exist for the very wealthy.

The very rich may even get special permission to own a car they can switch from self-driving to human operated. That's left to be seen.

Human operated cars will be restricted to driving in less densely populated areas. And whenever they approach a more densely populated region, the satellites will detect them and automatically switch their control mechanisms over to self-driving mode, to comply with the laws of the "drive paths" in different regions.

Only cops will be able to over-ride this satellite control.

The auto industry is to become a "service" industry.

a reply to: nightbringr

People rage, as you put it, all the time over problems they don’t have ready solutions for.

I don’t know what to say to that other than a solution is always there, people just have to seek it.


I would have to research into this issue more in depth to offer a detailed solution

off the top of my head.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: Willtell

If the system took care of everybody then greed might have a justification but in America, unlike somewhat civilized Europe, they discard the leftovers like their garbage.

Uh huh... why then does the US have a lower homeless percentage of the population than the UK? And what do you make of this: Homelessness and housing problems reach crisis point in all EU countries – except Finland

At least Europe for one gets universal health insurance to its citizens

Also, unfortunately neo liberalism has reached Europe as it has enveloped America.

Europe has had a consciousness America has not even approached yet other than through some progressive policies

Statistically your wrong Europe takes better care of their poor than America---who is at the bottom.
www.slate.com...