[roel_v]

That's true to a certain extent, but experience (19th century beginning-of-industrialization) has taught us that the floor (i.e., the equilibrium) is bad enough that we don't want that sort of circumstances. In other words, it turns out that people want to work to eat so badly that they'll put up with working 14-hour days and letting their 10 year old children work in factories that literally kill 10's of them per year.

I'm not saying gig workers' circumstances are nearly as bad as those in the 19th century, I'm just illustrating the principle. The discussion then continues at 'what is an acceptable equilibrium'. Of which certain people, unsurprisingly, find that today's is not OK.

Note that I'm not saying here which side of the discussion I side on (that's a political question not worth rehashing here I think), just pointing out the (rather obvious) argument against total market freedom in this particular market (labor).

[labourcurious]

Concretely though, in London, it takes under a day to find a "real" job in a restaurant or a bar just by walking around and handing out CVs, even if your English is very bad.

Deliveroo bikers have chosen Deliveroo over those, and there must be a reason for that, which the article fails to mention.

I'm also not taking sides, I just want to point out it's flat out wrong to say "if they're doing this in these conditions, it is probably because they don't have a choice".

[kennydude]

> it takes under a day to find a "real" job in a restaurant or a bar just by walking around and handing out CVs

Have you done this?

[lhorie]

Anecdata, but I have seen it happen many times. My cousin came to Toronto for a few months and wanted some under the table income. I was buying some pastries in a bakery I liked around that time, and noticed they had a hiring sign. I told her about it and she was working there a couple days later.

A former coworker had a similar story. He got into a fight with his wife because she was spending all day in facebook instead of finding a job, so out of frustration and spite he went out to pretty much the first pizza joint he could find and talked to the manager. 30 mins later she now had a job.

Heck, I have another cousin with schizophrenia who managed to land a security job (he didn't last unfortunately due to his condition worsening), but it goes to show finding a low pay job isn't some insurmountable task.

[Karrot_Kream]

Opposing anecdata, my SO's sister had an ivy league degree and spent 3 months looking for jobs until she got the only job she could, front of house work at a bakery. Every other job, service jobs included, turned her down.

Another friend with a strong public school degree who floated around for months interviewing until she moved back with her parents, then finally got a job at the local library.

[lhorie]

I wonder if over-qualification in resumes plays a role. In the book Nickel and Dimed[1], the author explicitly hid the fact she had higher education even from colleagues. And whereas she complained a lot about working conditions, finding a job per se wasn't a challenge at all (to the point she could even decide between two options at one point), even being restricted to non-intensive labor jobs due to health reasons.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_and_Dimed

[n4r9]

Over-qualification definitely makes a difference. An employer will be reluctant to hire someone that's likely to snag a higher-paying job in a few weeks.

[mercer]

Actually, I'd say your anecdata can also support how alternatives might be difficult for many people.

In your first example you mentioned a 'she'. From what I've been told from friends in the service industry, that's a plus (even somewhat if you're not considered attractive, but obviously much less so).

In your second example it didn't last, so it's quite possible a number of these "didn't last" experiences lead to doing deliveroo-style work.

Furthermore, I've been shocked by how terrible some people are at 1) considering alternatives to whatever choices they think they have, and 2) doing okay in an interview.

I get the impression lots of people are just not rational actors in these matters, and there are all sorts of hidden factors that can prevent someone from going for the 'better' jobs. I don't have strong opinions on what we should conclude from that, but I am at least inclined to think making the shittiest option as good as possible might be an all-round good thing to pursue.

[n4r9]

> in London, it takes under a day to find a "real" job in a restaurant or a bar just by walking around and handing out CVs

That's a lot faster than I would predict. What are you basing that on?

[rorykoehler]

For me personally riding my bike around delivering food would be far preferable to working in a restaurant or bar. Depends on your personality I guess.

[parliament32]

"Far preferable" enough that you'd settle for under minimum wage and a variable paycheque? If so, you are exactly the reason companies like Deliveroo exist. They appeal to the whole "but you'll be so free cruising around on your bike delivering food at your own pace!" mentality.

[jstanley]

And there's nothing wrong with that! If people find that "far preferable", that's up to them, not you.

[eropple]

There's a lot wrong with that when society--us--have the duty and obligation, which we do, to help when that Deliveroo driver gets doored and can't pay a medical bill because the job is comedically penurious.

Employers have a duty to their employees and to the society and community that grants them the right to the fiction of their existence, and that is being shirked.

[philwelch]

> There's a lot wrong with that when society--us--have the duty and obligation, which we do, to help when that Deliveroo driver gets doored and can't pay a medical bill because the job is comedically penurious.

Which is why Britain has the NHS.

To me, the entire point of a robust welfare state is that you don't need to regulate employment nearly as strictly, because then you aren't as reliant on employers for life necessities. And that's a net positive, because regulation is far less effective than entitlements.

[rorykoehler]

Yes still far preferable. The wage in a restaurant often comes out below minimum wage too anyways.

[lokedhs]

Can you explain how a salary can come out below minimal wage? Isn't the point of the minimum that it's that, a minimum?

[rorykoehler]

Who said anything about salary? I worked in a gastropub in a rich area of central London and they paid cash in hand. There was even an illegal Chinese dude in the cellar peeling potatoes etc. He barely spoke a word of English.

[menacingly]

This is a reasonable position and well-stated, but my concern is the implication that you will be vilified if you start a business that can't maintain a full time workforce with benefits.

So, let's say you're an investor. You've got the choice of:

1) invest in a business with traditional happy lifer employees

2) invest in a business that treats its workforce like disposable contractors and may eventually become an Enemy of the People's Press, but offers higher potential returns, and may be able to eke out an existence in a niche that #1 could never serve.

3) invest in some less active financial instrument alchemy that employs zero local people and threatens no publicity waves

There is (maybe) an argument that #1 is preferable to #2, but it's at least complicated. However, I think it's general agreed that both #1 & #2 are preferable to #3.

If we're already talking Unions and unfair treatment of contractors 5 years into the existence of a type 1 here, one that no one knows could even exist under traditional employment circumstances, we may very well be driving funding into the reduced hassle of #3.

That's certainly what it would do to me, though granted my "fuck it" threshold is 5-10x lower than the average person's.

[noelwelsh]

I very much do not like the argument you are making, as the implication is that no employer, or indeed anyone with power, should be criticised.

Society should work for the benefit of society, not just those in a position of power. We are seeing a change in how employment works, and we (i.e. society) need to work out how to handle this change. This article is part of the debate. You should not try to shut down the debate.

[menacingly]

I regret that I came across that way, because the debate is great. Criticism is important.

I just think before you fight for something, you should be certain that what you're after is worth winning.

[tinbucket]

In scenarios #2 and #3 very few people are winning. I think you'd be hard-pressed to get majority support against #1, which would be more generally beneficial for society than the other two.

[menacingly]

Except that it almost by definition employs fewer people, so the people hypothetically employed by #2 may prefer it to the unemployment of #1

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

4) invest in a business that employs slaves

I think it is generally agreed that #4 is preferable to #3. Because local jobs!111

I mean, seriously? That is your argument?

[menacingly]

It's unfortunate that a frequent response is "so what? who wants those jobs? I sure don't, so I'll decide for these other people who I assume need me to"

This is the thinking that leads to the shuttering of harsh garment factories in the developing world so the employees can go back to child sex work.

[pitaj]

So which is better? People not eating, or people working in bad conditions?

Keep in mind that early industrialization was mainly subsistence farmers moving into cities to hugely improve their lives. Child labor was the norm, especially on farms, so children working in factories was an improvement. Do you think that accidents didn't happen to kids subsistence farming with their families or starving to death in central Europe?

[roel_v]

"Do you think that accidents didn't happen to kids subsistence farming with their families or starving to death in central Europe?"

I take it this was a general rhetorical question and not something you're specifically asking me - but either way, it's irrelevant. The fact is that 'we' (wherever I say 'we' here, I mean 'we as a society') didn't care enough about those children dying in the field or mud huts, but we did care when they started dying in factories (while that may not be 'rational' for a Less Wrong definition of 'rational', experiments on the trolley problem have shown in the past that there might be wide spread ethical intuitions that make this situation 'understandable' - but I digress).

I wasn't stating how things 'ought to be', just 'how things are'. 'How they ought to be' is in this case a trite discussion (at the level and within the means we have here). The OP however asked a facetious or naive question about 'how things are', one for which there is a simple, factual answer.

[kop316]

That's understandable, your principle makes sense with that. An acceptable equilibrium and how much of it is regulated is a very political thing.

[finebalance]

You don't need to go back to the 19th century for that. Any modern sweatshop, of which there are many, will do.

[jMyles]

> You don't need to go back to the 19th century for that.

If you're white, you do.

It's easy to forget that today's industry is (still) built on slavery or near-slavery in the third world.