[AndyMcConachie]

This discussion of work like something that people can whenever they want, however they like feels so off base to me. It's work. It's something that people have to do in order to survive and live. Yet for people who promote the flexibility of gig workers it gets talked about like a sport or some other fun activity of choice.

It all comes down to trade offs in the end. Either we optimize for people to hold jobs that allow them to survive in society and earn enough to do things like pay rent and buy food. Or we optimize for job dabblers who don't really need the work but want some extra cash. I believe we should optimze for people to hold steady jobs that allow them stability and do important stuff like pay rent and buy food. We should optimize for survival of the worker and workers require steady employment.

[sokoloff]

There are plenty of people who can only work part-time yet may still need money. People in school, people with young kids, people with medical conditions that limit their activities (sometimes variably by day/time), etc.

Not everyone doing gig work is hustling as a second job to get ahead (though that should also be both legal and accepted, IMO).

[zmgsabst]

Why don’t we optimize for both and allow the market to decide where each model is best suited to provide services?

Eg, ridesharing can be done ride-by-ride by people choosing to accept fares from a marketplace but stocking store shelves works better having people there on committed shifts and delivering packages is in between, where people sign up for shifts but are expected to complete the full shift.

Why can’t we fulfill the needs of both people who want reliable, shift-based employment and people who want variable gigs?

[throwaway35i2]

"It's something that people have to do in order to survive and live"

And you don't see an issue with that?