[constantcrying]

The gig economy is neither contract work nor casual work.

>If I want my lawn mowed, some basement junk hauled away, or my house painted, I want someone on contract/gig to do something for me, but I sure don’t want to hire an employee.

Error of categories. This simply is not the same.

It is normal employment in everything but name. Uber is replacing the taxi industry, which can not compete, because the taxi industry has to pay for labor protections. It is a scheme where Uber tricks existing labor laws to have employees it does not need to treat as employees.

>“employ them” is not the universal answer to Uber

It is. Before Uber ride hailing existed and it was done by employees or self employed people.

[sokoloff]

You know that when you cut the last two words off the quote “is not the universal answer to Uber and non-Uber” and respond to only the part you quoted that it leaves the impression that you’re arguing in bad faith, right?

[constantcrying]

I left it off because I did not know what you meant by "non-Uber". It is a category so wide that I have no idea what you were talking about, so I decided to focus on the part where the subject was clear. In the case of Uber I know that it is possible to replace it by employee labor.

You did not give any examples for "non-Uber" companies and we certainly were talking mainly about Uber, as was the article. I do not consider it at all bad faith to focus on the "Uber" part and ignore the totally unspecified and somewhat irrelevant "non-Uber" part.

To be honest you calling me dishonest because I focus on the topic, namely Uber, and leave out a category which I can say basically nothing about such as "non-Uber", seems to me like you are trying to dodge making any argument at all. Since you are ignoring what I said and focusing on what I did not say.