[toomuchtodo]

> and workers are demonstrating that they are willing to take some risks in return for money and flexibility.

Workers are only willing to do this because, as you read in the article, the only other choice is to be unemployed. They are not choosing this voluntarily.

[rzt]

Also, the companies are deflecting costs back onto taxpayers by ensuring that many of their workers will need to depend on government services for health care, housing and food assistance, etc. Sure, some of these taskrabbits/ubers/lyfters/whatever are making a real wage at this stuff, but many of them are also minimally employed –– and trying hard to get work as they can get it.

In so many ways, we are all subsidizing these companies.

[toomuchtodo]

I'm sorry you're getting downvoted; you're absolutely correct.

[rzt]

I can't rely directly to yummyfajitas, but here is a NYT article that summarizes the issue[1]:

"“They may be able to paint someone’s shed this week,” says Dr. Standing, a professor of developmental studies at the University of London. “But they don’t know what will happen next week.”

He views peer marketplaces as part of a larger global phenomenon, in which labor brokers encourage people to work on contingency without basic employment benefits or protections. The companies essentially channel one-off tasks to the fastest taker or lowest bidder, he says, pitting workers against one another in a kind of labor elimination match.

The flexible timetables of project work are a trade-off for regular employment income and benefits. Retailers, restaurant chains and other employers may require more rigid work schedules than piecemeal gigs, or, worse, keep their workers guessing from week to week about which hours they will work. But many of those employers also offer workers benefits like disability pay or commuter discounts.

Uber, Lyft and TaskRabbit, for instance, do not regard the workers who provide services to their users as employees. The companies say they are simply arenas, like eBays for gigs. They require their service providers to work as independent contractors and, as such, the workers don’t qualify for employee benefits like health insurance, payroll deductions for Social Security or unemployment benefits."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/17/technology/in-the-sharing-...

[toomuchtodo]

I think we're seeing the result of this not working out, between Uber and Lyft, Homejoy's article, and TaskRabbit moving away from an auction marketplace.

[yummyfajitas]

I'm confused. Are you trying to assert that if homejoy did not exist, these workers would be receiving higher wages and would not need government services?

Or perhaps that if the government services you describe (e.g., free money if you don't work) did not exist, workers would have a stronger bargaining position to request higher rates from homejoy?

Could you clarify your counterfactual?

[rzt]

Neither of those situations you provide above.

As noted in the article I link and quote further down the thread, these companies utilize an often-desperate workforce that will take whatever they can get to work. These companies keep their workers as independent contractors without any benefits. Sometimes that is fine, especially if someone is working as a Taskrabbit during his/her weekend to make some extra money. But the reality is that many of these people are relying on these services for nearly all their income and then leaning heavily on government support to make up the difference (i.e. what keeps a roof over their head or food in their stomach).

I am not making a case for any wholesale policy change on the part of these new services. I am just stating that there is baggage here and that maybe it would be better if benefits were offered through these jobs to their workers/contractors so that the customer pays for the complete cost of the service and that business model, instead of taxpayers.

And I am no economist or expert in the matter ––– all I know is either from news articles or anecdotes. Maybe I'm wrong.

[grinnbearit]

The value the customer gets from the labour should be higher than the cost the employer pays to labour, otherwise no labour will be bought or sold.

If the price of a persons labour is insufficient for their living needs the only option is to draw it from society (welfare/charity) or have them suffer. Trying to pass that on to the customers or the employers of labour directly will result in unemployment.

[yummyfajitas]

For the programs you describe to be a subsidy for Homejoy/Taskrabbit, then those companies need to actually be benefiting from them. From your description, it seems to be a subsidy for the workers, not Homejoy/Taskrabbet.

[coryrc]

Like everyone else.

[bmm6o]

That's the way the market is moving, but that doesn't mean we have to like it or accept it. Society is not some race to the bottom to be the last person to starve to death in the gutter. A lot of hard-won labor victories (overtime, breaks, termination rights, FMLA, etc) are being lost here and we don't have to accept it. I know regulation and unionization are dirty words here, but they are some of the very few weapons to fight this trend.

[toomuchtodo]

Are you saying that everyone in the country hates their job, is barely scraping by, and only does it because they have no other choice?