[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.