Yet the canonical example of gig work is the Uber driver – a job that requires a tremendous amount of knowledge and skill.
The trouble, economically, is that most people have had a vested interest in acquiring that particular knowledge and skill, making it common, and thus, by the properties of supply and demand, not terribly valuable.
Gig work is already not feasible. The only reason anyone undertakes it is financial illiteracy. Uber is largely funded by the irrational sacrifice of numerous individuals of the residual value of their own cars.
Not everyone has that choice, which is why so many people depend on gig economy jobs as their livelihood.
If you do not have in-demand skills for the market, have a family to feed, and the cost of training exceeds your expenses, Uber/Lyft might be one of your only job options.
It's odd to continue calling gig work as a second, third, ... job. Is putting something up on eBay a job? If not then making a few buck driving for Uber isn't a job either, at least for those who are doing it for the same reason, which may not be a small fraction of workers. Selling something you don't need on eBay and getting the extra money can be fun so why not think of it that way instead of the urge to view gig work as the last resort effort for someone to maintain their livelihood?
That hasn't been my experience. I do what I can to try to promote the idea of gig work done well such that it is a net positive for the worker in metrics like quality of life and control over their schedule.
Granted, some things are inherently more flexible than others. An Uber driver can choose what hours to work, but is at the beck and call of people who need rides. If you want to make good money, you realistically need to work during busy times. But a lot of knowledge work can realistically be done whenever works best for the employee, so long as they get it done in time for the due date. You do need to arrange for such expectations though.
Gig working started with Uber as an extension of cab driving. Cab drivers do not get 401k and health insurance. So it makes no sense at all that gig working would only exist because companies didn't want to pay benefits. Your pizza delivery guy wasn't getting benefits either. Neither your waiter, or bartender.
However, Uber and other companies did start right after the dot-com recession, when people needed to both save money, and make extra money. It turns out a lot of people needed to do both. Sure, there were advantages over the previous incumbents (cabs suck), but that's not why there are so many drivers.
Ask your Uber or Lyft drivers sometime how often they work. Many of them, since the early years, told me they work as many hours as they can, for as many companies as they can, just to make ends meet. Of course they're paying for their car and all that themselves, too, so it's not like they're getting ahead. And they definitely would rather not be driving for 14 hours a day.
These companies exploit people in an unequal system in order to make profits.
I totally get the negative consequences of gig jobs: no benefits, security and so forth. But whenever I take an Uber or Lyft (maybe 100 in the US and UK) I ask the driver how they feel about the job. Almost all of them are happy with it - some gripe about the pay but they like the flexibility. It's possible they aren't thinking far enough ahead - and I'm talking to the self selected group who didn't get a disabling injury or illness and fall into poverty.
In my experience, gig workers are being exploited as they do not take into account their expenses. Most see uber as decent pay until their car starts having issues.
There are 2 big problems with on-demand/ gig employment.
#1 Our current system of coupling healthcare and other life essential benefits with employment is broken. It makes it difficult for people to work small jobs or switch jobs. In order for gig jobs to be viable, people need to be able to get survive a broken foot without going bankrupt.
#2 Gig-style businesses tend to vastly underpay employees. The early claims that Uber drivers were averaging $15-20/ hour or more were completely fabricated. The reality is most gig jobs require people use their own vehicles and don't pay them for inevitable downtime which means they are vastly underpaid. Minimum wage for gig workers should include payment for expenses (including a reasonable $0.50+ / mile for travel) and downtime between gigs.
If those things are fixed, then suddenly gig work is amazing, but that's a pretty big ask.
What a low effort rebuttal. Why are you comparing gig work to indentured servitude? Is Uber forcing people to drive cars? If your argument is people don’t have any other options, is that really uber’s fault or is that fault of the society?
I know of no one who drives for Uber/Lyft who doesn't think they are doing well. Seriously, where did this meme come about where they are all slaves to Uber? Between what two bring in each week and their mileage deductions they are tempting me at times.
the real tripe in the gig economy is all the pontificating coming down from top how they all care about rights of people, except it only is Western people they care about while those in China and other countries get run over by their governments.
The simple fact is, no employer has to make the job solve all your financial needs. It is up to you to find the job that fulfills your requirements and you can perform safely and well. if that takes more than one job then so be it, many of us have been there before and did it. you don't get anywhere waiting for someone else to fix your life
There is no need to be disingenuous, you know very well what I meant.
Gig workers, at least in the UK, are overwhelmingly from minority and disadvantaged backgrounds; they don't do it out of choice, but because they have little or no alternative.
> to work for Uber, you must have a car
This is the same as for regular taxi work (there are various arrangements, but in most cases drivers end up paying for their vehicle one way or another). In fact, Uber lowered requirements since you don't need a specific type of cars (like UK cabs) or paint jobs/registrations (in most countries). And that's why it got popular: it lowered standards even further, in a sector already predominantly staffed by the worse-off.
> My personal experience with Uber drivers [...] also does not match the description
Of course; they want your five stars, they'll all try to look and sound happy and successful - not unlike many entrepreneurs.
'Gig/sharing jobs' are a way to circumvent the economic inefficiencies of minimum wages and regulation. If these gig jobs are so awful, workers can always look elsewhere, although good luck: on a 2011 national hiring day, McDonald's got 1 million applicants for only 50,000 job openings.
Some gig workers make a lot of money - more than they would with a regular job. The competitive and meritocratic nature of gig jobs reward efficiency and productivity, and this benefits customers and the economy.
Uber, Air BNB, Task Rabbit allow people to earn money when they may not have otherwise been able to .
If you focus on a single aspect and ignore all the other issues, sure, there's no problems whatsoever. But when gig economy jobs are the only jobs available for a certain person, it's hard to argue that they're entering those fully voluntarily. The only alternative to them is starving or getting assistance. In the case of Uber, they can cause long-term issues for workers who gamble on buying a car for the job. Additionally, they cause the higher paying versions of the job to disappear, cause taxes to go away, and force employees into not being able to plan for the future. As much as I enjoy having a single mini-cucumber delivered to my door in 10 minutes for a few euros (thanks, Gorillas), there are some extremely negative things that come with those jobs having replaced other better paying jobs.
The other thing the gig economy does is entirely (for better or worse) expose people to the supply/demand realities of the business. For example, if you are a full-time employed programmer at Uber, you get paid the same every week, regardless of how many people request rides. In fact, if you put in more hours as a full-time programmer, you generally might not even get paid any extra for them. If you are a driver, you are paid per ride and dependent on the parameters of the ride. (time, distance, min fare, etc.)
It's entirely possible to break down the different pros/cons of each type of employment and repackage them. It's really just about whether that should happen and what should/shouldn't be included. Flexibility and the option to choose when they will work is pretty core to these types of jobs. What would be traded away to make that happen?
The trouble, economically, is that most people have had a vested interest in acquiring that particular knowledge and skill, making it common, and thus, by the properties of supply and demand, not terribly valuable.
reply