back
3 comments
I don't think "sharing economy" is the right word to use here, since the article focuses its discussion entirely on ride sharing. I think that the population selling timeshares on their home, such as via Airbnb, are in different circumstances.

I also take issue with the label of "serfs", because unless you're an elite who works only for aesthetics or personal fulfillment, the rest of California must work to live. Everyone is serving somebody. Only a few elites in society get to collect rent on important life services or materials, which is the implication given by "serf". The relationship between customers and drivers is surely not one described by serfdom.

The sharing economy is not the right lens to use for inquiring "why are some people exploited?"

If we assume (1) a generally free market where important life materials and services are provided for almost exclusively on the market, (2) that leverage matters in trade, (3) that advantage begets advantage, and that disadvantage begets disadvantage, and thus growing disparity is inherent to generally free markets, (4) that individuals and families begin accumulating debt from the start of life, then I think it's pretty easy to see why exploitation occurs. These are factors, inherent to our market configuration, interacting with each other.

Uber and Lyft going away isn't going to make life better for the generalist unspecialized (highly fungible) worker, and if it does, it'd only be a band-aid. My Point 3 means that disparity should only grow.

I'm not saying partial solutions or band-aids are bad, but they aren't convincing solutions. Regulations can only do so much for the fact that ride sharing workers lack leverage.

A union can also be a partial remedy to the leverage problem, which I would urge Uber, Lyft, and other workers do. Yet, I wonder what good it will do when automation comes along.

Hard times are ahead for the generalist worker, and appeal to decency is an inadequate solution. We should speak of the hard mechanisms causing a problem, and we should speak of the hard mechanisms which would convincingly solve that problem.

The article is targeted at a Canadian audience, and more specifically policy-makers. I presume that the Canadian government has more control over regulation of these matters than what has happened in SF.

On your hypothesis of a general trend not specific to the present situation, outside of the US, your assumption (4) does not hold, and you've missed out on a reasonable assumption that a country with a majority or significant minority of unspecialized workers in a country with a democratic process can, by virtue of mass, encourage their government to regulate businesses that prey on them.

As such, I'd say that unspecialized workers are not, in general, necessarily doomed to exploitation.

edit: While I'd say that this alternative conclusion is pretty flimsy as well, I'd like to point out that while the parent poster's conclusions follow from their premises, the premises themselves warrant further investigation. In addition, an investigation needs to be made to better understand what is feasible, especially wrt the political dimension (which I found the parent poster's argument to be lacking in), before we can come to a better understanding of whether unspecialized workers are doomed to exploitation.

I don't know that much about Canada, but I can accept that giving up assumption (4) is worth exploring, and that Canadians may have substantially less family and individual debt. This should increase the ability of Canadian workers to walk away from a deal, as their need is not as high.

However, I would have trouble giving up assumptions (1), (2), and (3) because I think they fairly apply to Canada.

While Canada supplies for college and medicine, if the government doesn't supply shelter, food, and transportation, that provides the imperative to work. This means a steady supply of people who cannot easily refuse a job offer, even if it skates by the bare minimum of the law.

If you have a financial need to work, and others are willing to take your position, then it's hard to walk away as leverage.

I also have trouble dropping the assumption that advantage begets advantage, and that disadvantage begets disadvantage. I think that one is inherent to a generally free market.

I didn't include a political factor, and that's a gap that ought be plugged, but the only counter-balancing force I can think of are union-protection laws and progressive taxes, which many nations already have. I think these are good but partial remedies. Fixing industry abuses ad-hoc is a catch-up game where industry will always be ahead.