Sure, corporations are using it to reduce wages and benefits, etc. But gig economy is not really a new concept -- almost every tradecraft profession has a similar dynamic; as an electrician you are generally not paid by an employer, you instead go out and get work. This gives you the freedom to set your own hours and tune the amount of work that you take on to support your lifestyle.

I think the problem with a lot of these gig economy services is that they are often pumped by VC/PE money in an attempt to generate monopolies by over-capitalizing. If we got rid of that dynamic (which is a difficult problem) then this disappears. If there are a hundred different Ubers, operating in different cities, then gig workers are put in a better position to bargain by selecting a service to use.

The cost here is that the customer is inconvenienced; a single app with a single payment system seems like a better deal. But distributing this responsibility actually makes the overall system more robust and leads to interesting solutions throughout the stack, rather than converging on whatever terrible systems have been hard-coded by the over-capitalized market leaders.

- I'm convinced corporations are using it to reduce wages and benefits and effectively foist the cost of those lower wages/benefits on society as a whole.

The customer demand (customer being the drivers) tells a completely different story of people being more productive than legacy taxi systems by taking responsibility themselves.

I think a lean "gig economy" without the full load of bureaucracy is largely positive and really dislike how it is torn down here in Europe...

I would be more inclined to agree with you if there was clear evidence that people really understood all the “responsibility” they’re taking on when picking up gig-economy work.

Responsibilities like the value depreciation of their vehicle, or paying for sick leave and time off.

Full time employment provides strong protection against unexpected illness. The gig-economy doesn’t.

Companies like Uber seem to prey on large pools of semi-innumerate drivers who either don’t realise they’re operating a loss and too desperate to care.

The result is your productivity gains, which only exist because some of the costs simply aren’t accounted for and ignored. These aren’t real productivity gains, that’s just socialising costs and clever accounting to justify it.

- Companies like Uber seem to prey on large pools of semi-innumerate drivers who either don’t realise they’re operating a loss and too desperate to care.

Without hard data this is just a far fetched claim. You are implying that „a large part“ (how large?) people are too dumb to make this decision for themselves. Even though I do not doubt that these people exist, what is the relative threshold where all others should be restricted by rules made for that geoup? Also I would argue that there is a learning effect if someone notices he operates at a loss and can learn from others who are making a profit. This might be very valuable in fighting „learned helplessness“. But as you might notice: I am always in favor of doing things the hard way, with short term pain than obfuscating the price signals for short term ease only compensating the symptoms.

The legacy taxi system, at least in the US, was ripe for disruption. No argument there. However, disruption doesn't necessarily require shafting "employees" out of wages and benefits. Reform to medallion systems (at least in the cities that have them) might have had similar benefits, without the negatives associated with "gig" employment.

>And I'll freely admit this all can be a bit ambiguous. And that I'm not a fan of the "gig economy" in general - I'm convinced corporations are using it to reduce wages and benefits and effectively foist the cost of those lower wages/benefits on society as a whole.

I think it's ambiguous too. Though I disagree with the criteria set by this court, I'm not entirely sure on what the right criteria is. I think Uber play a line between employment and self-employment to keep it ambiguous, and I certainly agree it's to make sure they don't have to provide full employment benefits to their drivers, but I still think the classification/distinction is tricky.

If drivers are indeed employees, as I mentioned in my other comment, I think Uber gain a lot of rights over their drivers that they don't currently have.

As a counter example I bring you the Italian taxi system

Cab drivers have to receive a public license from the city to work in that city (and can only have one)

They can't decide the price, which is fixed according to some rules and are all the same for every cab in the city

The shouldn't sell the licence even if most of them do (gray legal area)

But they are not considered employees of the city but as freelancers

How do they "negotiate" the price?

They try to follow the most rewarding route for them and, unless the customer knows which is the fastest route, they get away with it

I'm not a fan of the gig economy either, but Uber drivers look to me are willing to work at their rules, their hours and on the gigs they like, which is different from what we consider being regular employees in Italy

That's similar to the taxi system in many (European and proabably traditionally US) places. The big differences compared to Uber there are:

- The rates are rather high, so the e.g. the costs for the car are taken into account and still the driver earns a decent living

- The city does not take a significant share of every fare paid

As long as the system is somewhat balanced and no turbo capitalism exploiting drivers in a weak position nobody tries it up to the supreme court. (In the US the legal system is less balanced, so I don't think Uber drivers would make it to the supreme court, not even dreaming of getting a similar verdict.)

Home Depot sets prices for services like carpet install. They sub it out to various installers. AAA subcontracts out to local tow operators to provide nationwide coverage. Huge segments of the economy would fall apart of we made all of those kinds of people employees.

> Huge segments of the economy would fall apart of we made all of those kinds of people employees.

I don't think that's really a relevant argument to whether they should be classified as employees. Huge segments of the economy have already fallen apart, and more will fall apart in the future.

IF we can't send kids into coal mines the economy will collapse.

The point is this category of worker is not just made of a small fringe of poor victims. Many of these people are legitimate entrepreneurs who become millionaire small business owners. You're going to destroy an important path to wealth creation for the poor and middle class by forcing them to be mega corp drones. This is an awful idea. You will destroy their lives by pulling up the ladders blue collar workers are using to climb out of poverty because you're upset that some Uber drivers are poor.

It's not only about opportunity for gig economy workers, it's about us all paying the price of gig economy business operations. Uber's business model can be extended to virtually any job, if we lower the barrier to entry just like Uber is trying to do for the taxi business.

Their model is to be a gatekeeper to customers via their platform - if they are successful, none of those blue collar workers trying to climb out of underemployment will have a chance at running a small ride business, because only large platforms have access to customers.

If everyone suddenly becomes a freelancer, companies are free to push externalities onto society because there will be enough people willing to take the hit to their rights/benefits for any kind of employment. It's a race to the bottom that benefits only the company that has access to the customer base.

We have to choose whether we want that or not.

Something that keeps popping back to my mind since the late 80's is to wonder to what extend government could or even should deliver type FOO services. Coding a taxi service wont cost anywhere near as much as the damage Uber is looking to deal. We spend crazy amounts of money designing, implementing and configuring labor protection and Uber obviously wants to work around it.

I think you've created a false narrative where workers have no power to demand wages or benefits. If that were true then Google engineers would be making the legal minimum wage. When you understand why Google engineers don't make minimum wage, you'll understand the flaw in your analysis on wage pricing.

Yes, it is all true, I find poverty a fascinating puzzle. I've solved one part of it already. Opinions from people who don't share that fascination cant contribute to the answer. The situation is even worse than you can imagine. I see excessive wealth render people unproductive. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see wealth come out of equally valuable contributions to civilization. Driving a car from A to B to C, well, I'm sorry, that ain't it. That would be a task ideally fit for someone who just wants to work, pay bills, buy a house, get married, have kids, go on vacation 2 times per year etc. It would be valuable to society to do it cheaply, perhaps we should even subsidize it. If you buy a bunch of cars and hire a bunch of people, then I could see the purpose of an opportunity for wealth creation.

You don't see a difference between an independent carpenter or tow truck company and an uber driver?

The primary difference is the state generally doesn't allow poor people to legally offer basic carpentry/roadside services at a rate commensurate with their skill. Things like licensing requirements create a barrier to entry unavailable to the poor, not unlike what traditional taxi companies are fighting for in their war against gig economy drivers. Such laws do help the wealthy incumbents because they have the ability to overcome those barriers, but it's at the expense of the poor.

Fields like accounting and legal services operate this way too. A friend of mine made a lot of money as a contractor during major acquisitions. I'm pretty sure he was of legal age to work in his state.