Hacker News Reader

Comment by albertgoeswoof | Hacker News Reader

The worker protections we have that the gig economy strips employees of are actually really important.

The protections we have in place e.g. 40 hours work week, time off (4+ weeks/year in developed countries), termination periods, redundancy pay etc enable a market place where individuals employees can compete fairly with one another. Without these restrictions we open up a fast race to the bottom, where only those who are willing to work multiple jobs (gigs), extreme working hours at minimal pay can compete (see freelance websites and other "gig" platforms for examples).

The gig economy allows some unique companies (e.g. Uber, Deliveroo) to operate right now when they are backed with massive VC funds and operate at a loss - but we can't all expect to have a personal driver + food on delivery every day, without either seeing massive technology efficiency gains (which aren't there yet, e.g. drone delivery, self driving cars etc.) or alternatively we deregulate and push some people into poverty (gig economy).

View on HN

I don't subscribe at all to the race to the bottom concept honestly.

It is senseless to believe that it is worker regulations that isn't grinding workers. When someone wants to work more than what they 40 hour work week offers, he would go into contracting and work a lot more. Our society is filled with people choosing to work more, and no-one is richer by forcing those people to work less.

Not only that, the race to the bottom you mention would not dock pay as much as you think. In fact, it would increase riches. This is related to the classical problem of confounding money with value.

Lets say you work 40 hours a week and make 1 fork an hour, and get paid 1 dollar for it. A contractor shows up and he makes 1 fork an hour and works 60 hours a week. The new influx of 60 forks will drop the price of forks, and hence you will be paid less per fork you produce: but the entire system now has 100 forks. You will be paid less but you can buy more forks with the lesser pay. In a real world example, you would lose money, because your entire income is devoted to forks but not your expenditures: but this effect happens with almost anything that is produceds and requires labor. So basically advocating for the restrictions in name of pay, is advocating for higher nominal salaries for less goods.

You are conflating wanting to work more with having to. The gig economy provides both

>I don't subscribe at all to the race to the bottom concept honestly.

I don't get how you can not. Workers fought and died[0] for the protections the United States enforces. Why do you think that is? Because they were tired of racing to the bottom!

And for the economic example, this:

>but this effect happens with almost anything that is produceds and requires labor

just isn't correct. For example, one of the other top comments in this thread is specifically about how gig labor probably won't work well for most software.

>So basically advocating for the restrictions in name of pay, is advocating for higher nominal salaries for less goods.

That's a pretty interesting assertion. I could just as easily say the opposite.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-union_violence_in_the_Uni...

> I don't get how you can not. Workers fought and died[0] for the protections the United States enforces. Why do you think that is? Because they were tired of racing to the bottom!

People fought and died for to expand christianity in the world as well. How can you not believe in god?

There are many things about the era of unions and worker rights that to my personal level, require a scrutiny I dont have the understanding and knowledge to disentangle. The increase of wealth and people's welfare might as well have happened in spite of worker's rights movements. Also, the greatest terrible thing about that era was that the state was participant in the oppression ,by using violence against workers. (At least it was so in argentina). Thats a great case for unionization, but not for workers rights, since the oppressor is the one that puts the rules.

The United States has some of the most rudimentary worker laws in the developed world, yet many jobs (like soft dev) tout great benefits like paid leave, extra pto etc. What increases worker well-being is the creation of wealth, not the mandatory legal requirements for it.

> just isn't correct. For example, one of the other top comments in this thread is specifically about how gig labor probably won't work well for most software.

That's pretty much an opinion, and software is not everything out there.

> That's a pretty interesting assertion. I could just as easily say the opposite.

I dont see how it would be opposite. Lower worker times means lower production, which means lower goods and services to consume. No matter what you do with the currency, reducing production makes the whole poorer. There are some arguments around this topic like reasonable work-times increase productivity and spending and all that, and they are believable to a certain extent, but the basic mechanic has to be the before mentioned.

To be honest, I always perceive that issue as a problem of perception of distribution. In a system of 10 workers, where each has the same output, if one of them were willing to work 60 hours over 40, he would make relatively more than the other workers and that causes a perception of inequality humans are inherently against. The 40 hour worker now also thinks(correctly) that his wage would go up if he could force the 60 hour guy to work 40 hours. But he believes this is good for him, which it isn't, because even he would be relatively worse, he would be absolutely better.

In economics, what you dont see often has a more profound effect that what you can see.

Just out of interest, how many consecutive 60 hour weeks have you worked?

If I recall correctly, the longest stretch I've done of 60+ hour weeks in a metal fabrication workshop is 12.

The longest stretch of 50+ hr weeks I've done is in my current job in a metal fabrication workshop is about 5 months.

I genuinely cannot understand your argument in favour of 60 hour weeks.

Not many, even though I had the opportunity to do so multiple times, I chose (and still choose) not to work those kind of times.

> I genuinely cannot understand your argument in favour of 60 hour weeks.

This phrase implies that you are comparing mandatory 40-hours to mandatory 60-hours, which is not the line of argumentation.

The line of questioning is that people should be forced to never work 60 hours. It is a proposal of restriction, with the argument that the lives of workers would be better if so. And I argue that is not true.

You're operating in such a simplified view of "economics" so as to be totally useless. And there's also some extreme bias here, you admit to not having the a good understanding of the workers rights movement but you believe that workers got better of in spite of the movement? What's that saying about an open mind but not too open? I really urge you to expand your view of the labor market into one that takes into account real world elements like frictions, coercion, monopsony power of employers, imperfect information and hell maybe some economic history. What you are talking about just is not the real world.

There isn't even a clear consensus with professional economists today on this topic, let alone what it meant 80 years ago. It requires some very strong research to back up that the workers rights movement achieved the results unions claimed.

One of the greatest advancements in worker well being in the US was done by Ford pioneering well paid and well rested employees.

I live in a country that had a certain amount of economic prosperity and it has been under clear economic crippling since the last constitutional amendment that expanded workers rights. Coincidence or causality? It's very hard to say, but the fact that union leaders are richer than CEO's and company founders makes the whole thing suspicious.

Modern unions definitely sell a lot of kool-aid.

> but the fact that union leaders are richer than CEO's and company founders makes the whole thing suspicious.

Although I don't think it is better to have richer CEO's is better than rich Union leaders, this is not true unless you live in Cuba.

This is somewhat true in argentina. (its a broad statement) but union leaders are extremely rich people here.

Do you have any references to back the statement? I hope we are not talking about some 5 or 10 union leaders richer than middle class entrepreneurs.

Its a complex thing to talk about it, because corruption is common currency in Argentina. The top union leaders (teachers, truckers) have virtually unlimited resources. They live in houses and mansions that cost millions of dollars, but they reported income is well below that.

They also enjoy special constitutional protections, that makes them almost as hard to arrest as a politician. Their kids are house representatives. They take pictures with the president and campaign with them.

They are part of the ruling class. The lower more ideologically "pure" unions constantly denounce how rich they are by selling out their own workers.

They manage the medical insurance fund for all employees in their unions, which is a billion dollar fund: several times it was found they cleared out the funds as well as replaced meds and all that (a few lesser union leaders got convicted of this).

Argentina is a special place, and one could argue that corruption is a problem at all institutions. But the unions are one more corrupt institution, that can easily start selling out their own, the same way a politican would or a business man could sell out his employees.

For me, calling for unions to solve economic problems is like bringing a bear to solve the bee problem.

I'm asking for references to validate your opinion, not more opinions. If you can't provide solid facts, just say it.

I dont know what kind of source you'd expect but i can share some articles.

A note on union leaders owning million dollar homes: http://www.ambito.com/793963-los-duenos-del-paro-y-de-grande...

This is the "most successfull" union leader of argentina phyisically removing the president of the largest private post office: http://www.perfil.com/politica/moyano-fue-a-oca-y-echo-por-l...

Turns out he owns a post office with thousands of employees. He owns a lot of things, being president of a soccer club and all. He was never anything else but a trucker and a trucker union leader.

A note on noteworthy union leaders salaries, ranging 10-15x the earnings of the workers they represent:

http://www.laizquierdadiario.com/A-vos-que-te-cuesta-llegar-...

Union leaders are not forced to publicly disclosed their tax filings, so you can only gauge what they own by what they do.

You can argue this is anecdotal evidence, but then again, theres no way to make it no anecdotal because its protected information.

You're looking for historians or economic historians and I would be really interested if you know of any off the top of your head who believe that the labor movement didn't actually help labor.

Modern corporations sell a lot of anti-union kool aid as well. Unions are not there to be "good people" any more than a CEO is supposed to be a "good person." Unions are there to balance corporate power.

>Coincidence or causality?

It's impossible to say without knowledge of the country. (not that I want you to dox yourself.)

> You're looking for historians or economic historians and I would be really interested if you know of any off the top of your head who believe that the labor movement didn't actually help labor.

I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of examples of great economic prosperity without unions and labor laws.

It is of common occurrence for a political movement to claim its actions were responsible for effects already happening. But also, there is a confounding effect: unions were a reasonable response to the acts of state that used violence and coercion against employees. The FBI busting strikes, or the military shooting down workers protests. Unionization was vital to revert that. But that doesn't mean everything they said or did was the best for the workers.

The ability to unionize is a very different thing that the passing of a law that describes how labor should be. Making unions illegal is an act of oppression. Forcing workers to be part of the union is another act of oppression.

But the case in point is about the addition of a work law that involves the restriction of how much time an employers can bid of the employee. I am not yet convinced that it was unions that raised wages so it was possible to raise salaries that covered working 16 hours to 12. I think that was already happening, and the protests and unions of the time were at best accelerating that transition.

You have obviously never tried to form a union. I have and I did it in a country where it is legal to do so. Our union took over 10 years of very tough struggle in addition to our normal paid work before the company felt enough pressure to sign a contract with us.

Now we finally have some protections against precarity that we didn't have before. But we could have saved ourselves a lot of hardship if the government had just guaranteed them to us. And we are privileged workers compared with most. Most people couldn't afford to take the risks we did or afford to put that much of their spare time into organising a union.

Your views and understanding of this issue are trash and clearly come from a place of never having to worry about your job or livelihood.

> You have obviously never tried to form a union.

Nope, I've only been screwed by unions my entire life as a worker with mandatory unionization and a consumer with import restrictions and service outages.

> Now we finally have some protections against precarity that we didn't have before. But we could have saved ourselves a lot of hardship if the government had just guaranteed them to us.

That is true for any desire. If the government gave me anything for granted, then I wouldnt have to work for it at all. The question about the precarity of the market you were/are is completely out of my knowledge, but I could argue that what you needed was a way to make the company responsible for the accidents and the health problems that arise from that work, or have some sort of work insurance that would align the incentives of the employers and the employee(make safer work spaces to reduce insurance claims). That is a very reasonable thing to ask of the government.

> Your views and understanding of this issue are trash

Compelling.

This is naive. People get the best job they can get, which is rarely the one they want. I was always forced to work more than 40 hours and I hated it but never had a choice when I was younger. I had employers erode all sorts of my rights and I couldn't say a word, because I couldn't find any other work.

What is naive is to believe the elimination of those jobs is going to provide you with a new and better one.

The problem is the contractor, may not be working more because he wants to, but because he is not certain the work will be available in the future. Also, since the contractor is willing to work 60 hours, he is a little more attractive to employers. Also the town you live in has a finite housing supply. So even though you think you are making decent money, you are being outbid by all the 60 hours/week contractors who have more money than you. So you eventually give in and start working 60 hours to keep up.

To keep up what. His own expectations?

The angle of your comment, to me, doesn't take into account basic incentive differences between contractors and employees.

Employees are provided with certain benefits, but those benefits are paid by the employees themselves, not by "the company" or "the state". PTO is paid by the employee, simply because any job in existence has a salary based on perceived value by the employer. There isn't really a fundamental difference to an employee (in general)between paying 110 a year with 1 month time of, or paying 10 monthly without pto and allowing 1 month of licensing.

There is a difference to the employee though: he perceives, falsely, that the time off he gets is "free time, paid by someone else" and so he is way more inclined to use it. Specially when there are rules like expiration on them.

A small business man that runs his own shop or contracting work, knows that the time he does work he doesn't get paid. Because the cause and effect are so close together, the contractor is way more unwilling to take time off, because he wants that money.

Contractors work more not because they don't have worker rights, but because they can more clearly see what the effect of not working is. Now figure a law that says that contractors shouldn't work more than 40 hours a week: what a disaster it would be for them and for society, that people that want to work are prohibited from doing so.

> Now figure a law that says that contractors shouldn't work more than 40 hours a week: what a disaster it would be for them and for society

I agree that people should definitely not be prohibited from working more than 40 hours. But disastrous? Let's assume such a law was passed. People would visit friends and family, spend time with kids, get better sleep, have time to cook, exercise, read more books. How is that disastrous? What is disastrous is people never having time to enjoy the things I just mentioned. So I would support simple policy disincentives to people working outside the range of let's say 30-50.

It would be disastrous if it were enforceable. In the us the avg time is 47 hours: forcibly reducing 7 hours would mean that there would be 20% less labor. GDP would have such a huge contraction, and there would be not only less money, but less things to spend money on. It would be a huge economic hit in the aggregate.

Of course, laws that would try to do such things always end up failing because people are pretty ingenious.

People can make the choice every day to work less and enjoy more, but they dont not because they are forced to, but because they assess what they like the most. Every person has to do a trade off between work and leisure, and restrictions on work just messes with what people want.

If I go contracting (that's proper self employed contracting not disused employment) I would not be working more hours just be charging 3x my FTE wage.

That is your prerogative. Of course contracting has to pay enough for the difficulty of finding clients and the sort, but in principle, you are not limited to how much time you want to work.

It's simple. When you have an oversupply of job seekers competing for a limited slot of quality jobs, the employers have the upper hand in terms of bargaining, driving down wages and working conditions until they hit the minimum that people are willing to put up with.

The solution isn't regulation because that only addresses a symptom without addressing the root cause. The only solution is to remove the employee's dependence on their employer (eg. universal basic income).

I confess that I'm working my way up to Marx's capital, so I'm currently not convinced of the reserve army concept, and some of the modeling that says that economies tend to lower wages until people get the bare minimum. But even if I believed that to be true, restricting the amount of time they work will just keep pushing the salaries to survival level and it would do so faster.

I also have strong hopes for UBI to re-adjust many things in society, like giving stronger leverage to the poorer classes in the imbalance of power they have with employers. However, at my current understanding of economics, i cant see how restricting labor would have positive effects on the aggregate of workers.

Yes, it's a commodity market of forks at that point - a bushel of wheat, a hog carcass, etc. is more or less the same at some level, regardless of where it's grown...save for King Arthur flour, but that's another story.

There are subsidy/government controls in place for this - if you price control it or otherwise force production without a market benefit, you drive folks out of the industry. This is a bad thing with food staples because then you get starvation, so you need the market to exist so people can enjoy profits but you need a floor/baked in demand to ensure minimum level of production to meet your populations needs.

Now, for this market, we need to ask "Do we care that the supply of gig-sector services is volatile?" and the answer is muddled - people want their reliable Just-in-Time(JIT) services but not enough to advocate for price floors to ensure labor supply exists and stays stable(low turnover). In our minds, that's the job of the contracting companies to do and we don't really care about the labor impacts associated with it. I guess the question is "Are we ok burning this now and hoping we have it in the future?"

The people at the top competing companies seem to end up conspiring to suppress wages even when it is illegal and their companies ROI and profits are the highest of any other companies on earth.[1] Adobe, Intel, Google, and Apple were convicted (edit:actually, just paid money to prevent a trial) mainly on the fact that Jobs, Schmidt, and Otellini actually sent emails to each other discussing it that were revealed in discovery. I can imagine wink-wink agreements that would be far harder to successfully prosecute and thus never (edit: threatened to be) brought to trial.

[1]https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/13/7542371/apple-google-inte...

Are you suggesting that workers should get together and conspire in return?

You mean like a union? Maybe not the best most ethical way to fight back but seemed to work at some level in the past.

That's what unions do, since companies have disproportionate power in negotiations

Im implying that two wrongs dont make a right.

You get a good helping of Baumol's Cost Disease [1] this way, which actually seems to be what's afflicting the economy now.

Problem is that not all sectors of the economy are uniform. You may have dramatically increased the productivity and reduced the cost of forks. However, health care can't be done by fork makers. Higher education can't be taught by fork makers. The supply of these goods is fixed by skilled labor, who can now demand more money because their BATNA is going into the fork automation business rather than working for a competitor. End result is that the world is awash in forks, but the people who make forks can get plenty of forks but no health care or education.

Most of the problems with classical macroeconomic models can be traced back to the fact that we don't live in a 2-good model, and the economy comprises thousands of markets that all have different productivity stats and levels of competition. If all markets moved in unison, then yes, rising productivity would be an unambiguous benefit for everyone. Not all markets move in unison, and so when essential goods are in markets with low productivity, large portions of the population can find themselves unable to afford those essential goods.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease

Im not entirely sure this cost disease goes against classical economics. The value of a teacher increases as the children's expected economic value in the future increases in productivity.

In any case, the restriction of how much people should be able to work could affect workers positively or negatively, but its not the solution to the problem of productivity and distribution.

That's a weird way to look at it.

Contractors exist because they are disposable. Period. In many instances, contract workers are less efficient and cause work to be broken up in arbritary ways to make the RFPs make sense. You're literally spending 3-5x for the disposability.

As a professional in a field, you should hate contractors as they diminish your work and make you disposable.

> As a professional in a field, you should hate contractors as they diminish your work and make you disposable.

This is correct, in the same way that you should despise any other professional from competing with your service.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com