Hacker News Reader

Comment by beat | Hacker News Reader

I don't think it can be generalized to the entire gig economy. In particular, things that require physical interaction (like Uber and AirBnB) do well, compared to remote-computer jobs like 99 Designs where everyone is competing with third world contractors who have much lower cost of living.

I think we'll see some follow the Uber model as it evolves - subject to some reasonable regulation in the long run but still basically wiping out previous industries. And as much as I like Uber the product, I sure as hell do not want Uber the business setting labor standards that will govern the lives of millions in the 21st century. The business is great, the management is borderline evil. Which is better than the taxi industry where the business is awful and the management is totally evil but local only...

View on HN

Once we have self-driving cars, Uber can and will replace their current fleet of drivers with robots.

Absolutely. But the general idea of the gig economy will (probably) stay around, even if specific examples die out in the face of new technologies.

The gig economy will only die when humans price-gouge each other so immensely that robots are the only viable option - even though they can carry a higher entry cost.

Ok, but then Uber will have to bear the full purchase, financing, depreciation, maintenance, garaging, inventory, theft, and insurance cost for potentially millions of vehicles.

No because the cars will be the electrical storage for most of the non baseline load in a city. So cars will be part private property and part public transport - fleets of mini vans driving around and nipping off to the charging station at peak demand times.

No, all of that could still be outsourced to a 3rd party.

If it's not Uber, someone else offering a similar service will eventually allow people to submit their own self-driving car to a driving pool when they're not personally using it.

Or people will buy a car and submit it to Uber's pool for some return, as an investment. Minimises Uber's costs which will mean they can expand aggressively.

That seems unlikely considering Uber's entire business model is based around offloading as much of the liability and risk as possible onto their "contractors".

It's the degree of market saturation, so we're both right... 99 Designs is on the extreme saturation end whereas physical ones like Uber are not. But ideologically, the problems they share stem from "more providers = dilution of profits".

And it's terrible because they only way to compete as a business against Uber, is by "forcing" the participants to offer more services at an equal or slightly higher price, or do the same services for cheaper. And that is inherently not good for either a business or it's product (which happens to be us humans, in this argument) - and that is why you don't see identical services popping up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com