Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Friday December 19 2014, @06:19PM   Printer-friendly
from the for-richer-for-poorer dept.

After Uber's success, nearly every pitch made by starry-eyed technologists “in Silicon Valley seemed to morph overnight into an ‘Uber for X’ startup" with various companies described now as “Uber for massages,” “Uber for alcohol,” and “Uber for laundry and dry cleaning,” among many, many other things. The conventional narrative is this: enabled by smartphones, enterprising young businesses are using technology to connect a vast market willing to pay for convenience with small businesses or people seeking flexible work. Now Leo Marini writes that the Uber narrative ignores another vital ingredient, without which this new economy would fall apart: inequality.

"There are only two requirements for an on-demand service economy to work, and neither is an iPhone," says Marini. "First, the market being addressed needs to be big enough to scale—food, laundry, taxi rides. Without that, it’s just a concierge service for the rich rather than a disruptive paradigm shift, as a venture capitalist might say. Second, and perhaps more importantly, there needs to be a large enough labor class willing to work at wages that customers consider affordable and that the middlemen consider worthwhile for their profit margins." There is no denying the seductive nature of convenience—or the cold logic of businesses that create new jobs, whatever quality they may be concludes Marini. "All that modern technology has done is make it easier, through omnipresent smartphones, to amass a fleet of increasingly desperate jobseekers eager to take whatever work they can get."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Pav on Saturday December 20 2014, @12:46AM

    by Pav (114) on Saturday December 20 2014, @12:46AM (#127626)

    Mod parent up!

    Uber and other similar services are still taking their cut for selling us to eachother, and for less - they're just the Walmart of taxi services. Game theory tells us that the winning strategy for cooperative games is to negotiate less money/benefit for your "partner" - deregulation, anti-union action etc... have allowed corps to do this, and Uber (if anything) accelerates this trend. The parent comment suggestion of the Coop model is the only real way out (at least that I can see).

    I've been seriously looking into Coops to join, but the only one I've found isn't very healthy right now (ie. NoISP in Australia) - I spoke to the secretary via email. I just wish I had business/accounting smarts, otherwise I'd have started one already as I already am doing my own thing, and cooperating with others and getting the benefit of a larger organisation while still maintaining equality and a little control would be great.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2