Volatile pay for gig workers linked to health problems(apa.org)
apa.org
Volatile pay for gig workers linked to health problems
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2022/12/volatile-gig-workers-health-problems
128 comments
This is something I think was really misguided about the big push to make gig workers “full employees” in various states. It felt like solving the issue of “so many benefits and taxes are tied to employment when they shouldn’t be” by simply forcing the new jobs into the same bad system, instead of figuring out how to make the system better overall.
There are a lot of people out there for whom a regular job with a regular schedule are not a good fit for their life. The option to work when you can and not work when you can’t is a huge thing and we should be working on figuring out how to make that a more viable option rather than trying to tear it down because it can be abused. Especially when you consider that for many people in that position today all the security that supposedly comes with a regular job isn’t something they have because the only jobs they can take are minimum wage low skill jobs that usually come with no benefits anyway and will fire you the first time you call out. At least with the gig work, there’s no one calling you on the phone wanting to know where you are today and why you’re sick again.
There are a lot of people out there for whom a regular job with a regular schedule are not a good fit for their life. The option to work when you can and not work when you can’t is a huge thing and we should be working on figuring out how to make that a more viable option rather than trying to tear it down because it can be abused. Especially when you consider that for many people in that position today all the security that supposedly comes with a regular job isn’t something they have because the only jobs they can take are minimum wage low skill jobs that usually come with no benefits anyway and will fire you the first time you call out. At least with the gig work, there’s no one calling you on the phone wanting to know where you are today and why you’re sick again.
> It felt like solving the issue of “so many benefits and taxes are tied to employment when they shouldn’t be” by simply forcing the new jobs into the same bad system, instead of figuring out how to make the system better overall.
Do people deny this? The motivation for this approach is that it is easier to write one law than totally revolutionize our entire economic system.
This complaint reminds me of the people who don't tip because they think the system is stupid. Sure, the ideal system would pay people a living wage and give them benefits from the start, but that system isn't here today and likely won't be here tomorrow. People need to live in the current system and they can't afford to wait. Refusing to try to help those people until we have the political will to change our entire economic system seems heartless to me.
Do people deny this? The motivation for this approach is that it is easier to write one law than totally revolutionize our entire economic system.
This complaint reminds me of the people who don't tip because they think the system is stupid. Sure, the ideal system would pay people a living wage and give them benefits from the start, but that system isn't here today and likely won't be here tomorrow. People need to live in the current system and they can't afford to wait. Refusing to try to help those people until we have the political will to change our entire economic system seems heartless to me.
The problem with this argument for me is is seems to rest on the assumption that all of these gig workers would somehow otherwise be eligible for benefits at some other job and they are being duped into taking the gig work. I just don’t think that’s true. I think gig workers are mostly the same people that already don’t have good job with benefits prospects and whether they’re working for Uber or Walmart or a real taxi company would be in the same place.
So the argument that we must do this quick thing that continues to prop up a bad and failing system as opposed to doing something else that moves the needle on improving the system seems like false urgency.
You also don’t need to change the whole system, just one part of it. I find it hard to believe that in a state like California it was easier to get support for “all contract employees are now w2 employees, except for this long list of arbitrary exclusions” (which may or may not actually result in those employees getting benefits) than it would have been for “all people who earn at least 70% of their income from 1099 income are now eligible for MediCal and/or subsidized market place plans and unemployment insurance.” Heck if you really wanted to “stick it to” the gig jobs you could even add a new tax to cover this on any company that employs more than 50 (or some other number) or more 1099 employees in the state.
Instead we seem more focused on trying to make gig jobs work more like “real jobs” and that to me actively harms people who benefit from having gig jobs be available. And we know there’s demand for that sort of work, so why try and throw it out just because we’re too lazy to make real changes
So the argument that we must do this quick thing that continues to prop up a bad and failing system as opposed to doing something else that moves the needle on improving the system seems like false urgency.
You also don’t need to change the whole system, just one part of it. I find it hard to believe that in a state like California it was easier to get support for “all contract employees are now w2 employees, except for this long list of arbitrary exclusions” (which may or may not actually result in those employees getting benefits) than it would have been for “all people who earn at least 70% of their income from 1099 income are now eligible for MediCal and/or subsidized market place plans and unemployment insurance.” Heck if you really wanted to “stick it to” the gig jobs you could even add a new tax to cover this on any company that employs more than 50 (or some other number) or more 1099 employees in the state.
Instead we seem more focused on trying to make gig jobs work more like “real jobs” and that to me actively harms people who benefit from having gig jobs be available. And we know there’s demand for that sort of work, so why try and throw it out just because we’re too lazy to make real changes
>The problem with this argument for me is is seems to rest on the assumption that all of these gig workers would somehow otherwise be eligible for benefits at some other job and they are being duped into taking the gig work
I don't know where this assumption is coming from. I support this type of law because I think people deserve benefits.
>I find it hard to believe that in a state like California it was easier to get support for “all contract employees are now w2 employees, except for this long list of arbitrary exclusions” (which may or may not actually result in those employees getting benefits) than it would have been for “all people who earn at least 70% of their income from 1099 income are now eligible for MediCal and/or subsidized market place plans and unemployment insurance.” Heck if you really wanted to “stick it to” the gig jobs you could even add a new tax to cover this on any company that employs more than 50 (or some other number) or more 1099 employees in the state.
It would take someone who pays a lot more attention to California politics than me to fully explain this. All I can do is say that one was made a law and one wasn't. From this layman's perspective, it seems like the one that was made a law was easier to make a law. And for the record, I would support your proposed law too, because I think people deserve benefits.
I don't know where this assumption is coming from. I support this type of law because I think people deserve benefits.
>I find it hard to believe that in a state like California it was easier to get support for “all contract employees are now w2 employees, except for this long list of arbitrary exclusions” (which may or may not actually result in those employees getting benefits) than it would have been for “all people who earn at least 70% of their income from 1099 income are now eligible for MediCal and/or subsidized market place plans and unemployment insurance.” Heck if you really wanted to “stick it to” the gig jobs you could even add a new tax to cover this on any company that employs more than 50 (or some other number) or more 1099 employees in the state.
It would take someone who pays a lot more attention to California politics than me to fully explain this. All I can do is say that one was made a law and one wasn't. From this layman's perspective, it seems like the one that was made a law was easier to make a law. And for the record, I would support your proposed law too, because I think people deserve benefits.
Imagine someone who has bipolar, rheumatoid arthritis, being a single parent or any other complication that means you can't commit to a 40 hour schedule.
How many places can you work with a completely flexible schedule, a handful, most of which is gig-work.
Now because of making all these employees w-2 they require their employees to put in 40 hours a week, and work on a specified schedule. These people now have to find other work or be unemployed.
Fundamentally you're benefiting full time drivers at expense of part-time drivers. I think this is a bad trade-off because people who can work 40 hours on a schedule have lots of other employment options where as part-time drivers who can't commit to a schedule in advance has far fewer options.
How many places can you work with a completely flexible schedule, a handful, most of which is gig-work.
Now because of making all these employees w-2 they require their employees to put in 40 hours a week, and work on a specified schedule. These people now have to find other work or be unemployed.
Fundamentally you're benefiting full time drivers at expense of part-time drivers. I think this is a bad trade-off because people who can work 40 hours on a schedule have lots of other employment options where as part-time drivers who can't commit to a schedule in advance has far fewer options.
>Imagine someone who has bipolar, rheumatoid arthritis, being a single parent or any other complication that means you can't commit to a 40 hour schedule.
And what if that single parent has a 10-year-old, should we allow that parent to send the kid to work in a coal mine?
Your argument is effectively the same one used against all labor protections. You can't take the existence of people willing to do a job as evidence that those people are fine with the conditions of that job. It ignores that our system coerces people into work. So yes, any law which makes it more expensive to employ someone will cause some jobs to disappear. That alone isn't a reason to avoid labor laws.
>Now because of making all these employees w-2 they require their employees to put in 40 hours a week, and work on a specified schedule.
This is a choice by the company. It isn't a requirement of the regulation. I'm not sure why 100% of the blame goes to the regulation and not the company that is actively adopting antiworker practices in response to legislation preventing them from continuing their previous antiworker practices.
And what if that single parent has a 10-year-old, should we allow that parent to send the kid to work in a coal mine?
Your argument is effectively the same one used against all labor protections. You can't take the existence of people willing to do a job as evidence that those people are fine with the conditions of that job. It ignores that our system coerces people into work. So yes, any law which makes it more expensive to employ someone will cause some jobs to disappear. That alone isn't a reason to avoid labor laws.
>Now because of making all these employees w-2 they require their employees to put in 40 hours a week, and work on a specified schedule.
This is a choice by the company. It isn't a requirement of the regulation. I'm not sure why 100% of the blame goes to the regulation and not the company that is actively adopting antiworker practices in response to legislation preventing them from continuing their previous antiworker practices.
> This is a choice by the company. It isn't a requirement of the regulation. I'm not sure why 100% of the blame goes to the regulation and not the company that is actively adopting antiworker practices in response to legislation preventing them from continuing their previous antiworker practices.
You’re assigning moral judgment on a purely numbers question. My health insurance costs my company ~20k per year over the cost of my salary. Which means at a bare minimum, just to pay for the coverage my employment must either generate 20k in additional revenue or free that 20k up from some other place. No amount of legislation will change this fact and if a job can’t generate that money then, it wont just magically be provided because “people deserve benefits” it just simply wont exist. This is why companies have scheduling and time commitment requirements, because there is overhead in each additional employee and you can’t make that overhead go away just because you make a law saying more overhead must be paid.
So your options are either you legislate jobs out of existence in some attempt to force third parties to pay for what people “deserve” or you skip the middle man and give people what they “deserve” and leave what people “earn” out of the equation.
In my mind if you truly believe people “deserve” these things, then trying to force someone else to provide it is a wastefully inefficient way of getting it to them. We don’t do this with anything else people “deserve”. People deserve to have food, we don’t mandate that employers buy their food for them. People deserve a place to live, we don’t mandate that employers buy them homes. People deserve clean water, we don’t mandate that employers distribute bottled water to their employees. If people deserve health care or unemployment insurance or social security or whatever then stop mandating other people do it. Provide it to the people and raise the taxes to cover it.
You’re assigning moral judgment on a purely numbers question. My health insurance costs my company ~20k per year over the cost of my salary. Which means at a bare minimum, just to pay for the coverage my employment must either generate 20k in additional revenue or free that 20k up from some other place. No amount of legislation will change this fact and if a job can’t generate that money then, it wont just magically be provided because “people deserve benefits” it just simply wont exist. This is why companies have scheduling and time commitment requirements, because there is overhead in each additional employee and you can’t make that overhead go away just because you make a law saying more overhead must be paid.
So your options are either you legislate jobs out of existence in some attempt to force third parties to pay for what people “deserve” or you skip the middle man and give people what they “deserve” and leave what people “earn” out of the equation.
In my mind if you truly believe people “deserve” these things, then trying to force someone else to provide it is a wastefully inefficient way of getting it to them. We don’t do this with anything else people “deserve”. People deserve to have food, we don’t mandate that employers buy their food for them. People deserve a place to live, we don’t mandate that employers buy them homes. People deserve clean water, we don’t mandate that employers distribute bottled water to their employees. If people deserve health care or unemployment insurance or social security or whatever then stop mandating other people do it. Provide it to the people and raise the taxes to cover it.
Once again, everything said here applies to the minimum wage too. The minimum wage kills jobs. A position that provides $5 of value per hour can exist if you pay people $4, but it can't exist in the US because we have a minimum wage above $5. As you say, that is a pure numbers question and I have no problem with the math. I would have a moral objection if someone proposed that we abolish the minimum wage to fight unemployment because I think a job should provide for a certain quality of life in a developed nation. Jobs that can't provide that quality of life shouldn't exist.
The motivation behind the minimum wage is so people can supposedly afford all those things that you highlighted as things people "deserve". The reason employees "deserve" to get benefits from their employer and not housing is because we as a society have decided that an employer's role is to provide things like health insurance and not housing. That decision is mostly arbitrary in hindsight, but it is the system in which we live. I would be happy if we decided to change that and disconnect health insurance from employment, but that is a harder fight than just mandating employers provide it. You are making perfect the enemy of the good in this situation. When the difference between the two is millions of people continuing to suffer for years if not decades, we should go for the quick good over the hypothetical long delayed perfection.
The motivation behind the minimum wage is so people can supposedly afford all those things that you highlighted as things people "deserve". The reason employees "deserve" to get benefits from their employer and not housing is because we as a society have decided that an employer's role is to provide things like health insurance and not housing. That decision is mostly arbitrary in hindsight, but it is the system in which we live. I would be happy if we decided to change that and disconnect health insurance from employment, but that is a harder fight than just mandating employers provide it. You are making perfect the enemy of the good in this situation. When the difference between the two is millions of people continuing to suffer for years if not decades, we should go for the quick good over the hypothetical long delayed perfection.
>Once again, everything said here applies to the minimum wage too.
Yes it does. Minimum wage is a stupid policy for the problem it's trying to solve. We should do better, and the fact that we haven't done better isn't an excuse to keep making new stupid policies.
Yes it does. Minimum wage is a stupid policy for the problem it's trying to solve. We should do better, and the fact that we haven't done better isn't an excuse to keep making new stupid policies.
I don't think letting an adult drive an Uber around is like letting a 10 year old work a coal mine.
I argued this law is a bad one, and your defending it by arguing that we should have labor laws. I agree, I just think this law is a bad one.
> This is a choice by the company. It isn't a requirement of the regulation. I'm not sure why 100% of the blame goes to the regulation and not the company that is actively adopting antiworker practices in response to legislation preventing them from continuing their previous antiworker practices.
Should we instead blame the companies for being profit seeking? Should we enact laws not based on their consequences in the real world but instead based on the hypothetical world where all companies are run by mother Teresa?
And this law does not make all workers better off. It makes some better off and other worse off. It takes away 70+% of flexible schedule jobs to increase the # of w-2 benefit jobs by what ~3%.
I argued this law is a bad one, and your defending it by arguing that we should have labor laws. I agree, I just think this law is a bad one.
> This is a choice by the company. It isn't a requirement of the regulation. I'm not sure why 100% of the blame goes to the regulation and not the company that is actively adopting antiworker practices in response to legislation preventing them from continuing their previous antiworker practices.
Should we instead blame the companies for being profit seeking? Should we enact laws not based on their consequences in the real world but instead based on the hypothetical world where all companies are run by mother Teresa?
And this law does not make all workers better off. It makes some better off and other worse off. It takes away 70+% of flexible schedule jobs to increase the # of w-2 benefit jobs by what ~3%.
>I argued this law is a bad one, and your defending it by arguing that we should have labor laws. I agree, I just think this law is a bad one.
Yes, because your argument is not specific to this law. For example:
>And this law does not make all workers better off. It makes some better off and other worse off.
I can't disagree with this. It is true. It is also true of the minimum wage. If you want to argue that these jobs are good for society, you need a stronger argument than people will work these jobs if they exist.
Yes, because your argument is not specific to this law. For example:
>And this law does not make all workers better off. It makes some better off and other worse off.
I can't disagree with this. It is true. It is also true of the minimum wage. If you want to argue that these jobs are good for society, you need a stronger argument than people will work these jobs if they exist.
I think you must be responding
to the wrong person because I never argued that these jobs were good for society because they existed.
My argument is very simple.
This law helps some people a little. Individuals working gig jobs 40 hours a week who are willing and able to work on a schedule.
It also hurts other people a lot. Individuals who can't or don't want to work 40 hours a week on a schedule.
My argument is very simple.
This law helps some people a little. Individuals working gig jobs 40 hours a week who are willing and able to work on a schedule.
It also hurts other people a lot. Individuals who can't or don't want to work 40 hours a week on a schedule.
People that like the wealth re-distribution of universal health care, UBI or other systemic ways to help the under-paid but don't tip are full of shit. Wealth re-distribution starts local and if you have more money than you need you should tip. I have a high paying job and no kids. I'll go 25%, sometimes 30%. It doesn't really matter to me but it does to the service worker.
> Wealth re-distribution starts local and if you have more money than you need you should tip.
Tipping isn't wealth redistribution. The server might be wealthier and make more money than me. Tips aren't income security or health care. I think it would be strange to call it "wealth" too. I'm not dropping enough money on the table to buy significant capital.
I tip because that's how the service is expected to be paid for. The system is set up so that the server bears the risk. It's unfair stiff the person with the least ability to change that system.
Tipping isn't wealth redistribution. The server might be wealthier and make more money than me. Tips aren't income security or health care. I think it would be strange to call it "wealth" too. I'm not dropping enough money on the table to buy significant capital.
I tip because that's how the service is expected to be paid for. The system is set up so that the server bears the risk. It's unfair stiff the person with the least ability to change that system.
> that system isn't here today and likely won't be here tomorrow
And the more you prop the old system up by tipping the less likely it will be that the new system will ever arrive.
And the more you prop the old system up by tipping the less likely it will be that the new system will ever arrive.
> People need to live in the current system and they can't afford to wait. Refusing to try to help those people until we have the political will to change our entire economic system seems heartless to me.
Your way is to make the incumbent system just tolerable enough that it never changes.
Under the existing system, you can take a job at a retailer making $10/hour, or you can work in a restaurant for $2/hour plus tips, which comes out to $10/hour again. Flip a coin.
If some people stop tipping, the restaurant is now paying the equivalent of $9/hour after tips and the restaurant has to raise the base pay to $3/hour or the worker will quit and work for the retailer. If everyone stops tipping, the restaurant has to pay $10/hour.
Workers can respond to this at the individual level in proportion to how much it happens. But if no one ever stops tipping, where does the change come from? The restaurants? No. So you get the status quo indefinitely.
Your way is to make the incumbent system just tolerable enough that it never changes.
Under the existing system, you can take a job at a retailer making $10/hour, or you can work in a restaurant for $2/hour plus tips, which comes out to $10/hour again. Flip a coin.
If some people stop tipping, the restaurant is now paying the equivalent of $9/hour after tips and the restaurant has to raise the base pay to $3/hour or the worker will quit and work for the retailer. If everyone stops tipping, the restaurant has to pay $10/hour.
Workers can respond to this at the individual level in proportion to how much it happens. But if no one ever stops tipping, where does the change come from? The restaurants? No. So you get the status quo indefinitely.
>If some people stop tipping, the restaurant is now paying the equivalent of $9/hour after tips and the restaurant has to pay $3/hour or the worker will quit and work for the retailer.
But it isn't a straight $9/hr. It is $10/hr some hours, $5/hr some hours, $3/hr some hours, etc. And as these studies suggest, that will literally kill people. We can't just say "here is the position we want to be and here is the quickest way to get there". We need to care about the people who are caught in the transition from one system to the next. Trying to enact this change through a grassroots effort of refusing to tip is the most painful way to accomplish this for the people who are currently stuck in that system.
>But if no one ever stops tipping, where does the change come from?
The same type of legislation that people here are complaining about. If you want to change the system for the altruistic reasons you suggest, put your effort into talking to your politicians. When the only work for change is withholding your money, it certainly seems like the motivation is selfishness covered with a thin facade of concern for the service workers.
But it isn't a straight $9/hr. It is $10/hr some hours, $5/hr some hours, $3/hr some hours, etc. And as these studies suggest, that will literally kill people. We can't just say "here is the position we want to be and here is the quickest way to get there". We need to care about the people who are caught in the transition from one system to the next. Trying to enact this change through a grassroots effort of refusing to tip is the most painful way to accomplish this for the people who are currently stuck in that system.
>But if no one ever stops tipping, where does the change come from?
The same type of legislation that people here are complaining about. If you want to change the system for the altruistic reasons you suggest, put your effort into talking to your politicians. When the only work for change is withholding your money, it certainly seems like the motivation is selfishness covered with a thin facade of concern for the service workers.
> But it isn't a straight $9/hr. It is $10/hr some hours, $5/hr some hours, $3/hr some hours, etc.
It's basic arithmetic to add up how many total dollars you make in a week, divide it by the number of hours and compare it to what other jobs pay. Then threaten to quit unless your boss pays you as much as you could get elsewhere, or take the other job if they won't.
> And as these studies suggest, that will literally kill people.
Renegotiating base pay or changing jobs will literally kill people?
These studies are correlational. They equally suggest that people with preexisting health problems take more flexible jobs.
> The same type of legislation that people here are complaining about.
But that's the legislation that upholds the status quo.
> When the only work for change is withholding your money, it certainly seems like the motivation is selfishness covered with a thin facade of concern for the service workers.
Those are the things that work best, because the incentives are aligned. If your plan relies on people acting against their own interests, how often does that work?
It's basic arithmetic to add up how many total dollars you make in a week, divide it by the number of hours and compare it to what other jobs pay. Then threaten to quit unless your boss pays you as much as you could get elsewhere, or take the other job if they won't.
> And as these studies suggest, that will literally kill people.
Renegotiating base pay or changing jobs will literally kill people?
These studies are correlational. They equally suggest that people with preexisting health problems take more flexible jobs.
> The same type of legislation that people here are complaining about.
But that's the legislation that upholds the status quo.
> When the only work for change is withholding your money, it certainly seems like the motivation is selfishness covered with a thin facade of concern for the service workers.
Those are the things that work best, because the incentives are aligned. If your plan relies on people acting against their own interests, how often does that work?
>It's basic arithmetic to add up how many total dollars you make in a week, divide it by the number of hours and compare it to what other jobs pay. Then threaten to quit unless your boss pays you as much as you could get elsewhere, or take the other job if they won't.
The uncertainty is the problem. Sure, you can wait a few months and do some math to get what your average weekly pay would be. However not every week is an average week. Some weeks you might see 2x your average pay and some weeks you might see 1/2x your average pay. Have 3 of those below average weeks in a month and maybe you can't pay rent. That is what causes the stress. Stress kills people.
>But that's the legislation that upholds the status quo.
These people don't have benefits. New legislation gives them benefits. I doubt the people who now receive these benefits are worried about upholding the status quo.
>Those are the things that work best, because the incentives are aligned. If your plan relies on people acting against their own interests, how often does that work?
There are two incentives for abolishing tipping, help the service workers and make things easier for the consumer. An individual consumer refusing to tip is making things easier for themselves and saving money. However, while they claim to be motivated by helping service workers, they are in fact harming an individual service worker. I doubt that service worker thinks the incentives are aligned.
The uncertainty is the problem. Sure, you can wait a few months and do some math to get what your average weekly pay would be. However not every week is an average week. Some weeks you might see 2x your average pay and some weeks you might see 1/2x your average pay. Have 3 of those below average weeks in a month and maybe you can't pay rent. That is what causes the stress. Stress kills people.
>But that's the legislation that upholds the status quo.
These people don't have benefits. New legislation gives them benefits. I doubt the people who now receive these benefits are worried about upholding the status quo.
>Those are the things that work best, because the incentives are aligned. If your plan relies on people acting against their own interests, how often does that work?
There are two incentives for abolishing tipping, help the service workers and make things easier for the consumer. An individual consumer refusing to tip is making things easier for themselves and saving money. However, while they claim to be motivated by helping service workers, they are in fact harming an individual service worker. I doubt that service worker thinks the incentives are aligned.
> The uncertainty is the problem.
But that's the thing tipping creates regardless of this. You don't know if you're going to get 10% or 30%. Abolishing this is the goal.
Meanwhile a typical waitress has hundreds of customers per week. That's enough for a statistically valid sample without needing months to figure it out, and it's not likely to change dramatically overnight based on the actions of one individual customer.
> These people don't have benefits. New legislation gives them benefits.
New legislation eliminates some of their jobs, or requires them to work under different conditions because more restrictions are needed to justify paying benefits, or have their hours cut to below whatever threshold is needed to avoid paying them benefits even though they'd have chosen to work more etc.
And other jobs with those restrictions and inflexibility were already available if they wanted them.
> However, while they claim to be motivated by helping service workers, they are in fact harming an individual service worker. I doubt that service worker thinks the incentives are aligned.
The short-term interests of the customer are aligned with the long-term interests of the service worker and the customer is the one making the decision. That's a great alignment of incentives.
But that's the thing tipping creates regardless of this. You don't know if you're going to get 10% or 30%. Abolishing this is the goal.
Meanwhile a typical waitress has hundreds of customers per week. That's enough for a statistically valid sample without needing months to figure it out, and it's not likely to change dramatically overnight based on the actions of one individual customer.
> These people don't have benefits. New legislation gives them benefits.
New legislation eliminates some of their jobs, or requires them to work under different conditions because more restrictions are needed to justify paying benefits, or have their hours cut to below whatever threshold is needed to avoid paying them benefits even though they'd have chosen to work more etc.
And other jobs with those restrictions and inflexibility were already available if they wanted them.
> However, while they claim to be motivated by helping service workers, they are in fact harming an individual service worker. I doubt that service worker thinks the incentives are aligned.
The short-term interests of the customer are aligned with the long-term interests of the service worker and the customer is the one making the decision. That's a great alignment of incentives.
>But that's the thing tipping creates regardless of this. You don't know if you're going to get 10% or 30%. Abolishing this is the goal.
Yes, and a 0%-30% tip has more uncertainty than a 10%-30% tip.
Also you appear to be arguing as if I'm defending tipping as a practice. I'm not. I'm saying that an individual who refuses to tip despite it being an expected practice is being a bad member of society.
>Meanwhile a typical waitress has hundreds of customers per week. That's enough for a statistically valid sample without needing months to figure it out, and it's not likely to change dramatically overnight based on the actions of one individual customer.
You are arguing against your own point here. If a single customer is meaningless to the compensation of the service worker, that single customer is not making any meaningful dent in the system that goes way beyond that one individual service worker.
>New legislation eliminates some of their jobs, or requires them to work under different conditions because more restrictions are needed to justify paying benefits, or have their hours cut to below whatever threshold is needed to avoid paying them benefits even though they'd have chosen to work more etc.
This is true of any labor protections. Having a minimum wage eliminates jobs. Having safety regulations eliminates jobs. Sometimes eliminating jobs is in the best interest of society.
>The short-term interests of the customer are aligned with the long-term interests of the service worker and the customer is the one making the decision. That's a great alignment of incentives.
Try asking a service worker whether they would prefer a tip today or a hypothetical abolishment of tipping decades in the future. I don't think they are going to make the choice you are implying.
Yes, and a 0%-30% tip has more uncertainty than a 10%-30% tip.
Also you appear to be arguing as if I'm defending tipping as a practice. I'm not. I'm saying that an individual who refuses to tip despite it being an expected practice is being a bad member of society.
>Meanwhile a typical waitress has hundreds of customers per week. That's enough for a statistically valid sample without needing months to figure it out, and it's not likely to change dramatically overnight based on the actions of one individual customer.
You are arguing against your own point here. If a single customer is meaningless to the compensation of the service worker, that single customer is not making any meaningful dent in the system that goes way beyond that one individual service worker.
>New legislation eliminates some of their jobs, or requires them to work under different conditions because more restrictions are needed to justify paying benefits, or have their hours cut to below whatever threshold is needed to avoid paying them benefits even though they'd have chosen to work more etc.
This is true of any labor protections. Having a minimum wage eliminates jobs. Having safety regulations eliminates jobs. Sometimes eliminating jobs is in the best interest of society.
>The short-term interests of the customer are aligned with the long-term interests of the service worker and the customer is the one making the decision. That's a great alignment of incentives.
Try asking a service worker whether they would prefer a tip today or a hypothetical abolishment of tipping decades in the future. I don't think they are going to make the choice you are implying.
> Yes, and a 0%-30% tip has more uncertainty than a 10%-30% tip.
Which is why it should be done away with whatsoever.
> Also you appear to be arguing as if I'm defending tipping as a practice. I'm not. I'm saying that an individual who refuses to tip despite it being an expected practice is being a bad member of society.
A person who refuses to tip is attacking tipping as a practice and acting to end it. Calling them a bad member of society is by extension defending the alternative.
> You are arguing against your own point here. If a single customer is meaningless to the compensation of the service worker, that single customer is not making any meaningful dent in the system that goes way beyond that one individual service worker.
No, it's fully consistent. The point is that you can change your individual behavior without causing excessive harm to some hapless service worker in particular, because you're <1% of their customers.
What really changes things is what happens in the aggregate, but that works too. If almost everyone tips, that's the status quo. Whatever percentage of people stop, employers will have to make up the difference to retain staff. Some intermediate period where the service worker's pre-tip hourly wage is $4 instead of $2 is fine. When that percentage finally reaches 100%, tipping is abolished.
> This is true of any labor protections. Having a minimum wage eliminates jobs. Having safety regulations eliminates jobs. Sometimes eliminating jobs is in the best interest of society.
Minimum wage eliminates jobs and we shouldn't have one. Causing some people to be involuntarily unemployed so some others can make slightly more money is a poor trade off when better alternatives exist, like UBI.
[Good] safety regulations don't eliminate jobs, because the alternative is safety incidents resulting in legal settlements, which cost the employer more than complying with preventative measures. The preventative measures therefore destroy fewer jobs, and if they don't you've implemented them wrong.
Many "labor protections" are paternalistic and net harm workers.
> Try asking a service worker whether they would prefer a tip today or a hypothetical abolishment of tipping decades in the future. I don't think they are going to make the choice you are implying.
Ask anyone if they would prefer an immediate gain for themselves personally or a larger future gain for a class of people they belong to. You've now discovered collective action problems.
Lining up someone other third party's incentives with the better overall outcome is a great way to solve them.
Which is why it should be done away with whatsoever.
> Also you appear to be arguing as if I'm defending tipping as a practice. I'm not. I'm saying that an individual who refuses to tip despite it being an expected practice is being a bad member of society.
A person who refuses to tip is attacking tipping as a practice and acting to end it. Calling them a bad member of society is by extension defending the alternative.
> You are arguing against your own point here. If a single customer is meaningless to the compensation of the service worker, that single customer is not making any meaningful dent in the system that goes way beyond that one individual service worker.
No, it's fully consistent. The point is that you can change your individual behavior without causing excessive harm to some hapless service worker in particular, because you're <1% of their customers.
What really changes things is what happens in the aggregate, but that works too. If almost everyone tips, that's the status quo. Whatever percentage of people stop, employers will have to make up the difference to retain staff. Some intermediate period where the service worker's pre-tip hourly wage is $4 instead of $2 is fine. When that percentage finally reaches 100%, tipping is abolished.
> This is true of any labor protections. Having a minimum wage eliminates jobs. Having safety regulations eliminates jobs. Sometimes eliminating jobs is in the best interest of society.
Minimum wage eliminates jobs and we shouldn't have one. Causing some people to be involuntarily unemployed so some others can make slightly more money is a poor trade off when better alternatives exist, like UBI.
[Good] safety regulations don't eliminate jobs, because the alternative is safety incidents resulting in legal settlements, which cost the employer more than complying with preventative measures. The preventative measures therefore destroy fewer jobs, and if they don't you've implemented them wrong.
Many "labor protections" are paternalistic and net harm workers.
> Try asking a service worker whether they would prefer a tip today or a hypothetical abolishment of tipping decades in the future. I don't think they are going to make the choice you are implying.
Ask anyone if they would prefer an immediate gain for themselves personally or a larger future gain for a class of people they belong to. You've now discovered collective action problems.
Lining up someone other third party's incentives with the better overall outcome is a great way to solve them.
[deleted]
[deleted]
That it's a last resort for the desperate and homeless isn't exactly an endorsement. So is street prostitution.
1. The people who want to take away what little is available to those who are desperate never propose giving them something actually better in its place. It's always a policy of making things worse for those who already can't achieve a middle class lifestyle.
2. I'm for the decriminalization of sex work.
2. I'm for the decriminalization of sex work.
The alternative is that they are desperate, homeless and have no income. It’s not like major employers are holding hiring fairs in homeless camps
If people choose to do gig work, it's because they believe it's the best option for them. For many, it seems like it's the only option. I'm not sure why every other major employer isn't being held more accountable for completely ignoring this population of people who want a chance to make money but can't find it anywhere outside of gig work.
I once talked to the driver of an Uber I was in. He was a grad student, and liked that he could drive and make a little extra money whenever he felt like it and it fit in between his other activities.
This is the libertarian critique of a lot of labor policy. People think they can just have the government mandate that businesses do XYZ for all their employees and all those jobs will continue to exist just as before, but with XYZ benefits. Pure win!
The problem is, job providers can also just stop providing the jobs that are no longer in their interest to provide when the extra burden of XYZ is added.
That's the trouble with a free society. If you make something more costly to do, people will do less of it.
(In all fairness I hear you can sometimes get away with this, e.g. some studies say minimum wage doesn't necessarily reduce available jobs, but it's very tricky. I think you will ultimately pay the piper some way or another.)
The problem is, job providers can also just stop providing the jobs that are no longer in their interest to provide when the extra burden of XYZ is added.
That's the trouble with a free society. If you make something more costly to do, people will do less of it.
(In all fairness I hear you can sometimes get away with this, e.g. some studies say minimum wage doesn't necessarily reduce available jobs, but it's very tricky. I think you will ultimately pay the piper some way or another.)
"People think they can just have the government mandate that businesses do XYZ for all their employees and all those jobs will continue to exist just as before"
No they don't. That sounds like something you think people think.
No they don't. That sounds like something you think people think.
Your assertion that not a single person thinks this is one that would require truly extraordinary evidence. People believe in evil space lasers controlled by the lizard people. It is fair to assume that even amongst crazy beliefs, there are at least a few people who believe it (or are at least willing to claim so online)
I've met plenty of people who assume "legislation that requires X benefit" is a pure good. You can explain to them how this is false, and they usually feel a bit silly for missing the obvious here, but they absolutely had that belief.
I'm really not sure why you would possibly think this is some straw man argument.
I've met plenty of people who assume "legislation that requires X benefit" is a pure good. You can explain to them how this is false, and they usually feel a bit silly for missing the obvious here, but they absolutely had that belief.
I'm really not sure why you would possibly think this is some straw man argument.
They definitely do, I've seen it.
If the comment doesn't apply to you personally, feel free to ignore it. But don't pretend you can speak for everyone.
If the comment doesn't apply to you personally, feel free to ignore it. But don't pretend you can speak for everyone.
You were asserting, without evidence or even rationale, what "people think". So feel free to take your own advice and stop making up fantasies about how strangers think.
I'll leave it up to the audience which is more plausible, given the policies we have today and the public discourse around those policies:
A. Basically everyone has a nuanced understanding of the trade-offs involved in mandating businesses to do things.
B. A sizable proportion of people and politicians neglect, in their thinking, the unintended negative consequences of mandating businesses to do things.
I admit I may be speculating a bit, since people are not eager to volunteer what they neglect in their thinking, but I don't find it difficult to determine between these two options what is more likely.
A. Basically everyone has a nuanced understanding of the trade-offs involved in mandating businesses to do things.
B. A sizable proportion of people and politicians neglect, in their thinking, the unintended negative consequences of mandating businesses to do things.
I admit I may be speculating a bit, since people are not eager to volunteer what they neglect in their thinking, but I don't find it difficult to determine between these two options what is more likely.
The other way to look at it is that by those businesses not meeting the obligations of a (dumb) system where healthcare is tied to employment, everyone else subsidizes their employees. I'm not interested in subsidizing Walmart so they can pay more people less money and become even more dominant - removing the availability of higher quality goods from the market in many locales - as a result.
AB5 (California's anti-gig-work law) has made it nearly impossible for my wife to grow her business providing in-home occupational therapy for children with special needs. That and policies requiring health care providers to have brick-and-mortar offices threaten to make her business untenable. In fact, it's only tenable now because of the extraordinary levels of wealth in the Bay area.
Children are best served through in-home care because it's often the in-home situation that's most difficult, and the parents are most stressed. And no amount of taking the parent and child to a clinic is going to help that.
Children are best served through in-home care because it's often the in-home situation that's most difficult, and the parents are most stressed. And no amount of taking the parent and child to a clinic is going to help that.
Someone at some point emailed me about probably exactly that law. They were in California and freaking out because it had just been passed and they were like "This is just ruining my life."
Become a full time employee for your mental health!
The level of absolute detachment from reality you see in academics is staggering. These gig jobs are used by millions to be able to make ends meet during difficult times. I know personally dozens of people who have done uber or door dash in between jobs, during hard times, taking a break for a 9-5 work week and they enjoyed the freedom and the ability to lease a nice car while also paying their rent.
You can see the same disconnect in politicians trying to force people into a full time employment contract in order to deliver food. There have always been delivery jobs at restaurants and people avoided them due to the lack of freedom.
This new hyper vigilant do-goodery by people who haven't experienced a solid minute of reality outside of academia, politics and big tech is already doing more harm than good and the righteousness is ratcheting up every year. This will not end well for anyone and these same "very smart" people will be completely bewildered when the "poor" people they are trying to do good by verbally and physically assault them for the very actions they supported at the cost of every one.
The level of absolute detachment from reality you see in academics is staggering. These gig jobs are used by millions to be able to make ends meet during difficult times. I know personally dozens of people who have done uber or door dash in between jobs, during hard times, taking a break for a 9-5 work week and they enjoyed the freedom and the ability to lease a nice car while also paying their rent.
You can see the same disconnect in politicians trying to force people into a full time employment contract in order to deliver food. There have always been delivery jobs at restaurants and people avoided them due to the lack of freedom.
This new hyper vigilant do-goodery by people who haven't experienced a solid minute of reality outside of academia, politics and big tech is already doing more harm than good and the righteousness is ratcheting up every year. This will not end well for anyone and these same "very smart" people will be completely bewildered when the "poor" people they are trying to do good by verbally and physically assault them for the very actions they supported at the cost of every one.
The article, and study, refer to several kinds of jobs with variable pay including sales people who get commission.
The disconnect is hn users writing 3 full paragraphs about gig workers without apparently reading beyond the headline of what they are ostensibly responding to.
The disconnect is hn users writing 3 full paragraphs about gig workers without apparently reading beyond the headline of what they are ostensibly responding to.
I'm sorry if I touched a nerve. I read the article and even managed to identifiy that they used self reported data to prove a narrative that conveniently aligns with a current proposal by the US federal government to classify contracted gig workers as employees. Again, absolute detachment from reality.
Self reported data for
"poor sleep quality, headaches, stomach issues and back pain."
That's the normal way data is collected for those things in routine healthcare. We will prescribe drugs based on those self reports.
"poor sleep quality, headaches, stomach issues and back pain."
That's the normal way data is collected for those things in routine healthcare. We will prescribe drugs based on those self reports.
> We will prescribe drugs based on those self reports.
Let's not get started about the US healthcare system and prescribing a drug for every possible condition. Lots of things can help those symptoms...not just drugs.
Let's not get started about the US healthcare system and prescribing a drug for every possible condition. Lots of things can help those symptoms...not just drugs.
I'm in the UK but yes, we also prescribe physiotherapy and exercise based on self reports. My point was we don't always need an MRI to corroborate what the patient tells us.
"Volatile pay linked to health problems" is not an endorsement of full time employment. There is no need to force this into a false dichotomy between full time employment and volatile pay. In fact, the article specifically mentions an instance in when they happen at the same time:
>Sayre conducted a final online survey with 252 higher-income employees in finance, marketing and sales who relied on commissions or bonuses for a smaller fraction of their income. The workers completed monthly surveys for three months, and pay volatility was less harmful to health when they were less reliant on commissions or bonuses.
Stress is bad for your health. Pay volatility causes stress.
This is not academics advocating for full time employment. This is academics advocating for less volatile forms of payment.
I'm a little surprised that a community that traditionally receives a percentage of our compensation in nebulous equity that can be worth either nothing or millions wouldn't understand that uncertainty over your compensation is frustratingly stressful.
>Sayre conducted a final online survey with 252 higher-income employees in finance, marketing and sales who relied on commissions or bonuses for a smaller fraction of their income. The workers completed monthly surveys for three months, and pay volatility was less harmful to health when they were less reliant on commissions or bonuses.
Stress is bad for your health. Pay volatility causes stress.
This is not academics advocating for full time employment. This is academics advocating for less volatile forms of payment.
I'm a little surprised that a community that traditionally receives a percentage of our compensation in nebulous equity that can be worth either nothing or millions wouldn't understand that uncertainty over your compensation is frustratingly stressful.
Exactly! Between Uber and Airbnb I was to keep my family off the street while I recovered from some serious medical problems.
Some days changing a room over took me 30 minutes. Some days it was six hours. Same amount of work. Sometimes I drove for 10 hours. Some days I couldn’t drive at all.
Did this for a year. Would have died if not for these companies.
Some days changing a room over took me 30 minutes. Some days it was six hours. Same amount of work. Sometimes I drove for 10 hours. Some days I couldn’t drive at all.
Did this for a year. Would have died if not for these companies.
If people are using gig economy jobs to make ends meet, doesn't it still seem possible that they could suffer from the volatile pay? Why can't someone have their "freedom" and also have some negative effects?
if someone is struggling to find a job and they are able to pick up a 'volatile' job, could that also have some positive effects?
> These gig jobs are used by millions to be able to make ends meet during difficult times.
Many countries have a better solution for this. It's called a social safety net.
Many countries have a better solution for this. It's called a social safety net.
>> and they enjoyed the freedom and the ability to lease a nice car while also paying their rent.
You keep talking about "reality", but the actual reality is that these gig jobs don't pay nearly enough to be able to cover these costs. After all is said and done, a lot of gig workers end up breaking even at best, and sometimes even losing money.
You keep talking about "reality", but the actual reality is that these gig jobs don't pay nearly enough to be able to cover these costs. After all is said and done, a lot of gig workers end up breaking even at best, and sometimes even losing money.
Anyone can make bad financial decisions. It's not like people are being scammed into buying a car. And that car provides significant value beyond its use for work. If someone is only breaking even or losing money from their work, they should stop that work, and 99 out of 100 times I believe they will. So the number of people out there continually "losing money" from gig jobs must be tiny.
This is exactly the academic math which is the problem.
If you buy a $30,000+ car exclusively to drive for Uber and have it serviced at the dealership instead of doing it yourself, you're probably losing money. But if you have an existing used car that you already need for other reasons, most of the cost (tax, insurance, time-based depreciation) are sunk and the gig can be net profitable while giving flexible hours.
People have the right to make that choice for themselves. Anyone who doesn't want it can go take any of the less flexible jobs that would be their only alternative if you prohibited these.
If you buy a $30,000+ car exclusively to drive for Uber and have it serviced at the dealership instead of doing it yourself, you're probably losing money. But if you have an existing used car that you already need for other reasons, most of the cost (tax, insurance, time-based depreciation) are sunk and the gig can be net profitable while giving flexible hours.
People have the right to make that choice for themselves. Anyone who doesn't want it can go take any of the less flexible jobs that would be their only alternative if you prohibited these.
>> But if you have an existing used car that you already need for other reasons, most of the cost (tax, insurance, time-based depreciation) are sunk and the gig can be net profitable while giving flexible hours.
Most of the costs aren't sunk though, because they increase when you start driving your car a lot more. For example, you need to upgrade your insurance to a commercial vehicle insurance, and in many jurisdictions also register your car as such. Failing to do so can result in denied claims, canceled insurance, fines and penalties.
Most of the costs aren't sunk though, because they increase when you start driving your car a lot more. For example, you need to upgrade your insurance to a commercial vehicle insurance, and in many jurisdictions also register your car as such. Failing to do so can result in denied claims, canceled insurance, fines and penalties.
That depends on the jurisdiction and policy and is a choice people can make for themselves.
It certainly isn't always worth it, but in the event that it isn't, you don't need a law to prohibit it because it's already not something people have the incentive to do.
And if they're doing it anyway, the assumption should not be that they're idiots who need to be prohibited from doing something they apparently choose to do of their own volition, it's that they maybe know something more about their own circumstances than far away bureaucrats do.
It certainly isn't always worth it, but in the event that it isn't, you don't need a law to prohibit it because it's already not something people have the incentive to do.
And if they're doing it anyway, the assumption should not be that they're idiots who need to be prohibited from doing something they apparently choose to do of their own volition, it's that they maybe know something more about their own circumstances than far away bureaucrats do.
I was talking about reality because I personally know people who have and are currently doing it and they are able to cover these costs.
The detachment from reality is thinking that your few moments of contemplation on this topic is worth more consideration than someone’s expertise.
In "tech", it's not the same as a gig worker, because we tend to make a lot more money and have more sense of security, but I think volatility of income can also wear on us.
This is one of the few things I didn't like about independent technical consulting. I preferred to focus 100% on client's problems, not worry about keeping the work funnel full, nor worry about uncomfortable financial fluctuations.
At the point I abruptly had to switch back from consulting to employee -- in pursuit of money steadily appearing in my bank account faster than I could spend it, while I thought only about work -- I didn't have time to study for Leetcode interviews of my preferred FAANGs, so I sought similar high-skilled work in early startups...
Early startups have related problems, with looming end of the runway, and not knowing whether you're going to get the next round (slam-dunks can disappear before they happen), especially during the last couple years. On top of the usual stress of doing something new/big/hard in a small team, where the success of the company and colleagues hinges on you executing successfully.
Recently, it's not only startups. The last few months, we're seeing large stable tech companies (even the rich-kids summer camp lifestyle ones) laying off tens of thousands of people, and countless other tech people wondering about their own employment security. This coming right after the Covid-time sellers-market for talent.
Our situations in tech aren't anywhere near the same as being a low-income gig worker with little safety net. But we do currently feel some insecurity that might be new/reminder to us, and it's now harder to imagine that life is a meritocracy -- put roughly, our past comfort is as much luck as effort/merit.
That realization is a silver lining, and if we come out the other side, we should remember it.
This is one of the few things I didn't like about independent technical consulting. I preferred to focus 100% on client's problems, not worry about keeping the work funnel full, nor worry about uncomfortable financial fluctuations.
At the point I abruptly had to switch back from consulting to employee -- in pursuit of money steadily appearing in my bank account faster than I could spend it, while I thought only about work -- I didn't have time to study for Leetcode interviews of my preferred FAANGs, so I sought similar high-skilled work in early startups...
Early startups have related problems, with looming end of the runway, and not knowing whether you're going to get the next round (slam-dunks can disappear before they happen), especially during the last couple years. On top of the usual stress of doing something new/big/hard in a small team, where the success of the company and colleagues hinges on you executing successfully.
Recently, it's not only startups. The last few months, we're seeing large stable tech companies (even the rich-kids summer camp lifestyle ones) laying off tens of thousands of people, and countless other tech people wondering about their own employment security. This coming right after the Covid-time sellers-market for talent.
Our situations in tech aren't anywhere near the same as being a low-income gig worker with little safety net. But we do currently feel some insecurity that might be new/reminder to us, and it's now harder to imagine that life is a meritocracy -- put roughly, our past comfort is as much luck as effort/merit.
That realization is a silver lining, and if we come out the other side, we should remember it.
Businesses hardly have a guaranteed or secure source of profit.
“Not only was pay volatility related to worse health in lower-paid tipped jobs or among freelancers in the gig economy but for higher-paid professionals working in finance, sales and marketing where commissions and performance bonuses are common.”
I think there’s a cultural belief in the US that the threat of destitution is a good, healthy motivator of productivity. It certainly is a motivator, and for some it’s a good one, but overall I think we’re starting to learn that it’s not healthy.
> I think there’s a cultural belief in the US that the threat of destitution is a good, healthy motivator of productivity.
We, as a society in this country, seem to have internalized the idea that our success or failure is entirely the product of things solely within our complete control. So anyone who succeeds got there on their own merits (with no other outside influence) and anyone who fails is obviously responsible for the consequences that befell them (again, with no outside influence).
This view is completely wrong, in my opinion, but because it lets us do things like short cut having empathy--obviously that homeless person is a bum because they screwed up--and frame resource hoarding as just prudently looking out for one's self, changing this view will be extremely difficult.
I work in healthcare IT and this industry has done more to push me towards wanting a greater sense of collective good and supporting the commons than anything in my life, including going off to college. Day after day, I see patients (as in, I observe them, not that I am providing care for them) who got sick or had an accident or simply had a malformed gene pop up and say "now's my time to shine!" at the wrong time. They're walking towards a future that will take hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep them alive or bring them back to health. Few of us have the kind of insurance that will carry that entire burden and even fewer have sequestered that kind of money inside our 401k accounts.
We, as a society in this country, seem to have internalized the idea that our success or failure is entirely the product of things solely within our complete control. So anyone who succeeds got there on their own merits (with no other outside influence) and anyone who fails is obviously responsible for the consequences that befell them (again, with no outside influence).
This view is completely wrong, in my opinion, but because it lets us do things like short cut having empathy--obviously that homeless person is a bum because they screwed up--and frame resource hoarding as just prudently looking out for one's self, changing this view will be extremely difficult.
I work in healthcare IT and this industry has done more to push me towards wanting a greater sense of collective good and supporting the commons than anything in my life, including going off to college. Day after day, I see patients (as in, I observe them, not that I am providing care for them) who got sick or had an accident or simply had a malformed gene pop up and say "now's my time to shine!" at the wrong time. They're walking towards a future that will take hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep them alive or bring them back to health. Few of us have the kind of insurance that will carry that entire burden and even fewer have sequestered that kind of money inside our 401k accounts.
The lack of motivation isn't healthy, either.
[deleted]
I think this study is important because it states very plainly that stress is bad for you, and there's no such thing as "good stress."
Edit: Wow you all really like your stress huh?
Edit: Wow you all really like your stress huh?
I did not see anything at all in this study that said either of those things.
It says "volatile pay is stressful in a bad way" but makes no claim about stress as a whole?
It says "volatile pay is stressful in a bad way" but makes no claim about stress as a whole?
The thing that is common among all those low- and highpaying jobs with volatile pay is that those are jobs where you have to deal with constant stress.
Yes and it's able to immediately explain away "oh well they're low income so that's the cause of their health issues." Nope, the same thing happens to millionaires, it's the stress.
It says "volatile pay is stressful and affects health badly".
Not about "stress in a bad way" as opposed to some "good stress".
Not about "stress in a bad way" as opposed to some "good stress".
High blood pressure is bad.
There is stress that ends another stressor.
If you are permant stressing about your job, your life your mortage and you boulder for the first time, you might eperience mortal fear, from falling. Which makes the other stressors less substantial, thus "deactivating" or back-queuing them. After the fear for your life, the stress bodily reflex does not return usually in full force.
You relax. One good "short" stress ended alot of bad stress. There is no good stressor that is permanent.
PS: Thanks to the prof at college teaching us about this. Stress is pure poison, inlcuding flooding your body with cortisols and supressing disease symptoms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortisol#Immune_response
Resulting in the ilusion, that stress keeps you healthy. Meanwhile disease eats you alive and re-appears once you are a wreck.
If you regularly experience stress episodes for months and years, you might as well be a living corpse.
If you are permant stressing about your job, your life your mortage and you boulder for the first time, you might eperience mortal fear, from falling. Which makes the other stressors less substantial, thus "deactivating" or back-queuing them. After the fear for your life, the stress bodily reflex does not return usually in full force.
You relax. One good "short" stress ended alot of bad stress. There is no good stressor that is permanent.
PS: Thanks to the prof at college teaching us about this. Stress is pure poison, inlcuding flooding your body with cortisols and supressing disease symptoms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortisol#Immune_response
Resulting in the ilusion, that stress keeps you healthy. Meanwhile disease eats you alive and re-appears once you are a wreck.
If you regularly experience stress episodes for months and years, you might as well be a living corpse.
I don't really think this is a disagreement. "Sometimes you have to do something that's bad for you to keep something worse from happening." That's just called harm reduction. The stress is still bad but short term stress that ends long term stress can be a good trade when you don't have any other option.
Yes, the correct response would be a behavioural adjusting of "not giving a damn" but our economic system discourages this, encouraging instead a play pretend of "unstressed" or meditate it away, aka learn to control your stress response system.
Or we could mass give out calming substances like weed or alcohol, but now we get to were we actually categorize permanent stress correctly. Its a mass applied substance problem, used to extract value from people.
Or we could mass give out calming substances like weed or alcohol, but now we get to were we actually categorize permanent stress correctly. Its a mass applied substance problem, used to extract value from people.
> and there's no such thing as "good stress."
this is not true though. I have a close friend who comes from a very wealthy family, to the point where, if he wants to, he doesn't have to work another day in his life. it took him something like eight years to get a four-year degree. he's struggled a lot with motivation over the years, and I became increasingly empathetic toward his situation the more I talked to him about it. it's really hard to find motivation to do stuff, even stuff you tell yourself you want to do, if it takes effort, and if there's no proverbial "fire lit under your ass" to get you to actually do something ("if I don't get another job before the end of next month, I won't have enough money to pay rent", etc.).
I've done some of my best creative work while under immense stress. great things rarely, if ever, get created in zero-stress environments. this idea that stress is always objectively bad is a very first-world way of thinking.
this is not true though. I have a close friend who comes from a very wealthy family, to the point where, if he wants to, he doesn't have to work another day in his life. it took him something like eight years to get a four-year degree. he's struggled a lot with motivation over the years, and I became increasingly empathetic toward his situation the more I talked to him about it. it's really hard to find motivation to do stuff, even stuff you tell yourself you want to do, if it takes effort, and if there's no proverbial "fire lit under your ass" to get you to actually do something ("if I don't get another job before the end of next month, I won't have enough money to pay rent", etc.).
I've done some of my best creative work while under immense stress. great things rarely, if ever, get created in zero-stress environments. this idea that stress is always objectively bad is a very first-world way of thinking.
Your two examples are harm reduction, not of "good stress." In both cases the actual stress is still bad for you. If your friend had motivation that was not based on imminent danger that would be better. If you could do creative work while not under stress that would be better.
Stress is objectively bad for your health. That's a different statement from "in certain cases I need to compromise my heath for a greater good."
Stress is objectively bad for your health. That's a different statement from "in certain cases I need to compromise my heath for a greater good."
> Stress is objectively bad for your health. That's a different statement from "in certain cases I need to compromise my heath for a greater good."
I never said anything about a "greater good", but I don't disagree that stress is objectively bad for your health, to some degree. but it's a tradeoff you have to make if you want to succeed. before our modern first-world society of wealth and safety, this was obvious to everyone, but it seems as though we've forgotten it. nobody is "owed" or "has a fundamental right" (or whatever) to living a stress-free life. life is a struggle, a competition, a game where there are winners and losers, and you have to do what you can to "win." this is just the immutable nature of… well, nature itself.
> If you could do creative work while not under stress that would be better.
that would be nice, but that's just not how it works for 99.99% of people!
I never said anything about a "greater good", but I don't disagree that stress is objectively bad for your health, to some degree. but it's a tradeoff you have to make if you want to succeed. before our modern first-world society of wealth and safety, this was obvious to everyone, but it seems as though we've forgotten it. nobody is "owed" or "has a fundamental right" (or whatever) to living a stress-free life. life is a struggle, a competition, a game where there are winners and losers, and you have to do what you can to "win." this is just the immutable nature of… well, nature itself.
> If you could do creative work while not under stress that would be better.
that would be nice, but that's just not how it works for 99.99% of people!
Regardless of creative or academic output, how is your friend feeling health-wise?
after a few dark months of largely staying at home and watching youtube all day, he's doing great now, working at a game development collective sort of thing making stuff with other creative people. I'm actually a bit jealous of his situation now, because I had to leave that career behind, but I'm really happy that he got out of the depression-hole ("bad stress") and is now actively working with other people directly (in-person, in an office!) making cool stuff and vibing with other creative minds, even despite having deadlines to deal with ("good stress"). he seems happier than he's been in years and I'm glad things have ended up working out well for him after a period of darkness (something which pretty much happened to me just a couple years ago, too).
[deleted]
Being a worker in the tech industry during 2022, I can relate and agree that not having a constant source of income or even the fear of losing one's job can probably lead to poor health outcomes.
I admit this isn't for everyone, but having multiple sources of income really helps smooth over bumps. Especially if that income is 1099, where there is no withholding (and you have slightly more control over when the taxes are paid).
I’m at a point in my life where I’d like to be semi retired. I’ve got hobbies with social implications and I’d love to be spending 15+ hours a week on them instead of 5+. But my retirement is not quite big enough and I will need boosters to fight inflation.
Also my family does not do well with retirement. If someone would pay 70 year old me for 20 hours a week I’ll probably do it.
Also my family does not do well with retirement. If someone would pay 70 year old me for 20 hours a week I’ll probably do it.
> pay 70 year old me for 20 hours a week
There are many "startups" that have only have enough revenue to cover 20 hours per week of labor [0]. Basically, you keep the lights on and ship 0-3 features per month. The pay can be as high as $130+/hr usd ($10k/mo).
You'd be on your own for health insurance, but I probably would do this for my retirement.
[0] - Like a 5 year old SaaS app that never grew beyond $20k/mo revenue and the owner doesn't want to work on it any more.
There are many "startups" that have only have enough revenue to cover 20 hours per week of labor [0]. Basically, you keep the lights on and ship 0-3 features per month. The pay can be as high as $130+/hr usd ($10k/mo).
You'd be on your own for health insurance, but I probably would do this for my retirement.
[0] - Like a 5 year old SaaS app that never grew beyond $20k/mo revenue and the owner doesn't want to work on it any more.
> Also my family does not do well with retirement.
Curious what that means.
Curious what that means.
It means when old men in my family retire they tend to get themselves into trouble not having enough to do. My grandfather developed insomnia and started to have health problems from sitting in front of the TV all day. He ended up digging himself out of a depression cycle by building a garage and adding an enclosed porch onto the house. After that he started working part time at a hardware store in walking distance as the resident home improvement sage. People missed him on his day off, and it easily added 5 years onto his life.
When I was young and in debt my partner and I did austerity for a while but it was difficult and sucked all the fun out of life. We agreed to two things to alleviate that, one of which was particularly relevant here. Both were patterned on a notion of honoring any increase in cash flow by spending only part of it.
We agreed that half of each raise would go to savings. We still got a little more spending money from each bonus or raise, but our effective savings rate went up each year, which helped immeasurably, both with our nest egg and in reining in our standard of living.
The reason we got in debt in the first place was overspending any new income. Our debt was mostly proportional to our income (or at least until we started planning a wedding, then it was Intervention Time).
It wasn’t just the money as we found out. Once we had a nest egg we no longer felt trapped in our jobs. That’s it a powerful force for good in your life and I recommend it for anyone.
The reason contractors charge twice as much as hourly employees is sane. You have higher taxes, you have an expectation of dry spells so you need to annualize your income, you are putting away a nest egg for unexpected dry spells (and ethical conundrums). You’re also doubling down on a narrow discipline and you should rake it in while you can because it is probably not sustainable. I’ve alternated between FTE and subcontracting for most of my career. Paradoxically I’ve had more learning opportunities while contracting than working salary, but you need a break sometimes.
We agreed that half of each raise would go to savings. We still got a little more spending money from each bonus or raise, but our effective savings rate went up each year, which helped immeasurably, both with our nest egg and in reining in our standard of living.
The reason we got in debt in the first place was overspending any new income. Our debt was mostly proportional to our income (or at least until we started planning a wedding, then it was Intervention Time).
It wasn’t just the money as we found out. Once we had a nest egg we no longer felt trapped in our jobs. That’s it a powerful force for good in your life and I recommend it for anyone.
The reason contractors charge twice as much as hourly employees is sane. You have higher taxes, you have an expectation of dry spells so you need to annualize your income, you are putting away a nest egg for unexpected dry spells (and ethical conundrums). You’re also doubling down on a narrow discipline and you should rake it in while you can because it is probably not sustainable. I’ve alternated between FTE and subcontracting for most of my career. Paradoxically I’ve had more learning opportunities while contracting than working salary, but you need a break sometimes.
> poor sleep quality, headaches, stomach issues and back pain
While it's true that volatile-pay work is extremely stressful, this seems like a cherry-picked study to be able to write a flashy headline to people rightly concerned over a hot-button issue. They could have just as easily just said that volatile pay causes anxiety and stress, which IMHO you don't need a study for, just like we don't need a study saying that eating less increases hunger symptoms.
Anxiety and stress itself is a well-known cause of all these above issues, and there are a multitude of other work-related stresses than just volatile pay.
While it's true that volatile-pay work is extremely stressful, this seems like a cherry-picked study to be able to write a flashy headline to people rightly concerned over a hot-button issue. They could have just as easily just said that volatile pay causes anxiety and stress, which IMHO you don't need a study for, just like we don't need a study saying that eating less increases hunger symptoms.
Anxiety and stress itself is a well-known cause of all these above issues, and there are a multitude of other work-related stresses than just volatile pay.
Top comments are about how gig work can help make ends meet for people who are struggling. By some estimates 9% of adults are currently doing tech-enabled gig-work, or have done it in the past. That is too many people trying to make ends meet. That number is so high that the conclusion that /I/ draw is that about 5% of the jobs being offered on the market are gig work, and the people who are in a position to take them aren't paid well enough to make a decent living.
All of this is related to hustle culture. Where instead of believing in the myth that corporations buy your labor from you, we have a new myth that we are all to some extent self-employed. That our greatest assets are our ability to push ourselves for economic gain. That our attention is for sale. That the solution to financial ruin is a side-hustle. We used to rely on the community of people around us to make ends meet and provide enrichment in our lives, but the new mythos doesn't make room for that. Friendships are monetizable. Attention is transactional. Hobbies are for improving oneself.
I don't fully know where this rant is going. I don't think everyone thinks these things. But there is something about individuality and money being more important than camaraderie and material wealth that I think motivates the prevailing viewpoint that gig work is anything other than an erosion of protections our great grandparents fought very hard for.
All of this is related to hustle culture. Where instead of believing in the myth that corporations buy your labor from you, we have a new myth that we are all to some extent self-employed. That our greatest assets are our ability to push ourselves for economic gain. That our attention is for sale. That the solution to financial ruin is a side-hustle. We used to rely on the community of people around us to make ends meet and provide enrichment in our lives, but the new mythos doesn't make room for that. Friendships are monetizable. Attention is transactional. Hobbies are for improving oneself.
I don't fully know where this rant is going. I don't think everyone thinks these things. But there is something about individuality and money being more important than camaraderie and material wealth that I think motivates the prevailing viewpoint that gig work is anything other than an erosion of protections our great grandparents fought very hard for.
I have a met no small number of people who drive for Uber essentially for fun. They don’t need the money, they drive because it gives them something to do when they are retired, when their spouse travels, to buy some latest gear for a hobby, etc. The extra money might be nice but the motivation isn’t existential.
Many people can drive for Uber for fun, doesnt mean more people do it because they're destitute and without other options.
Gig work has been an enormous win for employers. It has most of the advantages of slavery without the downside of being stuck with excess employees and housing costs. Combine that with debt, and employers have workers right where they want them.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever." - Orwell
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever." - Orwell
I think the fully-mature form of gig work features payment in company scrip. Grubcoin or maybe Ubertherium.
That's already here.[1] It's done by paying employees by deposit to a debit card.
This allows for out-of-network ATM fees,
overdraft fees,
balance protection fees,
fees for transferring money from a payroll card to a checking account,
balance inquiry fees, purchase fees, account closing fees, inactivity fees, and lost card fees.
Companies issuing payroll debit cards will pay employers to use them because the fees are so lucrative.
[1] https://www.classaction.org/payroll-cards
[1] https://www.classaction.org/payroll-cards
The article admits at the bottom: "The study findings do not prove that volatile pay causes health symptoms, only that there is a correlation between them." Yet, in the body of the article, it says "pay volatility was less harmful to health", the wording of which implicitly asserts causation. Sigh.
The null hypothesis is "health problems, and difficulties associated with health problems, cause people to take jobs with more volatile pay". It is plausible that volatile pay causes stress which causes problems, but this doesn't provide any convincing evidence of it. In fact, this part is evidence against it: "Mindfulness [...] has been shown to buffer against stress in other aspects of work and life [...] but it did not help reduce the physical symptoms associated with volatile pay." (Of course, an individual's mindfulness could also influence what jobs they'll accept and keep.)
(Another mechanism comes to mind for the "performance bonuses" they mention. That could lead to some people staying up late to finish things, or otherwise deciding to stretch themselves physically for their job. But if you want to study that, you should ask about those behaviors specifically.)
The null hypothesis is "health problems, and difficulties associated with health problems, cause people to take jobs with more volatile pay". It is plausible that volatile pay causes stress which causes problems, but this doesn't provide any convincing evidence of it. In fact, this part is evidence against it: "Mindfulness [...] has been shown to buffer against stress in other aspects of work and life [...] but it did not help reduce the physical symptoms associated with volatile pay." (Of course, an individual's mindfulness could also influence what jobs they'll accept and keep.)
(Another mechanism comes to mind for the "performance bonuses" they mention. That could lead to some people staying up late to finish things, or otherwise deciding to stretch themselves physically for their job. But if you want to study that, you should ask about those behaviors specifically.)
Wow, great scientific research here! More like = low pay for low skill workers linked to lifestyle problems, including health outcomes. The same could be said about any hard labor.
I found this strange:
"Sayre conducted a final online survey with 252 higher-income employees in finance, marketing and sales who relied on commissions or bonuses for a smaller fraction of their income. The workers completed monthly surveys for three months, and pay volatility was less harmful to health when they were less reliant on commissions or bonuses."
Whats this getting at? Ending incentive pay? This rhetoric is tied to 'pay transparency'. Aka, everyone must be paid the same if they have the same title/job. A workers rights issues, but really an employers wet dream.
I found this strange:
"Sayre conducted a final online survey with 252 higher-income employees in finance, marketing and sales who relied on commissions or bonuses for a smaller fraction of their income. The workers completed monthly surveys for three months, and pay volatility was less harmful to health when they were less reliant on commissions or bonuses."
Whats this getting at? Ending incentive pay? This rhetoric is tied to 'pay transparency'. Aka, everyone must be paid the same if they have the same title/job. A workers rights issues, but really an employers wet dream.
Maybe it’s time to end variable pay and tipping in the US. It’s ridiculous that restaurant owners can pay waiters less than minimum wage and assume that tips will make the difference in salary (saying nothing of tip theft).
Yeah I'm tired of subsidizing someone else's workers.
To be clear, employers can't just assume that the tips bring them up to minimum wage
The minimum wage for waiters where I live in the US is $15.75/hour before tips. That’s the minimum, most decent waiters make significantly more. They tried to replace tipping with a 20% service charge here and it was the workers that rejected it, because they made less money than with tipping. Your model of how this world works is overly simplistic.
While variability may be stressful and I wouldn’t consider the lifestyle to be particularly healthy, many waiters consider it a feature associated with having flexible hours to do other things. If they want more hours, competent waiters can almost always pick up as many as they want and it has been a sellers market for waitstaff labor here for as long as I can remember.
Even illegal migrant workers made much more than minimum wage when I lived in rural flyover areas. A chronic labor shortage will do that.
While variability may be stressful and I wouldn’t consider the lifestyle to be particularly healthy, many waiters consider it a feature associated with having flexible hours to do other things. If they want more hours, competent waiters can almost always pick up as many as they want and it has been a sellers market for waitstaff labor here for as long as I can remember.
Even illegal migrant workers made much more than minimum wage when I lived in rural flyover areas. A chronic labor shortage will do that.
How could you not get your exact expected outcome when your survey is like, did you not get paid well? Oh that sucks and how did that make you feel, poor sleep right?
I wonder when we will start to feel guilt for supporting these businesses that run exclusively on the desperation of giggers.
I come close when I order food on rainy stormy nights, I sometimes think about the person sent to fetch me my meal; the risk they put themselves in and the meager pay they get for it. I tip, but just the average. I won’t tip extraordinarily because I use these services too frequently to make it practical.
Indeed, it seems for us to live luxurious lifestyles, an entire class of people must be held at the edge to fulfill our whims.
I come close when I order food on rainy stormy nights, I sometimes think about the person sent to fetch me my meal; the risk they put themselves in and the meager pay they get for it. I tip, but just the average. I won’t tip extraordinarily because I use these services too frequently to make it practical.
Indeed, it seems for us to live luxurious lifestyles, an entire class of people must be held at the edge to fulfill our whims.
Nobody's forcing anybody to deliver your teriyaki. You're paying a premium so you don't have to leave the house. Someone's freely choosing to earn some money to provide your premium service. They've decided that delivering your thing is better for them than not delivering your thing.
The overthinking involved in this stuff is bizarre.
The overthinking involved in this stuff is bizarre.
“They’ve decided that picking the cotton is better than refusing to do so”.
Edit, because people share a characteristic with heavy metals: the point is that a “choice” made under economic duress is not made freely. Slavery is an extreme example used to make the point more obvious. The threat of violence used to compel people to work the fields is obviously worse than, but not necessarily qualitatively different from, the threat of abject poverty if one refuses to take low-paying insecure jobs.
Edit, because people share a characteristic with heavy metals: the point is that a “choice” made under economic duress is not made freely. Slavery is an extreme example used to make the point more obvious. The threat of violence used to compel people to work the fields is obviously worse than, but not necessarily qualitatively different from, the threat of abject poverty if one refuses to take low-paying insecure jobs.
Comments like this are why I don't believe in democracy anymore.
Food delivery is not even in the same universe as chattel slavery, they're completely incomparable.
You can't just say this, you have to say why. It's going to be a hard case to explain how you can't compare two types of work.
I'm not even sure how you can explain what free market labor is without referring to slavery, or explain what slavery is without referring to free market labor i.e. I don't think it's possible not to compare them and rationally talk about either of them.
I'm not even sure how you can explain what free market labor is without referring to slavery, or explain what slavery is without referring to free market labor i.e. I don't think it's possible not to compare them and rationally talk about either of them.
Nope, 300 years ago we had slavery and now we have gig work. I think that's the same universe ;)
In all seriousness, refusing to compare two things because you think they're "just too different" is simply acting irrationally. Look at the objectives, pressures, and outputs of each system and you may see more similarities than you'd like.
In all seriousness, refusing to compare two things because you think they're "just too different" is simply acting irrationally. Look at the objectives, pressures, and outputs of each system and you may see more similarities than you'd like.
Yea, this is pretty much how I rationalize it. Shitty work but hey if someone’s willing to do it I won’t care. Everyone is different.
Yes absolutely do not think about the conditions under which someone would be willing to do it. What would have to change in your life for you to be willing to? Don't think about it!
I would have to lose 30 years of work experience, all of the skills I've learned, and my professional network.
I might have done it when I was younger and didn't have any of that, but that kind of work didn't really exist beyond pizza delivery. I worked at a video rental store, instead.
Crappy jobs are a motivation to improve.
I might have done it when I was younger and didn't have any of that, but that kind of work didn't really exist beyond pizza delivery. I worked at a video rental store, instead.
Crappy jobs are a motivation to improve.
> I would have to lose 30 years of work experience, all of the skills I've learned, and my professional network.
One bad head injury could do all that and more. What are you going to improve then?
My point here is that given other choices, people don't freely choose precarious low wage work. It's safe to assume that people doing those jobs have pressures and constraints on them that limit their choices. This is why they're "willing" to do shitty work. You could be coerced into it too, given the right conditions. Understand the incentives, don't just justify it away as "freely chosen" because it isn't. To some extent that's true of all of us, but not to the same extent and the difference is meaningful.
One bad head injury could do all that and more. What are you going to improve then?
My point here is that given other choices, people don't freely choose precarious low wage work. It's safe to assume that people doing those jobs have pressures and constraints on them that limit their choices. This is why they're "willing" to do shitty work. You could be coerced into it too, given the right conditions. Understand the incentives, don't just justify it away as "freely chosen" because it isn't. To some extent that's true of all of us, but not to the same extent and the difference is meaningful.
If everything is a response to incentives then by this logic you could also say a software engineer is coerced into their career because of pressure put on by the cost of their lifestyle. People doing shitty work might not have incentive to do anything else.
It seems very important to you to believe that the lowest paid, most precarious and vulnerable workers choose that freely and are thrilled with it.
I think if you could find some curiosity about why they make those choices it might take you to interesting places, but I can't make you.
I think if you could find some curiosity about why they make those choices it might take you to interesting places, but I can't make you.
I could have chosen to be a low paid vulnerable worker and not been thrilled with it. The barrier to entry is so low, it seems difficult to believe some people wouldn’t freely choose it out of convenience. Not sure how you can believe 100% of those workers are coerced into that line of work.
Everything is a trade off. You could choose to be a software engineer, but it requires a big investment of your time and making critical life choices at the right moments. Much more difficult than simply running gigs.
Everything is a trade off. You could choose to be a software engineer, but it requires a big investment of your time and making critical life choices at the right moments. Much more difficult than simply running gigs.
You seem risk-averse, and that’s OK. But you aren’t in any position to tell other people what level of risk or action to take to maintain or improve their lives.
People are free to choose and they take on the consequences of their choices, good or bad.
People are free to choose and they take on the consequences of their choices, good or bad.
I don’t understand.
That's like when people discover a product is made with child labor they the boycott the product, the factory shuts down, and the children who used to have income are now forced to the street or into prostitution.
You are blaming gig work, but gig work helps them, at least somewhat.
You are blaming gig work, but gig work helps them, at least somewhat.
Just as accurately, it's like when you stop patronizing child prostitutes, and the children now have to work as beggars. If you use this as an argument to continue patronizing child prostitutes, people will be angry at you.
That's a poor argument because prostitute and beggar have similar social levels.
A better argument is if you stop patronizing a child prostitute so instead the child dies. What's better?
Also bringing in prostitute, especially underage, brings in a ton of unrelated baggage that messes up your argument. There is no such baggage with gig work vs employment.
Basically you need a better argument.
A better argument is if you stop patronizing a child prostitute so instead the child dies. What's better?
Also bringing in prostitute, especially underage, brings in a ton of unrelated baggage that messes up your argument. There is no such baggage with gig work vs employment.
Basically you need a better argument.
Americans still don't feel guilty for 400 years of slavery. It's going to take a while for us to come around on gig work.
What would that universe even look like?
Where corporate CEO pay is level with reality and not x10000000 their lowest worker.
Is there any single 1 example of a fortune 500 that does any due diligence in treating people like humans or are we all permanently disposable until the end of time.
Is there any single 1 example of a fortune 500 that does any due diligence in treating people like humans or are we all permanently disposable until the end of time.
This is a mischaracterization of why CEO level pay for most companies is higher than the lower skilled workers. It’s supply and demand. The skills required to be an executive at a large company are very hard to find, so companies need to compete with each other for the small supply of candidates that are eligible for the job. Obviously there are exceptions to this, especially in tech and finance, but it’s not as simple as “they are paid more because of a title”. There’s a lot of responsibility and skill required for those positions, and most people do not have the ambition, drive or resiliency to survive the stress induced in those positions. I believe over time the problem will be less of an issue as general intelligence in the population rises due to more open access to knowledge. Unfortunately we live in a world where some people have significant advantages, either environmental or genetic, and not all people are equal. I’m not arguing this is the right answer, but rather would you as a nation like to capitalize on your talent and give incentive to those few advantaged to rise to their level of competence? Or would you rather treat everyone as equal, let talent go to waste, and become stagnant? The rising tide lifts all boats, and that can be shown by the fact we’ve nearly eliminated poverty in the last 100 years, which is not celebrated enough. Nearly all low-level workers in America have access to food, housing, water, and even cell phones, and we take that for granted.
I would argue that those low-level workers also have the right to free time to be human. Work hard yes, but don't be a slave with extra steps.
> It’s supply and demand. The skills required to be an executive at a large company are very hard to find, so companies need to compete with each other for the small supply of candidates that are eligible for the job.
You're very nearly making the argument that the eligibility requirements are too strict, not that the skills are rare. Why do all the CEOs come from the same handful of schools and have the same backgrounds? Is that the only way to acquire the skills?
> most people do not have the ambition, drive or resiliency to survive the stress induced in those positions
Ok I am willing to buy that stress tolerance and a certain understanding of ambition are the main skills here.
> I believe over time the problem will be less of an issue as general intelligence in the population rises
Are stress tolerance and ambition closely linked to intelligence? I haven't found that to be the case in my experiences but maybe someone has looked into it idk. Seems relevant though.
> due to more open access to knowledge.
Does mere access to knowledge directly increase intelligence? Very exciting implications if so.
> some people have significant advantages, either environmental or genetic, and not all people are equal.
Not all people are the same but they are all equal in some important senses nearly universally recognized at this point. Like their need for access to certain material conditions, their innate dignity and rights.
> would you as a nation like to capitalize on your talent and give incentive to those few advantaged to rise to their level of competence?
The Talented Tenth but for white people? Ok gotta admit you caught me by surprise with this one lol. I feel like it didn't work out that well the first time around but who knows.
> Or would you rather treat everyone as equal, let talent go to waste, and become stagnant?
I don't think these things are connected at all. If you're going to draw a link between them then do so, but putting them together in a sentence doesn't establish that.
> The rising tide lifts all boats, and that can be shown by the fact we’ve nearly eliminated poverty in the last 100 years, which is not celebrated enough.
It might lift all boats but it also floods the shore. Food is cheap (well, was!) but healthcare is unattainable. Is it really eliminating poverty if we just let the impoverished die? I mean technically yes but that sort of "elimination" has a, literally, atrocious history when used as the basis of public policy.
Anyway I don't think poverty is as eliminated as you think it is! If people's potential is limited by their circumstances, which I agree that it is, then our need is to change their circumstances not exploit the differential as some sort of piezo-economic motor.
You're very nearly making the argument that the eligibility requirements are too strict, not that the skills are rare. Why do all the CEOs come from the same handful of schools and have the same backgrounds? Is that the only way to acquire the skills?
> most people do not have the ambition, drive or resiliency to survive the stress induced in those positions
Ok I am willing to buy that stress tolerance and a certain understanding of ambition are the main skills here.
> I believe over time the problem will be less of an issue as general intelligence in the population rises
Are stress tolerance and ambition closely linked to intelligence? I haven't found that to be the case in my experiences but maybe someone has looked into it idk. Seems relevant though.
> due to more open access to knowledge.
Does mere access to knowledge directly increase intelligence? Very exciting implications if so.
> some people have significant advantages, either environmental or genetic, and not all people are equal.
Not all people are the same but they are all equal in some important senses nearly universally recognized at this point. Like their need for access to certain material conditions, their innate dignity and rights.
> would you as a nation like to capitalize on your talent and give incentive to those few advantaged to rise to their level of competence?
The Talented Tenth but for white people? Ok gotta admit you caught me by surprise with this one lol. I feel like it didn't work out that well the first time around but who knows.
> Or would you rather treat everyone as equal, let talent go to waste, and become stagnant?
I don't think these things are connected at all. If you're going to draw a link between them then do so, but putting them together in a sentence doesn't establish that.
> The rising tide lifts all boats, and that can be shown by the fact we’ve nearly eliminated poverty in the last 100 years, which is not celebrated enough.
It might lift all boats but it also floods the shore. Food is cheap (well, was!) but healthcare is unattainable. Is it really eliminating poverty if we just let the impoverished die? I mean technically yes but that sort of "elimination" has a, literally, atrocious history when used as the basis of public policy.
Anyway I don't think poverty is as eliminated as you think it is! If people's potential is limited by their circumstances, which I agree that it is, then our need is to change their circumstances not exploit the differential as some sort of piezo-economic motor.
> Why do all the CEOs come from the same handful of schools and have the same backgrounds? Is that the only way to acquire the skills?
I don’t think this is the case. Sure, for most of the largest companies that is true, but that’s not a representative sample size.
> Does mere access to knowledge directly increase intelligence? Very exciting implications if so.
Yes, at the population level over generational time periods. I wasn’t able to find the sources here, but I’ll keep looking and edit my comment when I do.
> (Or would you rather treat everyone as equal, let talent go to waste, and become stagnant?) I don't think these things are connected at all. If you're going to draw a link between them then do so, but putting them together in a sentence doesn't establish that.
You’re right, it doesn’t, and I think this issue is too complex and nuanced to actually reach any objective argument. I’ll gladly retract my statement under the guise that there are too many definitions of stagnation, and there are also many different factors that can affect whether and how people are motivated to work hard and contribute to society. So it's difficult to make a definitive statement about whether treating everyone equally will always lead to stagnation and I was wrong in doing so.
I want to say I appreciate and agree with most of your insights. I do truly believe that the current social-economic structure does provide many unfair advantages to those at the top, that’s an unfortunate side-effect that we have great people working on. I also appreciate you calling out some of my points that I definitely articulated incorrectly (I wrote the comment in passing between meetings).
I don’t think this is the case. Sure, for most of the largest companies that is true, but that’s not a representative sample size.
> Does mere access to knowledge directly increase intelligence? Very exciting implications if so.
Yes, at the population level over generational time periods. I wasn’t able to find the sources here, but I’ll keep looking and edit my comment when I do.
> (Or would you rather treat everyone as equal, let talent go to waste, and become stagnant?) I don't think these things are connected at all. If you're going to draw a link between them then do so, but putting them together in a sentence doesn't establish that.
You’re right, it doesn’t, and I think this issue is too complex and nuanced to actually reach any objective argument. I’ll gladly retract my statement under the guise that there are too many definitions of stagnation, and there are also many different factors that can affect whether and how people are motivated to work hard and contribute to society. So it's difficult to make a definitive statement about whether treating everyone equally will always lead to stagnation and I was wrong in doing so.
I want to say I appreciate and agree with most of your insights. I do truly believe that the current social-economic structure does provide many unfair advantages to those at the top, that’s an unfortunate side-effect that we have great people working on. I also appreciate you calling out some of my points that I definitely articulated incorrectly (I wrote the comment in passing between meetings).
[deleted]
[deleted]
I'm not saying there aren't abuses and I'm not saying it's not stressful. I'm just saying it's probably more complex than this survey suggests and that I would like to not see people throw the baby out with the bath water.
Some of our efforts to "fix" what we think is wrong with gig work punishes the very workers it is intended to help. Having too narrow a view of such issues is not a good place from which to try to improve things.