# Corporate pursuit of profit and its increasing social costs **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 4, 2018, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573 "2018-12-04T23:27:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2018, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573/41 "2018-12-05T21:16:17Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > Isn’t that the whole point of a great debate? To discover the distance between what is and what should be? > > Words and concepts are more than their legal definition. If we want to know what the law says we can just open a book and read. How prosaic. But, if we want to know what the law should say, we talk to each other. We engage. We debate. > **Brujaja** has asked a philosophical question: What responsibility (if any) does a company owe society? How do we, as society, ensure that this responsibility is met? > > Fiduciary is more than just a legal term; it is a concept. And as a society we have to get past the idea that the law is the beginning and end. Just because the law says what a fiduciary relationship in business must include, at a minimum, doesn’t mean that there isn’t a higher responsibility that implies what it should include as well. > > Just as there is a social contract between men, there is an economic contract between business and society the goal of which is the betterment of all. Why do we have companies in the first place? It’s for the betterment of us all, not for the betterment of the companies. All too often people follow the literal word of the law and completely ignore the spirit. If we all agree that a company owes fiduciary only to itself then we’ve already lost. > > It starts with recognizing that we’re all in this together. > > mc The problem is that you didn’t suggest “corporations should be treated as fiduciaries”. You stated they were fiduciaries. That’s not debating what she happen, that’s making an inaccurate claim. And you blamed the public and the States for not suing to enforce that inaccurate characterization. I am open to the idea of finding ways to improve corporate behavior. Misunderstanding the current landscape doesn’t advance the debate. ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2018, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573/42 "2018-12-05T21:26:40Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > Maybe. But confusing yourself in misusing words is not usually successful. > The Fiduciary duty is a legal concept. > > . . . > > You desire to create some new legal obligations around the stakeholders. This is a different concept than the fiduciary duty that has the specific meaning (indeed it really is never used outside of the corporate law and in the related finances. > > The misuse of terms will not get you very much clarity in exploring that. > > If you mean duty to society, that is a different idea. > > . . .tend to misunderstand when reading naively. I didn’t insult you because of your narrow minded, pedantic, unimaginative, and boring use of language, please don’t make the mistake of assuming I’m naive. > [@](#): > > . . .but the word fiduciary does not, in and of itself, suggest financial matters. Rather, fiduciary **applies to any situation in which one person justifiably places confidence and trust in someone else** and seeks that person’s help or advice in some matter. The attorney-client relationship is a fiduciary one, for example, because the client trusts the attorney **to act in the best interest of the client at all times**. Fiduciary can also be used as a noun for the person who acts in a fiduciary capacity, and fiduciarily or fiducially can be called upon if you are in need of an adverb. The words are all faithful to their origin: Latin fidere, which means “to trust.” > **[Definition of FIDUCIARY](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiduciary)** > > of, relating to, or involving a confidence or trust: such as; held or founded in trust or confidence; holding in trust… See the full definition we _ **ALL** _ (including businesses) have a responsibility to act in the best interests of society. A business absolutely has a fiduciary responsibility to society (read customers, employees and community). You don’t like that word because it carries a certain amount of legal baggage, fine, use whatever term you want, The concept is sound. mc ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2018, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573/43 "2018-12-05T21:33:12Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > The problem is that you didn’t suggest “corporations should be treated as fiduciaries”. You stated they were fiduciaries. That’s not debating what she happen, that’s making an inaccurate claim. And you blamed the public and the States for not suing to enforce that inaccurate characterization. > > I am open to the idea of finding ways to improve corporate behavior. Misunderstanding the current landscape doesn’t advance the debate. No. I’m saying that businesses ARE fiduciaries even tho the law does not treat them as such. mc ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2018, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573/44 "2018-12-05T21:45:50Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > I didn’t insult you because of your narrow minded, pedantic, unimaginative, and boring use of language, please don’t make the mistake of assuming I’m naive. Passive aggressiveness is not very interesting. The post seems to be misformatted but in any case to restate, the word fiduciary is one almost always and only seen in the legal framework. You misuse it and this renders > [@](#): > > we _ **ALL** _ (including businesses) have a responsibility to act in the best interests of society. That is a nice sentiment. It is like stating We all have a duty to be good people. Very nice. It is not useful for coherent for making the law or the policy. > [@](#): > > A business absolutely has a fiduciary responsibility to society (read customers, employees and community). it is not a coherent claim. Fiduciary responsability has a particular specific legal meaning and it becomes incoherent and meaningless to use it here. It would be better to make statements without trying to use a specific phrase like this that has a specific technical meaning. It destroys meaning not adds to it. It becomes contradictory and incoherent. You want to argue businesses must show a responsability to the society beyond that of the ownership. that is again nice. It is also a vague and a broad sentiment that is not coherent renderable into a real operational reality. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2018, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573/45 "2018-12-05T21:50:04Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > The OP, as written, is flat out ill-informed, based on feels rather than easily checked facts. As has already been mentioned, food is far cheaper than it used to be. Seems higher quality with more options available, but I’m not aware of anyone measuring that. > > **brujaja** may still have a valid argument if revised using better researched examples. the problem is the OP in addition has the two very different subjects, which are confused together. One is the subject of the consumer protection and the interaction of the consumer product (and I guess the consumer services) companies with the retail consumer. The other is the subject of the duty of the care of the company to the wider society and the role of the relationship of the profit seeking and the social impact - but it confuses the shareholding (and it seems the listed) corporation with the general idea of the private for profit company. they are not really the same problem or the same subject. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2018, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573/46 "2018-12-05T21:55:18Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > And? > > This is not responsive to what I wrote. I wrote > > I call it not relevant. the question is the relative expansion and the difference in the trends. It would be nice if you gave some evidence there is no growth. Here is some that there is: > [@](#): > > Staffing agencies have been reporting record numbers of requests for workers, with demand at its highest level since 1992, according to the American Staffing Association. An increase of 1.2% in Q1 2018 showed revenues of $32 billion. > > That growth will likely continue. More than half of employers recently surveyed by American Express and Institutional Investor Thought Leadership Studio plan to increase their use of temporary and contract workers to meet staffing demand. As more workers look for flexibility to manage work-life balance, some predict independent contract workers will comprise 60% of the workforce within the next 10 years. This comes from [HR Drive](https://www.hrdive.com/news/demand-for-temporary-workers-is-high-and-only-expected-to-increase/528087/) which I assume is for HR and and who thinks this is all a wonderful thing. While there are plenty of people who are truly happy to have temp work, there are also plenty who would like full time jobs with benefits. [Forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/03/31/contractors-and-temps-were-100-of-job-growth-in-us-and-thats-a-good-thing/#173bc04b34c0) notes > [@](#): > > Contractors And Temps Were 100% Of Job Growth In US: And That’s A Good Thing Whether it is a good or bad thing is debatable. That this segment is growing isn’t. > [@](#): > > Unless the taxi services are a majority of this employment this is merely the anectdote as analysis and not a real insight into the question of it the “gig” employment is in fact expanding in a real way different than before. > > Compare your ten and twenty year trend line datas on the short-term employment. See above. I welcome evidence that this isn’t happening. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2018, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573/47 "2018-12-05T22:10:35Z")
I am not very interested in finding a presentable form of your american BLS data on the ten year time series to respond to your strawman misinterpretation of my original comment. Increases in staffing agencies and a nominal comparison on values does not give you any useful data. You need to compare the season adjusted percentages over time - if you wish to do more than repeat the journalistic assertions. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2018, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573/48 "2018-12-05T22:25:59Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > I am not very interested in finding a presentable form of your american BLS data on the ten year time series to respond to your strawman misinterpretation of my original comment. . for those who wish for your american data, to read the profiling - it is only in the PDF - from the labor statistics,[the May 2017 report is here](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/conemp.pdf). I am more familiar with the european data, in any case the story is the same, as I wrote originally, it is not clear (at least yet) the Gig Economy idea as some kind of major expansion is anything more than a marketing mirage of the Silicon Valley in terms of change. > [@](#): > > Alternative Employment Arrangements > > The May 2017 survey collected information on the number and characteristics of workers in four > alternative employment arrangements—independent contractors, on-call workers, temporary > help agency workers, and workers employed by contract companies. > -6- > Compared with February 2005 (the last time the survey was conducted), the proportion of the > employed who were independent contractors was lower in May 2017, while the proportions > employed in the other three alternative arrangements were little different. Workers in the four > groups continued to differ significantly from each other as well as from workers in traditional > arrangements. so perhaps the strange hijack on a response to a Strawman self constructed can end. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573/49 "2018-12-06T03:09:58Z")
The funny thing is that report is the source for the numbers **Voyager** posted here from the _Guardian_ article, and the article even has a link to it. This is what happens when people learn from magazine and newspaper articles about reports instead of reading the actual reports themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573/50 "2018-12-06T23:39:35Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > [Here’s a picture](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F68%2Fe5%2F25%2F68e525b2e9e86cc8e64fe3ac3d099ab3.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F206391595407961746%2F&docid=8n-ZHN2irCAb4M&tbnid=pdMmwFpjqHRwBM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiv9_eVoonfAhWHq4MKHUIJCEQQMwhNKA4wDg..i&w=236&h=481&safe=off&bih=626&biw=1366&q=1970s%20kraft%20macaroni%20and%20cheese&ved=0ahUKEwiv9_eVoonfAhWHq4MKHUIJCEQQMwhNKA4wDg&iact=mrc&uact=8) I found of a box of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese from the 1970’s. The net weight is 7 1/4 oz. > > [Here’s a contemporary box](https://ship.kroger.com/p/021000658831/kraft-macaroni-and-cheese-dinner-7?&cid=shp_adw_0000.ship.Central+Ship+-+Canned+%26+Packaged&gclid=Cj0KCQiAi57gBRDqARIsABhDSMpqlYZWJ_8eTroIWrSzH9ta4gAGPjG33xfe0viN-G1Wxp3SqCIOhH8aAtnlEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds). The net weight is 7.25 oz. > > So it looks like they have not, in fact, reduced the amount of macaroni in the box. > > Perhaps **brujaja** didn’t notice that she bought a different size or variety of box than she had in the past? Or probably her kids are just getting older and naturally just eating more. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2018, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573/51 "2018-12-07T04:10:25Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t necessarily know that this is true, that we are paying a larger percentage of our wages on less product. > > I don’t know of any figures on macaroni, but other staples, like flour, has gone up by 1488% since 1913. Which sounds outrageous, until you consider that average annual income since 1913 has increased by 4010%. As I noted in a previous post, food prices as a percentage of wages have remained steady for the last two decades. Prior to that, there was a three decade period when food prices as a percentage of wages had been in a steady decline. So food has not become more expensive. [Cite](https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=76967) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2018, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573/52 "2018-12-07T21:03:23Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > The funny thing is that report is the source for the numbers **Voyager** posted here from the _Guardian_ article, and the article even has a link to it. This is what happens when people learn from magazine and newspaper articles about reports instead of reading the actual reports themselves. When I add the numbers in the link up, I get 13.9% of workers in these types of jobs. [Here](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/10/06/the-state-of-american-jobs/st_2016-10-06_jobs-26/) is a chart giving the numbers in 1995, 2005 and 2015. (Source [Here](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/10/06/1-changes-in-the-american-workplace/)) The number has gone down since 2015, which is not surprising since we’d expect a move to permanent jobs with as good a job market as we have today. But the last time we had full employment - around 2000 - the percentage of alternative jobs was about 10.5. I’d still like to hear some of the supposed hype. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2018, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573/53 "2018-12-07T22:31:36Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > [Here’s a picture](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F68%2Fe5%2F25%2F68e525b2e9e86cc8e64fe3ac3d099ab3.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F206391595407961746%2F&docid=8n-ZHN2irCAb4M&tbnid=pdMmwFpjqHRwBM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiv9_eVoonfAhWHq4MKHUIJCEQQMwhNKA4wDg..i&w=236&h=481&safe=off&bih=626&biw=1366&q=1970s%20kraft%20macaroni%20and%20cheese&ved=0ahUKEwiv9_eVoonfAhWHq4MKHUIJCEQQMwhNKA4wDg&iact=mrc&uact=8) I found of a box of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese from the 1970’s. The net weight is 7 1/4 oz. > > [Here’s a contemporary box](https://ship.kroger.com/p/021000658831/kraft-macaroni-and-cheese-dinner-7?&cid=shp_adw_0000.ship.Central+Ship+-+Canned+%26+Packaged&gclid=Cj0KCQiAi57gBRDqARIsABhDSMpqlYZWJ_8eTroIWrSzH9ta4gAGPjG33xfe0viN-G1Wxp3SqCIOhH8aAtnlEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds). The net weight is 7.25 oz. > > So it looks like they have not, in fact, reduced the amount of macaroni in the box. Quite right. So what was she talking about in the OP? ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573/54 "2018-12-08T12:53:12Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > When I add the numbers in the link up, I get 13.9% of workers in these types of jobs. > [Here](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/10/06/the-state-of-american-jobs/st_2016-10-06_jobs-26/) is a chart giving the numbers in 1995, 2005 and 2015. (Source [Here](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/10/06/1-changes-in-the-american-workplace/)) > > The number has gone down since 2015, which is not surprising since we’d expect a move to permanent jobs with as good a job market as we have today. But the last time we had full employment - around 2000 - the percentage of alternative jobs was about 10.5. > I’d still like to hear some of the supposed hype. First you wrote about contingent jobs. This is the first time you’ve mentioned alternative jobs. Those aren’t the same people. Hell, I have an alternative work arrangement, according to BLS. And now you’re calling jobs that aren’t alternative “permanent”, which is funny. Your example of gig work was Uber, which didn’t even exist in 2005, so let’s not pretend that 2005 isn’t a perfectly good year too compare against. You want examples of hype? You’re posts are my cite. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573/55 "2018-12-08T19:36:15Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > First you wrote about contingent jobs. This is the first time you’ve mentioned alternative jobs. Those aren’t the same people. Hell, I have an alternative work arrangement, according to BLS. And now you’re calling jobs that aren’t alternative “permanent”, which is funny. Your example of gig work was Uber, which didn’t even exist in 2005, so let’s not pretend that 2005 isn’t a perfectly good year too compare against. You want examples of hype? You’re posts are my cite. Contingent jobs are a small percentage of jobs - but I admit to using the high end of the estimate in the link. I was talking about the gig economy, which I’d say was mostly alternative. As for Uber, the growth has to come from somewhere - and Uber is one place it did. Taxi drivers are not gig workers. Their income can vary, like anyone on commission, but they are either independent if they have their own cab or work for a cab company, like my brother did for a while. Ramira was complaining about hype before I even posted. So, sorry. But I’d call all the articles saying how great the gig economy is hype, even if the numbers are correct. Remember, I’m not saying this is good, just that it is happening. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573/56 "2018-12-08T23:09:13Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Ramira was complaining about hype before I even posted. before your hijack based on what seems to be a limited comprehension of the statistics and a stubborn inability to admit any error, I wrote > [@](#): > > It is a problem by all the data signs available of the technology shift that is destructive to the middle skilled work but yielding so far ever more returns to the high skilled labor and the capital. As it seems to be occuring across various models, but mitigated sometimes by different structures, it is not something of a problem of Capitalism or State Socialism, but the economic structuring of computer enhanced production models. to which you misinterpreted this and mentioned gig economy misinterpreting this issue as one of the automation. to which I replied (the emphasis added): > [@](#): > > the gig economy is not automation, and aside from the easy journalist articles, \*\*in the economic data it is not even clear it is anything but a mirage that techno journalists repeat from the PR of tech companies. \*\* > > But again irrelevant to the observation. And indeed the data shown here confirm what I wrote, that the economic data do not show any support to confirm that the gig economy is something other than the mirage for repackaing an existing form of labor contracting without changing its percentage in the economy in the share of employment or the structure of it. > [@](#): > > So, sorry. But I’d call all the articles saying how great the gig economy is hype, even if the numbers are correct. Remember, I’m not saying this is good, just that it is happening. here again is a bizarre diversion and apparently a straw man, it is hard to know what on earth this has in connection with this conversation as the quality or not of a gig economy was not ever any subject here. What is hype is that the idea of “it is happening” as some significant difference from the historical as they data do not show this. As Ruken has also said several times. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2018, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573/57 "2018-12-10T03:36:16Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Taxi drivers are not gig workers. Their income can vary, like anyone on commission, but they are either independent if they have their own cab or work for a cab company, like my brother did for a while. Don’t be so sure. Uber drivers – their income can vary, like anyone on commission, but they are independent if they have their own car. See, that sentence works both ways. The gig employment model used by Uber isn’t one Uber invented. And your either/or misses the drivers who lease as independent contractors. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2018, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573/58 "2018-12-12T08:16:06Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Contingent jobs are a small percentage of jobs - but I admit to using the high end of the estimate in the link. I was talking about the gig economy, which I’d say was mostly alternative. I’ve read quotes that the percentage may be as high as 40%. The “gig economy” includes Uber drivers and temps, but also highly paid independent contractors, freelancers and consultants. Also, it’s not clear to me if it includes employees of large IT outsourcing firms like Cognizant or Wipro. Or, for that matter, any consultants like EY, Deloitte or Accenture. It’s a bit of a grey area. From my experience, often these “consultants” stay on at their client for years, using the client’s equipment, having client email accounts, and in all ways that matter, behaving like employees of the client. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2018, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573/59 "2018-12-12T23:13:39Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I’ve read quotes that the percentage may be as high as 40%. The “gig economy” includes Uber drivers and temps, but also highly paid independent contractors, freelancers and consultants. > > Also, it’s not clear to me if it includes employees of large IT outsourcing firms like Cognizant or Wipro. Or, for that matter, any consultants like EY, Deloitte or Accenture. It’s a bit of a grey area. From my experience, often these “consultants” stay on at their client for years, using the client’s equipment, having client email accounts, and in all ways that matter, behaving like employees of the client. Does the Microsoft ruling apply to people like these? I managed quite a few permanent temps when I was at Bell Labs. They even were co-authors on papers. They officially worked for a contracting company, but I was under the impression they qualified, though this was before the ruling. They did eventually become permanent. I neglected one factor - US data does not include jobs farmed out to people overseas. If you search for someone to do a small graphics or programming job, it is likely you’ll connect with someone in India or Russia. It can go the other way, but probably not as often. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2018, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573/60 "2018-12-12T23:16:55Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Don’t be so sure. Uber drivers – their income can vary, like anyone on commission, but they are independent if they have their own car. See, that sentence works both ways. > The gig employment model used by Uber isn’t one Uber invented. > > And your either/or misses the drivers who lease as independent contractors. Very true. Freelance writers, like my wife, were using the gig model long before Uber. I didn’t pay much attention to Uber when it started, but I thought the original model was that someone going somewhere could get some extra money by taking a rider, like ride share boards when I was in college. AirBnB started supposedly to rent out spare rooms, now it is almost a hotel business. (Not gig economy, I know, but same sort of thing.) So I agree that some of this stuff is rather fuzzy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-pursuit-of-profit-and-its-increasing-social-costs/825573.md?page=2)