If you go to Craigslist and look at 'Housing Wanted" you will find (if the scenario in the SF area holds for you) that a large number of them specify “in the hippest neighborhoods ONLY”.
There are lots and lots of perfectly good neighborhoods with housing readily available, and much cheaper than “hip area”.
But they are not within walking distance to the “cool” bars and nightlife - and the seekers do not have cars, and using Uber twice or more daily would be financially ruinous.
So, at a minimum, their housing must be within walking distance to mass transit.
Get a goddamned bike and live somewhere cheap until you can afford a car.
Basically, what the younguns are doing is re-creating the world their grandparents abandoned when the auto became cheap and readily affordable:
A place where simply everything was either within walking distance, or at least on a streetcar line.
That world was seriously hurt by the car. WWII caused a massive concentration of people in a few, mainly coastal, cities.
After the war, the ex-soldiers decided “Hey - this city stuff sure beats the farm/tiny town! let’s buy a car and move to a new suburb and make babies where they will have a real yard to play in”.
Old saying: “You live your grandparent’s life” - this generation is not only living it, they want to re-create the cities their grandparents were born into.
You should be more forthcoming of what you are arguing for. I want people to be able to freely choose how they want to work. Plain and simple. If someone wants to work 5 hours a week, that’s their choice. I haven’t even mentioned the employer side of things. Here’s a hint, it’s much similar to what I want of employees: if they an employer only wants to hire 5 hour shifts, that’s up to them, too.
Any worker of any stripe should always be responsible for their own well-being, it’s not up to employers to provide that. Should I be responsible for the well-being of my housekeeper or my baby-sitter (I already pay payroll tax of the latter)? I have no problem with the government stepping in and providing assistance to those who truly can’t make it, but I suspect we will differ on level of assistance required of the government. But, that would be a much better system than requiring it of employers.
Packaged exploitation? Why, because it comes with an app? Did someone force these people to work these gig? As it’s been stated many times, nothing else allows the flexibility or control over schedule. It also helps drive down prices and spurs competition. You have a lot to learn about what makes up an economy. People working what they want when they want, is a feature of the economy. Don’t tell me that you think we would all be better off in a planned economy? Seriously, though, you’re ranting against people working gigs because…some people still can’t make ends meet? Because people working gigs make it harder for people with traditional 40/hr work week jobs to get benefits? If you are ranting against people working gigs, then you are against gigs in general – or do you have some idea of a good gig vs a bad gig – and I’m having trouble understanding as it seems like you are against people working in the first place.
Ok, so you want some sort of Universal Basic Income, some high level to afford people to be leisurely, so that may assume internet, electricity, one bedroom per person in household, public transportation, UHC, 3 squares/daily…? Ok, then I want a unicorn. Name one society that provides such a universal income to its citizens to cover these things. The closest ones I can think of only come close to providing something around the global poverty level. When you take an econ class, make sure you study something called the Free Rider Problem and let us know how you plan on solving that without some sort of post-scarcity technology, Star Trek or otherwise.
I’ve been completely straightforward in my arguments. Gigging is not new, not cool no matter how shiny the app, and not a basis for a livable/thriving economy no matter how many “rock star” types might get interviewed by Salon.
Nor is it a solution for the other economic/social problems we have. It’s just the latest way for people to live poor, shitty lives under a veil of “happy darkies.”
My response to you was a bit hyperbolic. Some of what you wrote is accurate. Where I disagree is the nature of the job market. It’s relatively free in my opinion aside from some dumb policy like minimum wage law.
With regards to power differences? Good luck quantifying and eliminating them.
Be able to gig, which, at best a universal definition means: to take on odds jobs, is a feature of an economy, a free market one at that. My point is: what do want to do in the alternative? Ban them? Require people only to employ 40 hrs. I’ll deal with your France example below. India is a basket case thanks to corruption, socialism, social casts, and the extreme population compared to the number of resources. I go to India one or two times a year for work and poverty assistance is one thing my company takes special interest in. Taking care of poverty is not the employer’s responsibility, and I’m all for the government providing assistance, but as I said in my post above, I’m sure people will disagree as to what level of subsistence would be required. I’m not positive that providing handouts is the best way to alleviate poverty as all my real-life examples are colored with poor (as in bad/dysfunctional) upbringing and poor life choices (usually involving drugs and alcohol).
I don’t think France is doing that well. If you compare them against Germangy, then they are sluggish. Many other media outlets as well consider the French economy to be sluggish. There is a call to reform the labor market in France to make it easier to fire/hire employees, and to allow existing employees to work longer hours. Also, I don’t know if you work with European companies, but every professional job I’ve ever had has an affiliate or an office in a EU country, and not even factoring August into the equation, imo, their productivity is well behind the US. Anyway, I’m not against fixed contract employment, even if only for temporary workers. I think it, too, is a feature of free economy and something, another tool, that should be at the disposal of a vibrant economy.
All this railing against the gig economy seems to say that there shouldn’t be one at all. Other than being an illogical choice, I see no reason to curtail people from freely entering into such exchanges. Like I said before, if there is perceived inequality (and really, is any voluntary transaction truly equal?), such as coercive economic conditions (mind you, are not the same for everyone), let the government sort it out by alleviating poverty or some other universal aid.
Imo, the particular trend in the market will determine who has more power. Though I’m not particularly fond of unions, I would allow them to exist. Though I dislike them, I wouldn’t openly rant against them, but if I did, I would simply point to inefficiencies rather than think of them as sign of a bad economy. People should be able to freely enter (and not be coerced) into joining a union. Again, it’s the sign of a free market and something that I would support, but would advise against using. (Unions have their place, but as we progress in the digital age, imo, they are less likely to be needed as evidenced by their plummeting membership).