Techdirt Podcast Episode 27: The Rise Of The On-Demand Economy
from the beyond-uber dept
There are a lot of startups out there trying to become the "Uber of..." something, from valet parking to food delivery to dog-walking. But as much as this might look like mere bandwagon-hopping, it actually represents a fascinating and potentially important trend: the emergence of a new, highly efficient and flexible economy based around individuals offering on-demand services.
Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: economics, on-demand, podcast, valet parking
Companies: luxe, uber, wag
Reader Comments
The First Word
“I love your podcast and it gives me an opportunity to listen to other techies talk about tech issues and other such things. I just had a request. Can you guys add your podcast as a torrent? like maybe on ThePirateBay. or Kat.cr or ? I was also wondering if you will dedicate another podcast to talking about the recently passed "USA Freedom Act" that supposedly reforms the patriot act but, anyone who is techologically inclined knows this couldn't be farther from the truth with the exception in the bill of declassifying *some* of the formerly secret fisa courts documents.
Thanks,
3spryon
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"On-demand", eh? From a web-site that takes up to a week to RE-write?
The Pony Express speed, small-town uniformity of allowed opinion, and cracker-barrel opining, "them scalawags in Warshton Dee Cee be at it agin", take us back to happier times. Never change, Techdirt!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "On-demand", eh? From a web-site that takes up to a week to RE-write?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Capitalist paradise, hell for workers: the "on-demand" economy.
Uber and its "independent" employees who must make capital investments, Amazon's "Mechanical Slave-Driver", Wal-Mart and others forcing people to be on call for perhaps two hours of work, are all simply increasing excesses for the already obscenely rich by lowering living standards for everyone else.
Didn't use to be that way. Reagan promised tax cuts would be a "rising tide that lifted all boats", but was a neo-con lie. Instead the rich got super-yachts while millions of Americans who work full-time can't get out of poverty, let alone afford to invest in a house.
If the privileged writer of this article had to ever actually compete in capitalism, he'd think it was slavery. Instead, he's been able to coast along on what workers long ago were able to wrest from the greedy capitalists. Now again working people must wait for capitalist "demands" just like feudal serfs.
* Some new here may not recognize Masnick's acronym from long ago. Don't bother finding. I use the letters here just for fun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Capitalist paradise, hell for workers: the "on-demand" economy.
Uber and its "independent" employees who must make capital investments, Amazon's "Mechanical Slave-Driver", Wal-Mart and others forcing people to be on call for perhaps two hours of work, are all simply increasing excesses for the already obscenely rich by lowering living standards for everyone else.
Didn't use to be that way. Reagan promised tax cuts would be a "rising tide that lifted all boats", but was a neo-con lie. Instead the rich got super-yachts while millions of Americans who work full-time can't get out of poverty, let alone afford to invest in a house.
If the privileged writer of this article had to ever actually compete in capitalism, he'd think it was slavery. Instead, he's been able to coast along on what workers long ago were able to wrest from the greedy capitalists. Now again working people must wait for capitalist "demands" just like feudal serfs.
* Some new here may not recognize Masnick's acronym from long ago. Don't bother finding. I use the letters here just for fun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"On demand"
Uber, Lyft, and like business models are based on using contractors and volunteers, but there are concerns regarding liability as well as employment and tax issues. At the very least they're causing discussions about such issues, and if said discussions result in stronger labor laws society will be better off in the long run.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I love your podcast and it gives me an opportunity to listen to other techies talk about tech issues and other such things. I just had a request. Can you guys add your podcast as a torrent? like maybe on ThePirateBay. or Kat.cr or ? I was also wondering if you will dedicate another podcast to talking about the recently passed "USA Freedom Act" that supposedly reforms the patriot act but, anyone who is techologically inclined knows this couldn't be farther from the truth with the exception in the bill of declassifying *some* of the formerly secret fisa courts documents.
Thanks,
3spryon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "On demand"
Services like Uber are ultimately a way of having a lower strata of society at the constant beck and call of a higher strata of society whilst at the same time stripping away any employment rights of the lower class.
Tech dirt can't seem to see this as they can't see past the fact that it's done on the 'internet' and it's 'disruptive'. That years of fine tuning the regulation of the transport industry -because public safety - means nothing if it stands in the way of disruption from silicon valley.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "On demand"
That years of fine tuning the regulation of the transport industry -because public safety - means nothing if it stands in the way of disruption from silicon valley.
That's ridiculous and not our point at all. Rather, the point -- as I've explained many times before -- is that those "finely tuned" regulations are often not finely tuned at all, but rather used to limit supply in order to jack up prices way beyond reasonable.
And, more importantly, the entire point of most of those regulations was because of information asymmetry. So, yes, you had to be concerned for public safety, but that's mainly an issue when you have a one-off interaction -- i.e., when you'll never deal with the driver again. But the thing that's really interesting about these new services is that they do away with that information asymmetry by allowing passengers to rate drivers, thereby leading to a safer/better overall experience *without the need* for the regulatory burden on top.
Every Uber experience I've had has been world's better than every taxi experience. And often it has been less expensive.
So the argument that it's "having the lower strata of society" serving the "higher strata" of society is also a load of hogwash. Increasing the supply has made things much cheaper so that many more people are able to use these kinds of transportation services as well... and it's enabled more people to work.
Your talking points are not just stale, but they're wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Hmm. I'll see... not sure.
I was also wondering if you will dedicate another podcast to talking about the recently passed "USA Freedom Act" that supposedly reforms the patriot act but, anyone who is techologically inclined knows this couldn't be farther from the truth with the exception in the bill of declassifying *some* of the formerly secret fisa courts documents.
We've written about it plenty. Not sure we'll do a podcast on it for a variety of reasons. Also, I disagree with the "supposedly." It does, very much, reform the PATRIOT Act, but (as we've noted), it does so only a little bit when much more is needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "On demand"
Is, for example, $10 an hour running around wrapping parcels really work? That's not even pocket money.
"allowing passengers to rate drivers"
This sounds more like personal safety , from the driver - which is important. I was meaning the more general safety that comes from having properly licensed drivers , in properly certified vehicles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "On demand"
Where did you get that number? Anyone can throw around made up numbers. And $10/hour is more than $0, no?
This sounds more like personal safety , from the driver - which is important. I was meaning the more general safety that comes from having properly licensed drivers , in properly certified vehicles.
Do you have any evidence to support the implicit claim you're making that Uber rides are less safe? Or are you just making that up too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
-3spryon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "On demand"
In real human terms, i.e, feeding and clothing yourself; the question should not be "Is it more than 0?" but rather "Will it put cheese in my fridge?"
People don't take low paying jobs with no workers rights just for shits and giggles, they do it because they have a need to put food in their belly and a roof over their heads.
For you it's a novelty to use your phone to get your car parked, for the poor guy (actually wouldn't there need to be two, or does he walk to your car?) who has to settle for whatever fraction of the $15 it costs it's a shitty wage.
People died to get workers the projections they have and it fucks me off to see outfits like Uber try to erode these rights to make a buck. It fucks me off listening to people like you champion this shit because it's "on a computer".
It's OK for you to sit in one state and watch what happens in another, I don't have that luxury - where I live Uber is working on our central government to get laws changed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, that's wrong. It flat out forbids using selectors that would lead to bulk collection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "On demand"
So is your argument that everyone should be ordered to be given more than $10 per hour?
In real human terms, i.e, feeding and clothing yourself; the question should not be "Is it more than 0?" but rather "Will it put cheese in my fridge?"
Are you arguing for basic income? We had a whole podcast on that as well. Or are you arguing for something different?
For you it's a novelty to use your phone to get your car parked, for the poor guy (actually wouldn't there need to be two, or does he walk to your car?) who has to settle for whatever fraction of the $15 it costs it's a shitty wage.
If it's a shitty wage, then there are alternatives in the job market for him. I spoke to both of the drivers that I used, and they actually seemed to like it -- noting that for both of them it was a flexible way for them to make a little extra cash (one was a semi-pro athlete and the other was an actor). And, no, it's not two. For Luxe, at least, they all use boost board scooters to get to and from pickups.
People died to get workers the projections they have and it fucks me off to see outfits like Uber try to erode these rights to make a buck. It fucks me off listening to people like you champion this shit because it's "on a computer".
Really? Look, I know the history of labor fights. I have a degree in labor relations. I spent years studying this shit. Don't tell me that I don't understand the history of this stuff, because I can almost guarantee I know it better than you do.
And I think you're totally wrong. Uber doesn't "erode" these rights in any way. You're being totally misleading if you believe that.
And I don't find it interesting because "it's on a computer" but because *it's happening* and all your whining doesn't change that. And, from a pure resource allocation standpoint, it seems to be making better, more efficient use of resources -- which is a good thing, even for those of you who don't seem to understand the most basic economics.
It's OK for you to sit in one state and watch what happens in another, I don't have that luxury - where I live Uber is working on our central government to get laws changed.
How?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3361/text
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As for you haters, while there's no such thing as the free market, the market does exist and market forces are at work. It will continue to do what it does no matter how much protectionism is applied, a lesson I have learned over and over again here on TD.
It's not UBER or Lyft's fault that the neocons own the economic narrative so don't blame them for the state we're in.
Stop shooting the messenger; the growing on-demand economy is indeed a thing and we're all going to have to learn how to either adapt to it or make it work for us.
The dismantling of the welfare state and of workers rights is orthogonal to this discussion so take it elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]