what kind of patronizing ivory-tower marxist bs is that, these apps give people a way to earn a living, especially important for those in disadvantaged socioeconomic strata the authors claim to care about.
The author would rather keep people unemployed and on welfare as to not to offend their sensibilities, such typical fake liberalism.
He's making the point that an unstable underpayed job is not something anyone would want. It's a fair question to ask which jobs we want in our society and which not.
You probably would argue that "at least they have a job", but the jobs people have shapes the society we life in, stable, unstable, reasonably paid or not
why would someone decide for others what they want or don't want?
you can get a paying gig with apps even if you don't have a stable job record, prior convictions, bad credit, history of addiction or mental health issues or whatnot, you don't need to pass excruciating rounds of "background checks" and interviews which would filter you out because you're poor or look different
People can raise themselves from poverty and support their family, even with these temp gigs you can pay your bills and avoid eviction, how arrogant and patronizing someone can be to deny people a honest way to make a living
You don't appear to connect some people having no choice with their lack of choice being exploited.
The issue with people discriminated against is discrimination. The solution is not devising some totally new form of employment that has no security, no benefits, etc. so that people we hate can feed themselves. The solution is stopping discrimination (which btw, has been successful...it isn't a panacea). If you offered people doing these jobs the chance to take a normal job that paid the same, they would mostly take it.
And the problem is that many people who work these jobs can't "support their family" (again, ppl do this work because they have no choice). These jobs aren't unlocking some new source of productivity. Uber has not made taxis faster or cheaper. Uber has just unleashed a bidding war where prices get driven down (benefitting relatively wealthy people) as activities that were formerly "jobs" are now self-employed. For people who drive taxis a 10% drop in income is material, for people who take taxis a 10% drop in prices is immaterial. It is that simple.
> why would someone decide for others what they want or don't want?
Because economists and others want to assess the state of the economy, which is influenced by whether people have jobs that provide health insurance, savings, security, stability, etc.
i know right? they somehow converged, but if you look at history of marxist movement, e.g. Russian Bolsheviks, they all started as upper class "liberals" sympathizing with the suffering of the underprivileged masses. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The author would rather keep people unemployed and on welfare as to not to offend their sensibilities, such typical fake liberalism.