As with price discrimination, I think there are only two possible ways this can go:
Either we pass some laws that deeply upset some oligarchs and future eras see this one as a "wild west" of data-driven exploitative practices, or we permanently destroy the bargaining power of everyone not big enough to be doing mass-surveillance, which is effectively the end of markets and the rise of a sort of advanced feudalism (which some would argue is quite far along already)
One obviously seems better to me, but to be fair I am biased, being in the class of people who don't own an enormous corporation
It's not hard to see where this is going. Rideshare drivers have already become essentially their own underclass in America. They seldom own the equipment of their job, yet they're responsible for all the maintenance costs, costs for their (mandatory) insurance are horrendous, and they're left with hardly anything before they've even paid for medical insurance or an apartment.
It's not really sharecropping, since Uber doesn't write car loans. Feudalism? In a society so utterly dependent on cars, that doesn't seem terribly far off.
Yea, feudalism is probably the best description, and it applies to cars as well as anything with a computer in it, as well as the more traditional land and food supply. This is not that surprising given that the safeguards that have been systematically dismantled over the last 50 years were by and large created to prevent feudalism, as was most of the apparatus of what we currently call "government"
It does now raise the question - are other countries, particularly those with well-developed public transit infrastructure, more insulated from this particular form of techno-feudalism? It seems to me like the essential-ness of a resource is what enabled feudal structures around it.
I think so, but the pushes to integrate privately-controlled computers into every facet of required infrastructure means the feudalism in other domains has come and will continue to tighten for any country that doesn't adequately rebuff it
I suppose the "good" news is that none of the rideshare companies have managed to prove that their business model is even profitable. So, even in this stupid postmodern techno-feaudalist hellscape, maybe we won't have people effectively indentured by their cars.
The entire history of the tech industry is one of profitability being a trifling concern compared to buy-in from the investor class and sometimes government subsidies. Feudalism doesn't require profits, only power over resources
Mega-rich people aren't investing in Uber in order to acquire power over serfs. They're doing it in order to make more money. So far, they seem to be mistaken in the potential profitability, but that doesn't make "feudal power over others" their goal.
Profitability may be a trifling concern for the companies, but it's not for the investors.
There's a lot of money in feudal power over others, once it's established, not to mention that it's an end-run around policy channels to reshape society. Some investors really do mostly want direct ROI and are likely disappointed by plays like Uber in this regard, but it's at this point kind of crazy to assume this is the main driving force behind such investments, given how often they cash out in power and policy change rather than direct profit
If history is any teacher here it's going to be latter with the loudest voices of support coming from people are convinced that these systems couldn't and aren't possibly harming them, that they are above-average and therefore benefiting, and only those slack-jawed lazy nonspecific others who aren't (but absolutely are) working hard will be the target.
That's definitely the recent history, and the current propaganda strategy of modern oligarchs, but looking even a little beyond living memory there are many other solutions history can offer us, including labor solidarity, trust-busting, and of course more extreme measures that most would likely prefer to avoid, but which history shows us do happen sometimes
The third way is that companies find hiring workers, with all their complaints and needs and desire for dignity, too inconvenient, so they replace them with things that have none of those.
Particularly relevant since this paper is primarily about ride hailing and delivery services.
Despite all the hand-wringing most claims to be able to do this seem pretty implausible at this stage. But for the sake of argument, assuming this happens, this is not different from the second scenario I've described. Of course, if there are no workers, one wonders how companies might find "consumers" against whom to price-discriminate, but with companies unilaterally and individually controlling both what people pay and are paid, the whole system of labor and consumption as a market is a fiction anyway. It's crazy that so many people seem to think that transformative technologies will both somehow replace all human labor and keep all present economic relations intact except for the ability of anyone to get a job, given how many economic choices have been made to center labor as the primary means by which people are supported. To reiterate, the options are prevent this nonsense through collective action (either in the form of a government or through other forms of coordination) or move to a more oppressive relationship between a tiny population of oligarchs and everyone else than the "labor market" that is ostensibly the way this economic relationship is currently arranged
For the ride hailing side of things, it's already happened; there is no question of plausibility. I've probably done 50 rides in 2024, and only two had human drivers.
And I'm sure that'll stay working in San Francisco as long as there's enough bribe money to cover pushing past the considerable concerns about safety in "edge cases." It's entirely possible that's forever, if nothing breaks up the current consolidation of power as described
Comments
As with price discrimination, I think there are only two possible ways this can go:
Either we pass some laws that deeply upset some oligarchs and future eras see this one as a "wild west" of data-driven exploitative practices, or we permanently destroy the bargaining power of everyone not big enough to be doing mass-surveillance, which is effectively the end of markets and the rise of a sort of advanced feudalism (which some would argue is quite far along already)
One obviously seems better to me, but to be fair I am biased, being in the class of people who don't own an enormous corporation
It's not hard to see where this is going. Rideshare drivers have already become essentially their own underclass in America. They seldom own the equipment of their job, yet they're responsible for all the maintenance costs, costs for their (mandatory) insurance are horrendous, and they're left with hardly anything before they've even paid for medical insurance or an apartment.
It's not really sharecropping, since Uber doesn't write car loans. Feudalism? In a society so utterly dependent on cars, that doesn't seem terribly far off.
Yea, feudalism is probably the best description, and it applies to cars as well as anything with a computer in it, as well as the more traditional land and food supply. This is not that surprising given that the safeguards that have been systematically dismantled over the last 50 years were by and large created to prevent feudalism, as was most of the apparatus of what we currently call "government"
It does now raise the question - are other countries, particularly those with well-developed public transit infrastructure, more insulated from this particular form of techno-feudalism? It seems to me like the essential-ness of a resource is what enabled feudal structures around it.
I think so, but the pushes to integrate privately-controlled computers into every facet of required infrastructure means the feudalism in other domains has come and will continue to tighten for any country that doesn't adequately rebuff it
Good point.
I suppose the "good" news is that none of the rideshare companies have managed to prove that their business model is even profitable. So, even in this stupid postmodern techno-feaudalist hellscape, maybe we won't have people effectively indentured by their cars.
The entire history of the tech industry is one of profitability being a trifling concern compared to buy-in from the investor class and sometimes government subsidies. Feudalism doesn't require profits, only power over resources
Mega-rich people aren't investing in Uber in order to acquire power over serfs. They're doing it in order to make more money. So far, they seem to be mistaken in the potential profitability, but that doesn't make "feudal power over others" their goal.
Profitability may be a trifling concern for the companies, but it's not for the investors.
There's a lot of money in feudal power over others, once it's established, not to mention that it's an end-run around policy channels to reshape society. Some investors really do mostly want direct ROI and are likely disappointed by plays like Uber in this regard, but it's at this point kind of crazy to assume this is the main driving force behind such investments, given how often they cash out in power and policy change rather than direct profit
If history is any teacher here it's going to be latter with the loudest voices of support coming from people are convinced that these systems couldn't and aren't possibly harming them, that they are above-average and therefore benefiting, and only those slack-jawed lazy nonspecific others who aren't (but absolutely are) working hard will be the target.
That's definitely the recent history, and the current propaganda strategy of modern oligarchs, but looking even a little beyond living memory there are many other solutions history can offer us, including labor solidarity, trust-busting, and of course more extreme measures that most would likely prefer to avoid, but which history shows us do happen sometimes
The third way is that companies find hiring workers, with all their complaints and needs and desire for dignity, too inconvenient, so they replace them with things that have none of those.
Particularly relevant since this paper is primarily about ride hailing and delivery services.
Despite all the hand-wringing most claims to be able to do this seem pretty implausible at this stage. But for the sake of argument, assuming this happens, this is not different from the second scenario I've described. Of course, if there are no workers, one wonders how companies might find "consumers" against whom to price-discriminate, but with companies unilaterally and individually controlling both what people pay and are paid, the whole system of labor and consumption as a market is a fiction anyway. It's crazy that so many people seem to think that transformative technologies will both somehow replace all human labor and keep all present economic relations intact except for the ability of anyone to get a job, given how many economic choices have been made to center labor as the primary means by which people are supported. To reiterate, the options are prevent this nonsense through collective action (either in the form of a government or through other forms of coordination) or move to a more oppressive relationship between a tiny population of oligarchs and everyone else than the "labor market" that is ostensibly the way this economic relationship is currently arranged
For the ride hailing side of things, it's already happened; there is no question of plausibility. I've probably done 50 rides in 2024, and only two had human drivers.
And I'm sure that'll stay working in San Francisco as long as there's enough bribe money to cover pushing past the considerable concerns about safety in "edge cases." It's entirely possible that's forever, if nothing breaks up the current consolidation of power as described