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
Comments
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