I initially drafted this from a conversation, loosely discussing how the gig economy works in this world (ahh typical casual sunday discussion). Its a new model for labour for sure - something worth looking at.
Since then, i’ve noticed that our local Singaporean gig-economy champion got into controvesy (don’t they always) for: i) hiring a member of parliament to (initially) support government relations, and ii) more recently, undergoing a whole bunch of job cuts.
The uniqueness of Platforms
Platform companies are interesting. I’ve incorporated as part of the broader economic evolution.
On one hand, they don’t have a fundmental product and are only as strong as their network and quality of products they bring onboard their platforms.
On the other hand, upon reaching a certain scale, they bring about of market-influencing monopolistic power - setting standards according to their whims.
They can indeed, with its data, optimise, aggregate and promote a broader reach to communities, and provide excellent services for the economy.
The problem with platforms in the current era
There was an article I read recently on why platforms “go to shit”. It was well written - though I can’t for my life remember how to find it again. It was a link off a link from an obscure reddit post.
The author had loosely described how such companies (be they ecommerce related, or service related) - go through phases of being kind to customers, kind to providers, before shafting all parties involved in pursuit of capitalist goals.
It was a natural, consistent lifecycle - and not a framework i disagreed with. It was written with a semblance of left-leaning wokeness, but nonetheless the author was astute in her pattern spotting.
In a nutshell, we’ve gone through the excitement and cycles of platform economies, but are now experiencing the hangover effect - a (more often than not) loss making business crawling towards profitability, and spoilt customers who (being held ransom) would love to talk shit about, while also begrudgingly use the platfom. Hardly the thriving model for society and business alike.
Such platform products and companies excel and decoupling output from labour. Whatsapp was built by a tiny team; and a recent simple battlefield-esque game had 3 developers.
Something well enabled by the explosion in tech / software; and likely even more so with AI.
The Epicentre of Commoditisation and its effect of the Labour force
The market effects of interest to me is that platforms lie at the centre and define the race to the bottom.
Non-commoditised products or services don’t really need platforms: they should theoretically be able to access customers directly (if their product is as good as they say).
But this has a secondary consequence: that commoditised products and services are invariably provided by commoditised skills and by extension, “commoditised” people.
Not exactly the equivalent as people-as-a-commodity (aka slavery), but it certainly defines an issue separate from some of the modern narratives of self determination if one works hard enough.
Working hard as a commoditised talent can surely be lucrative - just that its time:reward ratio is set by a mysterious corporate entity.
Societal Implications of Platforms
It leads me to believe that the in socialist or interventionist countries - such entities will always have a floor and it must be protected.
Large platofrms operating in countries like Singapore could eventually be a key partner in socialist work and distribution.
It points to the size and importance of workers and voters in such classes of “commoditised” work. Indeed there has been much debate on how to protect them, shielding them against race-to-bottom competition from other foreign labour.
There also appears to be a balance needed to keep the platform accessible and usable by workers who value flexibility and indeed creates a segment of jobs that people do indeed want and can access rather easily.
So can it work?
Unlike other countries, Singapore remains contrained by its local labour force.
In China (and most larger economies) for instance, workers from less wealthy provinces flock to major city centres and in doing so, offer all kinds of commoditised services run by digital tech giants.
Ultimately, the importance of Platforms to the commoditised job sector, along with its fundamental barriers to scale leads me to believe it be eventually put up for discussion to nationalise.
An Note on other similar Sectors
I’ve not been close to any financial consultants or advisors - but this is another sector that has low barriers to entry and can be considered, to a certain degree a “Commoditised” industry. White Collar Commoditised but is an odd concept and I wonder how this could be “platformised” over time.
But the tighter correlation of one’s own efforts to outcomes common in non-specialised areas could bring with it.. its own issues: predatory business, spurred by a winner take more mindset….
but I must believe it is tolerated to support the industry, as much as I sense it breeds some toxic virtues (note: opinion) of desire, wealth and materialism.
Did the insurance industry, for example, intentionally make its products so complicated and emotional that it requires an intermiediary to help normal human beings figure out what needs to be done?
I think reform is sorely needed:
Can’t products be better? Standard? Tolerated by regulation. But does it constitute a good job? Can people be repurposed for an alternative economic activity?
But what happens to the many people in this sector?
All the above are remarks from some one in a privileged position to access somewhat non-commoditised white collar work. and I must acknowledge that.