My parents got suckered into Amway back in the 80s and a lot of their generation repeatedly fell for other "run your own business" scams. I always hoped future generations would prove to be more cynical and less gullible and these kinds of things would die. But the next generations seem to be falling for them too, in even greater numbers, plus the modern versions like leadgen and dropshipping "businesses," NFTs, and other online scams. Not sure what can be done about it. It's not technically illegal for a fool to be parted from his money.
I'm currently watching a friend's wife get scammed for large amounts (well into the five figures at this point, maybe pushing six) of money in the self-employed "coaching" (life coach, business coach, that kind of thing) field, and now she's finally—evidently desperate for her "business" (sigh, if only she'd accept business advice from people she actually knows who aren't randos promising her easy money) to finally start making any money—joined them, as part of what appears to be an obfuscated affiliate program for some minor player in that world—you pretend you're selling "how to start making money coaching" content that's part yours and in part belongs to your "partner" and that you're involved, but really it's 99% their content (which they may well themselves have bought...) and you're just selling it and serving as customer support so they don't have to work, for a little cut of the action. At a subdomain on "your site" but it clearly redirects to their CMS with a custom landing page.
It's been a wild ride watching this happen. A whole world I didn't know existed, and lots and lots of people getting scammed out of tons of money (there's a whole Reddit ecosystem discussing this stuff, it's both fascinating and horrifying)
The Conspirituality podcast episode "Coaches Coaching Coaches" discusses how the wholly unregulated "life coaching" trend operates very much like network marketing, and cons buyers with similar claims to freedom from wage work.
What seems constant is how many people dislike being employees.
"Gig work" when dependent on a single major market mediator, such as Uber, Door Dash etc. is clearly a form of masked employment, your criteria notwithstanding.
The fundamental feature of freelance work is that you get your own customers and you are not dependent on a market maker who cuts you in.
Some of the other criteria seem arbitrary. Of course companies want to pay their employees per task, only if a customer is present, they love zero cost employees that are available as a reserve workforce to pick up any sudden demand. A monthly base salary is a labour protection for the employee, forcing the employer to take the business risk and distribute revenues from the peak times to the slow times, ensuring a stable revenue for their workforce.
It's a choice of the freelancer to work for only one app. Drivers in my city usually use multiple - Uber, Bolt, a local taxi company app. I had many Bolt rides in an Uber branded car and vice versa, and many Uber/Bolt rides in a "normal taxi" car. I saw the drivers switch between the different apps, choosing which one offers them the best rides right in that moment.
Food delivery is the same - I saw drivers have multiple different branded bags in the car when they delivered food to me.
I really don't see how it's masked employment if this can be done without any issue.
> The fundamental feature of freelance work is that you get your own customers and you are not dependent on a market maker who cuts you in.
They got their own customers - the gig work platform is the customer. How do you even define "getting their own customers"? Do I have to take them out to nice dinners? Is an ad in newspaper sufficient? What about an online ad? And what about an ad on a job platform? I worked for a private jet Air Operator company - their entire business was done through Avinode platform, that's basically Uber but for private jets. Are they masked employees of Avinode too?
Would you say that developers working through Upwork or Toptal are not freelancers? I specifically asked my tax government office this question - they said it doesn't matter whether there is a marketplace, what matters are the criteria I listed above.
> that are available as a reserve workforce to pick up any sudden demand.
> you are not dependent on a market maker who cuts you in.
Is the software freelance market created and dominated by Upwork, which arbitrarily sets prices and defines the product? No, they are just one of the many marketplaces. Customers don't expect "an Upwork solution" because there is no such thing, they are fully aware a myriad small developers sell their services there. The small developers take on business risk and they are rewarded with market freedom.
Compare that with Uber, where customers are interacting with the company as a finite product, they "get an Uber". In many cities, there is no such thing as a "ride sharing market". Uber might compete with other transport solutions, but the individual drivers clealry do not have market freedom, they are a fungible workforce.
The notion that drivers have Uber as a customer is just silly. By that standard, any employee has their employer as a temporary important client, erasing any distinction and employee protection. The clients are clearly the riders who use the aps. Can Uber drivers compete with Uber and short circuit their fees by establishing direct to customer relationships? If it's generally no, then Uber is not a marketplace, it's an end product and the suppliers of the services are either employees or other subcontractors that have their own employment law obligations.
> A monthly base salary is a labour protection for the employee, forcing the employer to take the business risk and distribute revenues from the peak times to the slow times, ensuring a stable revenue for their workforce.
This sounds like it should be the concern of the government, not a business. Such as a universal basic income.
The government takes care of that need by regulating tha labour market and shifting the burden onto the private sector, which in turn passes it over to the consumers through prices. It's a functional system more than a century old that is politically feasible today, unlike most UBI proposals. So until we can have superior alternatives in place, companies aren't really free to "disrupt" that social model.
It's the dark side of the cult of entrepreneurship built into the reaganite American Dream.
If the path to happiness is material success, and the path to material success is entrepreneurship, anything that looks like a shortcut to entrepreneurial success must be Good.
I mean, even here on HN there are plenty of people who put money into startups that predictably died - often not very different from thinly-veiled scams to provide founders with income. And let's not even get into cryptocurrencies...
what about actually running your own business? This totally negative take on Amway is one-sided. There was some young woman in MBA school in California and her Mom made lots of money on Amway to pay for that school, etc. Upon questioning, I believe that her Mom had two or three jobs at once, and some military service time, too.
