Prekariat

Prekariat is a neoliberalism product with the flexible labor market allowing to change quickly the amount of the salary (especially towards lowering), the employment level.

Emergence of a class of the "rickshaws of the 21st century" working for digital economy is, in fact, an internal outsourcing, detection by the capital in the developed countries of labor power which can provide working conditions, almost comparable with like those in Bangladesh or Cambodia. Internal outsourcing reminds process of internal colonization (see the book by Alexander Etkind "Internal colonization. Imperial experience of Russia"). Application to the "autochthonic" population the practician, fulfilled in colonies is especially selected (now — in the modern countries of outsourcing).

For 2018 the middle class which reached the peak of the power in the 1970th slowly but surely falls to a prekariat status. Also there are all premises for the fact that in the near future evolution of the proletariat in prekariat will continue and the last will become "nenuzhnoriaty".

The researches devoted to perspectives of substitution of people by robots on the industries and separate economies, already hundreds if not thousands. And their outputs are similar. If to trust researches of economists Karl Frey and Michael Osborne, in the USA by 2033 under the pressure of robotization 47% of the jobs existing in 2018 risk to disappear. The world bank counted that for China this share can make 77% at all. The International Labour Organization considers that even in such countries as Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand, 56% of workers fall under risk of automation

Structure of the prekariat:

• the able-bodied population occupied constantly on temporary work (drivers of Yandex. Taxi),
• the people working part-time or who are making the way seasonal and accidental extra earnings
• jobless population,
• people who are engaged in freelance and loan work
• migrants,
• students and trainees.

Are characteristic of the prekariat:

• unstable social status,
• weak social security and lack of many social guarantees,
• unstable income,
• deprofessionalization.

Labor relations between prekariaty and the employer carry the name a prekarization.

Digital economy as reason of weakening of weak

By 2018 automation, outsourcing and technology change of balance of forces already led to sharp weakening of "weak".

Robotization and implementation of the artificial intelligence (AI) will make "weak" just unnecessary. To such an extent, to which the invention of the internal combustion engine made unnecessary horses at the beginning of the XX century.

Many economists, including Russian, are inclined to believe that concerns are exaggerated. Their criticism can be reduced to a thesis that the world economy passes through automation process continuously at least since the beginning of the first industrial revolution, but occurs as a result of nothing terrible — new jobs are created.

However critics not quite realize that the artificial intelligence is capable to substitute "Polanya's skills" which were considered as exclusively human until recently (image understanding and a sound, their algorithmic processing and transformation, thin motility). Fields of activity where the person can be more productive, than the machine, probably, will be less and less.

As AI specialist Sergey Markov notes, the probability of automation of this or that profession in the short or medium term depends in many respects on three main signs of labor process — degree of banality and monotony of the transactions executed by the worker, implementation of customer interactions, partners and other participants of business process by means of standard interfaces (for example, standard document forms, sample communications through voice or text communication channels) and existence of the saved-up data arrays which can be used for training of the system of artificial intelligence designed to replace the worker.

Formation of the prekariat is in the field of the interests of economists for a long time. Meanwhile the digital economy which is violently growing in recent years is capable to give odds to all these processes. Here trends of even more drama, than in the last 50 years, shifts of balance of forces to the detriment of "weak" are observed.

In a case with digital economy, or as it is called still, "platform" or gig-economy, capital owners are, in fact, owners of algorithms. At many if not the majority modern a high tech companies and the more so plainly has tekhnostartap no tangible assets. Their capital asset often an algorithm and the communication medium — the platform, generally in the form of mobile application for this or that activity. Classical case here, of course, Uber.

The Algoritmizirovanny structure of gig-economy allows to bypass all formal rights of hired employees which got to them in inheritance from "coal democracy" of Mitchell — health insurance, the minimum wage, provision of pensions, the formal written contract, a severance pay, a social package, etc.

In 2018 in staff of Uber only several thousands of employees work, and on the algorithm-application downloaded in the smartphone on the company upon about 2 million drivers work worldwide. Few permanent members of staff of Uber receive quite good salaries though their welfare is incomparable with the income of owners of the company. And here 2 million drivers have median income slightly more than $150 a month. Uber does not consider drivers the employees and does not provide them with any social package.

All this is very good for owners of algorithms and clients, but at the same time it is the trend which is sharply strengthening a prekariatization, polarization of jobs, inequality and further easing "weak". In the countries with strong networks of a social security (the Netherlands, France, Germany, Sweden) uberization still poorly threatens washing out of the middle class, but here for the USA and some other states the situation can become sharper already in the nearest future.

Ideally are only necessary to an omnipotent algorithm of "the rickshaw of the 21st century" as temporary solution, before fast emergence of more perfect technologies. Machines without drivers — case of the near future, and to shareholders of Uber of 2 million self-employed will not be necessary soon: they already have a capital on which it will be possible to purchase or rent the multimillion park of independent machines and to add to them the algorithm providing transport at the request of the client.

Simpler configuration of the company — only one algorithm allowing owners of autonomous cars (for example, to large carmakers) to provide function of mobility on demand (in this case Uber will resemble Airbnb — the company consisting, in fact, of one algorithm connecting on the world of owners of the real estate).

By the way, the term sharing economy ("sheringovy economy", i.e. the economy based that agents share with each other this or that benefit) which stuck to Uber, Airbnb and some similar companies often misleads concerning its allegedly altruistic nature. Nobody with anybody just like that anything shares, just the algorithm and the application allow to rationalize use of this or that benefit and to increase return. For example, the same private car is operated only about 10% of time, and other 90% it stands idle (as well as some real estate). In fact, such optimization is limited in most cases to private households. In the industry and substantially in the field of services loading of capacities is optimized also so long ago, and in households the explicit candidate for optimization the car (in slightly smaller degree — the real estate). It is difficult to imagine attempt "expand" the TV in the house, the kitchen equipment or clothes. So the effect of sheringovy economy in itself is limited, though is important for separate niches (first of all for private ownership of cars).

Management prekariaty

By 2018 people from the wonderful new world of digital economy still were completely not forced out, it is necessary to optimize their activity, in particular building behind them total control. Opportunities which are given by new technologies impress.

Expensive and unreliable systems of supervision of hired employees (because their basis was formed by people whom, in turn, it was necessary to monitor) are quite successfully replaced with cheap and reliable algorithms. At the same time possibilities of routine resistance at hired (still) working in many spheres reduce practically to zero.

In modern gig-economy the algorithm brilliantly performs work with which even the best supervisor would not cope. In services Uber, Lyft or courier service Deliveroo the problem of control and assessment of workers is executed by an algorithm — the application on the smartphone.

In the same Deliveroo the algorithm monitors couriers. So far these another "rickshaws of the 21st century" were not replaced with drones, Deliveroo even more than Uber, is forced to combine up-to-date and medieval technologies that in itself is quite amusing.

The algorithm regularly sends to workers personal estimates in a month. Couriers who, by the way, as well as drivers of Uber, are not taken on staff of the company and legally are self-employed and have no social protection (the same classical prekariat), are estimated by several parameters at once. For example, "time of adoption of the order", "transit time to restaurant", "transit time to the client", "time at the client", "delay" and "unaccepted orders". The algorithm compares results of the courier to own assessment of what they should be. Can praise: "Your average time in way to the client appeared less than our assessment that means that you correspond to our quality level of services. Your average difference made-3.1 minutes". And can scold, as a result having punished ruble (or any other currency though bitcoin).

The algorithm of Uber also issues to the drivers ratings on the basis of replies to the requests of clients and estimates of clients (it is some kind of outsourcing of monitoring, as, however, and almost all other processes, except the transaction with the client and the driver).

The client benefits from cheaper and high-quality service. And here at workers the possibility of routine resistance completely vanishes, the balance of forces is displaced towards capital owners.

Different startups — we will tell, the Californian Percolata — is implemented by the systems of algoritmizirovanny assessment and control of work and to other spheres of a service sector (in the industry they became a norm for a long time), for example in retail.

Sensors in shops estimate a flow of visitors and then watch how many visitors became buyers and with what checks what seller helped them (still algorithmic economy nevertheless is forced to stand living sellers). Then set to each seller assessment, separating that check which he brought, on a flow of visitors, and issue it personal rating. The algorithm traces also in what pairs, the three, etc. sellers work better, and on this basis forms teams, looks at progress of sellers in different circumstances: someone works at a big flow of visitors, someone better — at small, someone — in the morning, someone — in the evening. As the founder of Percolata Greg Tanaka, "irony that we did not automate work of sellers, and automated work of the managing director notes; at the same time the algorithm copes with it better".

One more possible step in the spirit of digital economy — to bring sellers to an outsource and to make them self-employed as drivers of Uber or couriers of Deliveroo. And then in general to remove a profession as such — shops without sellers are tested by many tekhnogigant, for example Amazon^[1].

Participation in class fight

Prekariat feels the unstable social status, for people different options of behavior are possible:

• humility with a situation;
• attempts of adaptation;
• active actions (from actions against ruling regime before criminal activity).

99.9% of class fight at all not revolutions. Generally fight goes in the latent form of routine daily resistance which the American political scientist James Scott called weapon weak. However its value and possible transformation in something more serious in many cases are defined by the existing technology and purely practical opportunities of application.

Robotics

Notes