9 ms·

Stop calling it the Sharing Economy – That isn’t what it is

61 points by drcursor 11y ago

marcelsalathe 11y ago
Sharing: "use, occupy, or enjoy (something) jointly with another or others." Economy: "offering value for money" There are many very interesting discussions to be had about the Sharing Economy [1]. But the name isn't one of them. [1] https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/networks-and-the-nature-of-the-firm-28790b6afdcc https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/networks-and-the-nature-o...
ucaetano 11y ago
I never got why Uber would be part of a sharing economy. Sharing economy is about sharing underutilized resources, in other words, fully utilizing expensive assets by spreading usage across a larger number of users. The focus here is on the asset, not the service. AirBnB? Check, that's sharing economy, you're clearly increasing usage of an underutilized asset (your home when you travel, or your spare bedroom), although there are exceptions (those who buy a place to rent on AirBnB like a hotel). TaskRabbit? Nope. Uber? Nope. That's just the service economy, nothing new to see here folks.
- nhaehnle 11y ago
  Even AirBnB isn't sharing though, in the traditional sense of the word. This should be obvious when you compare it to CouchSurfing, which is genuinely about sharing. I would argue that the way it's traditionally understood, sharing is something that happens between equals, or people who have an intention of becoming equals. "Let me share some advice with you" is fundamentally about a relationship between equals or possibly a relationship between people who are not exactly equals in some aspect, but either feel like they belong to some common in-group or like they will be equals eventually. From this perspective, it's obvious that CouchSurfing is sharing while AirBnB isn't: on AirBnB, the expectation is that there is a split between the seller and the buyer; on CouchSurfing, there is a shared identity of "travelers" and an expectation of reciprocity. Let me also point out that by your own definition of how you use the word sharing, it's not so clear why you wouldn't call Uber a sharing service. After all, somebody might decide that their car is an underused asset which should be "shared". (Hold on, you say, those people are also selling their labor? Well, so do AirBnB hosts when they clean the room after you stayed in it...). tl;dr: Your conclusions don't actually follow from your implied definition of sharing, and your definition of sharing doesn't match the general feeling that the word evokes.
  - bmir-alum-007 11y ago
    Also: Freecycle and Popcorn Time# (and BitTorrent, both legal and illegal uses). # "Theft" is part of the economy too, with a purchase price of zero.
    - collyw 11y ago
      Don't confuse copyright infringement with theft. https://www.quora.com/Intellectual-Property-Law/Is-copyright-infringement-theft?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Intellectual-Property-Law/Is-copyright...
  - ucaetano 11y ago
    Guess I should have made my definition of "sharing" more explicit: Share: have a portion of (something) with another or others. I never said sharing should be free. Carrier share towers (for fees), companies share office buildings, warehouses, etc. "I would argue that the way it's traditionally understood, sharing is something that happens between equals, or people who have an intention of becoming equals." Well, that's your definition. We can spend the rest of our lives arguing about definitions. "From this perspective, it's obvious that CouchSurfing is sharing while AirBnB isn't: on AirBnB, the expectation is that there is a split between the seller and the buyer; on CouchSurfing, there is a shared identity of "travelers" and an expectation of reciprocity." So, by my definitions, AirBnB is sharing, so is CouchSurfing. "by your own definition of how you use the word sharing" Again, you're implying a different definition of sharing than I'm using (or even that the dictionary uses). "somebody might decide that their car is an underused asset which should be "shared"" The car yes, but you're not paying for usage of the car, you're paying for a transportation service. "Well, so do AirBnB hosts when they clean the room after you stayed in it...)." That's asset maintenance. Someone driving a car isn't asset maintenance, it's a service. And that's even charged separately, usually (as a "cleaning fee"). "tl;dr: Your conclusions don't actually follow from your implied definition of sharing, and your definition of sharing doesn't match the general feeling that the word evokes." Not only you wrongly implied my definition of "sharing", which I actually took from a dictionary, but you also didn't understand the difference between usage of assets and labor services. Another way to look at it is: what's the main cost component? Is it return on assets or labor? - Uber: labor - TaskRabbit: labor - AirBnB: return on asset
- pm24601 11y ago
  I agree, except AirBnB means you are expected to operate a mini-hotel (without the protections of a hotel). Clean room, fresh towels, etc.... AirBNB = you are renting. Notice you are operating without the protections of a landlord (i.e. landlords have formal leases) Notice you are operating without the protections of a hotel (i.e. hotels have as part of their contract a statement that hotel guests are not renters no matter how long the guest stays - read the contract on the back of every hotel door; it is there for this very important reason.) This is IMPORTANT. In most states if a person stays a certain number of contiguous days (~30days), has a key - they become a renter de jure. And renters cannot be evicted without a formal eviction process. AirBnB doesn't sound very "sharing" now does it?
  - ucaetano 11y ago
    "I agree, except AirBnB means you are expected to operate a mini-hotel (without the protections of a hotel)." Not necessarily, you can just rent a basic room with nothing else, some people do. But I agree with you on the point of the law, that's a tricky issue, but easily solvable by changing laws. But in the end, like my Uber example, the largest part of the cost is still the asset compensation, not the additional services.
personlurking 11y ago
What I question is the fact that these startups become too big to fail which puts them on par with corporations, meaning we start to support corporations rather than the underdog. Corps still win.
Patient0 11y ago
NB: I was confused until I realised that this is not the same Olivier Blanchard who is chief economist of the IMF. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Blanchard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Blanchard
- sebastianbk 11y ago
  Same here. I have read several of the IMF Blanchard's school in grad school and naturally thought it would be the same guy. I got a little confused too.
eveningcoffee 11y ago
"Laws that took decades to come up with by the community in which they apply, whose intent was to established the most ideal balance possible between cab fares and consumer protections. " This sounds a little bit too naive to me. I am not saying that it is not like this. Just this is not the full picture and perhaps not the honest one. I think that some industries do need disruption, but I agree with the author that perhaps not the kind we are seeing right now.
marincounty 11y ago
I think some companies/individuals hide behind the name(Sharing Economy)? It just sounds fair, progressive, and everyone benefits? This Sharing Economy has make a lot of people insanely rich, provided a lot of middle class jobs(Programmers, Tech workers), and a lot of promises to the rest of us. What's going to happen when these companies are streamlined, and running pretty well? All the kinks have been eliminated. The point, if they ever completely get past all the regulation; where all they really care about is customer growth? What's going to happen to all those good paying Programmer/Tech jobs? (In reality, I hope Tech workers will just move on to the next opportunity. I just hope certain companies don't get preferential treatment because they were the first to arrive? I hope Tech workers will have a lot of opportunities.) I do think some of us will look back, and reminisce about the good ole days? And yes--that seems to happen with ever bull market, and subsequent fall. I wouldn't be that concerned, but it looks like the big boys(Uber, Airbnb, etc.) are buying their rights to the party? A party that looking harder to get into daily? I thought by now, we would have a bunch of Ubers? It looks like their only competition is Lyft? Yea--I know everyone is waiting on the side lines waiting to see exactly what regulations Uber is required to follow? Maybe that's true?
rdlecler1 11y ago
Companies like Uber and AirBnb have put a spotlight on the cost of old and sometimes outdated information and are driving changes that were not going to come from within the system. In some cases we end up with a better end state, in others we are forced to weigh all the pros and cons and we rejig our current model.
- redblacktree 11y ago
  I think the end game here is better regulation for companies like Uber. Not to defend taxi companies, (i.e. not protectionism) but we need at least some of those rules to apply, such as background checks for drivers. There is also the question of whether drivers are employees or not. (and thus due greater benefits) To my mind, Uber is unquestionably a good disruption; I'm glad its happening. I hope that the "end state" won't be the status quo of today, however.
reagency 11y ago
Is anyone old enough to remember the original "Sharing Economy" -- ZipCar and FlexCar and the newish bike shares. When did the term get misapplied to "contractor economy"?
- aaroninsf 11y ago
  There's an incomplete history at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharing_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharing_economy but I'd like to see a histogram of uses... might be heard to filter for current usage/valance however. Needless to say, adopted and popularized because branding.
fwn 11y ago
I don't get why he thinks a sharing economy couldn't do all the things he points out to be bad without being mislabeled. He can argue "disruption" by rule breaking is a somehow objectively bad thing. He can believe that selling something shouldn't qualify as "sharing". All of this seems very constructed to me. To me it looks like he just doesn't like those services, rationalized it and spins it in a way where he assumes others were misleaded to gain attention.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  I would say that for the purposes of his essay, he's being a classic Burkean Conservative. That position means that our ability to discern all the things that could be lost by the disruption will be hard to determine up front. Agreed that the assault on the word "sharing" seems tacked on, somehow. I suspect it is - it means "somehow like Napster".
pluckytree 11y ago
Every time you say the word "no" in your article, it’s not a fact, it’s your opinion. Trying to change people’s minds is about educating them, not telling them to stop using words or phrases or to tell them that all their ideas are wrong.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
"The ticket scalpers" happen when prices of tickets are too low. So either price discovery of the correct price is too risky/costly or the seller wants to subsidize the buyer for some other reason. This isn't even dependent on the EMH - if there is no price theory at all, then... So Uber et al could actually be "ticket scalpers" and there's only a deeply normative reason - not a rational one backed by economic theory - to decry them. Of course this illustrates a .... nice example of shear between complex social arrangements and the (ab)use of mathematics. Taxi medallions are a textbook example of rents. A business model that goes after rents almost cannot be "evil. Of course if it's your ox being gored... "Sharing" is Just One Of Those Words - like "nice" or "fair".

61 points by drcursor 11y ago

Sharing: "use, occupy, or enjoy (something) jointly with another or others." Economy: "offering value for money" There are many very interesting discussions to be had about the Sharing Economy [1]. But the name isn't one of them. [1] https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/networks-and-the-nature-of-the-firm-28790b6afdcc https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/networks-and-the-nature-o...

ucaetano 11y ago

I never got why Uber would be part of a sharing economy. Sharing economy is about sharing underutilized resources, in other words, fully utilizing expensive assets by spreading usage across a larger number of users. The focus here is on the asset, not the service. AirBnB? Check, that's sharing economy, you're clearly increasing usage of an underutilized asset (your home when you travel, or your spare bedroom), although there are exceptions (those who buy a place to rent on AirBnB like a hotel). TaskRabbit? Nope. Uber? Nope. That's just the service economy, nothing new to see here folks.

nhaehnle 11y ago
Even AirBnB isn't sharing though, in the traditional sense of the word. This should be obvious when you compare it to CouchSurfing, which is genuinely about sharing. I would argue that the way it's traditionally understood, sharing is something that happens between equals, or people who have an intention of becoming equals. "Let me share some advice with you" is fundamentally about a relationship between equals or possibly a relationship between people who are not exactly equals in some aspect, but either feel like they belong to some common in-group or like they will be equals eventually. From this perspective, it's obvious that CouchSurfing is sharing while AirBnB isn't: on AirBnB, the expectation is that there is a split between the seller and the buyer; on CouchSurfing, there is a shared identity of "travelers" and an expectation of reciprocity. Let me also point out that by your own definition of how you use the word sharing, it's not so clear why you wouldn't call Uber a sharing service. After all, somebody might decide that their car is an underused asset which should be "shared". (Hold on, you say, those people are also selling their labor? Well, so do AirBnB hosts when they clean the room after you stayed in it...). tl;dr: Your conclusions don't actually follow from your implied definition of sharing, and your definition of sharing doesn't match the general feeling that the word evokes.
- bmir-alum-007 11y ago
  Also: Freecycle and Popcorn Time# (and BitTorrent, both legal and illegal uses). # "Theft" is part of the economy too, with a purchase price of zero.
  - collyw 11y ago
    Don't confuse copyright infringement with theft. https://www.quora.com/Intellectual-Property-Law/Is-copyright-infringement-theft?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Intellectual-Property-Law/Is-copyright...
- ucaetano 11y ago
  Guess I should have made my definition of "sharing" more explicit: Share: have a portion of (something) with another or others. I never said sharing should be free. Carrier share towers (for fees), companies share office buildings, warehouses, etc. "I would argue that the way it's traditionally understood, sharing is something that happens between equals, or people who have an intention of becoming equals." Well, that's your definition. We can spend the rest of our lives arguing about definitions. "From this perspective, it's obvious that CouchSurfing is sharing while AirBnB isn't: on AirBnB, the expectation is that there is a split between the seller and the buyer; on CouchSurfing, there is a shared identity of "travelers" and an expectation of reciprocity." So, by my definitions, AirBnB is sharing, so is CouchSurfing. "by your own definition of how you use the word sharing" Again, you're implying a different definition of sharing than I'm using (or even that the dictionary uses). "somebody might decide that their car is an underused asset which should be "shared"" The car yes, but you're not paying for usage of the car, you're paying for a transportation service. "Well, so do AirBnB hosts when they clean the room after you stayed in it...)." That's asset maintenance. Someone driving a car isn't asset maintenance, it's a service. And that's even charged separately, usually (as a "cleaning fee"). "tl;dr: Your conclusions don't actually follow from your implied definition of sharing, and your definition of sharing doesn't match the general feeling that the word evokes." Not only you wrongly implied my definition of "sharing", which I actually took from a dictionary, but you also didn't understand the difference between usage of assets and labor services. Another way to look at it is: what's the main cost component? Is it return on assets or labor? - Uber: labor - TaskRabbit: labor - AirBnB: return on asset
pm24601 11y ago
I agree, except AirBnB means you are expected to operate a mini-hotel (without the protections of a hotel). Clean room, fresh towels, etc.... AirBNB = you are renting. Notice you are operating without the protections of a landlord (i.e. landlords have formal leases) Notice you are operating without the protections of a hotel (i.e. hotels have as part of their contract a statement that hotel guests are not renters no matter how long the guest stays - read the contract on the back of every hotel door; it is there for this very important reason.) This is IMPORTANT. In most states if a person stays a certain number of contiguous days (~30days), has a key - they become a renter de jure. And renters cannot be evicted without a formal eviction process. AirBnB doesn't sound very "sharing" now does it?
- ucaetano 11y ago
  "I agree, except AirBnB means you are expected to operate a mini-hotel (without the protections of a hotel)." Not necessarily, you can just rent a basic room with nothing else, some people do. But I agree with you on the point of the law, that's a tricky issue, but easily solvable by changing laws. But in the end, like my Uber example, the largest part of the cost is still the asset compensation, not the additional services.

personlurking 11y ago

What I question is the fact that these startups become too big to fail which puts them on par with corporations, meaning we start to support corporations rather than the underdog. Corps still win.

Patient0 11y ago

NB: I was confused until I realised that this is not the same Olivier Blanchard who is chief economist of the IMF. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Blanchard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Blanchard

sebastianbk 11y ago
Same here. I have read several of the IMF Blanchard's school in grad school and naturally thought it would be the same guy. I got a little confused too.

eveningcoffee 11y ago

"Laws that took decades to come up with by the community in which they apply, whose intent was to established the most ideal balance possible between cab fares and consumer protections. " This sounds a little bit too naive to me. I am not saying that it is not like this. Just this is not the full picture and perhaps not the honest one. I think that some industries do need disruption, but I agree with the author that perhaps not the kind we are seeing right now.

marincounty 11y ago

I think some companies/individuals hide behind the name(Sharing Economy)? It just sounds fair, progressive, and everyone benefits? This Sharing Economy has make a lot of people insanely rich, provided a lot of middle class jobs(Programmers, Tech workers), and a lot of promises to the rest of us. What's going to happen when these companies are streamlined, and running pretty well? All the kinks have been eliminated. The point, if they ever completely get past all the regulation; where all they really care about is customer growth? What's going to happen to all those good paying Programmer/Tech jobs? (In reality, I hope Tech workers will just move on to the next opportunity. I just hope certain companies don't get preferential treatment because they were the first to arrive? I hope Tech workers will have a lot of opportunities.) I do think some of us will look back, and reminisce about the good ole days? And yes--that seems to happen with ever bull market, and subsequent fall. I wouldn't be that concerned, but it looks like the big boys(Uber, Airbnb, etc.) are buying their rights to the party? A party that looking harder to get into daily? I thought by now, we would have a bunch of Ubers? It looks like their only competition is Lyft? Yea--I know everyone is waiting on the side lines waiting to see exactly what regulations Uber is required to follow? Maybe that's true?

rdlecler1 11y ago

Companies like Uber and AirBnb have put a spotlight on the cost of old and sometimes outdated information and are driving changes that were not going to come from within the system. In some cases we end up with a better end state, in others we are forced to weigh all the pros and cons and we rejig our current model.

redblacktree 11y ago
I think the end game here is better regulation for companies like Uber. Not to defend taxi companies, (i.e. not protectionism) but we need at least some of those rules to apply, such as background checks for drivers. There is also the question of whether drivers are employees or not. (and thus due greater benefits) To my mind, Uber is unquestionably a good disruption; I'm glad its happening. I hope that the "end state" won't be the status quo of today, however.

reagency 11y ago

Is anyone old enough to remember the original "Sharing Economy" -- ZipCar and FlexCar and the newish bike shares. When did the term get misapplied to "contractor economy"?

aaroninsf 11y ago
There's an incomplete history at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharing_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharing_economy but I'd like to see a histogram of uses... might be heard to filter for current usage/valance however. Needless to say, adopted and popularized because branding.

fwn 11y ago

I don't get why he thinks a sharing economy couldn't do all the things he points out to be bad without being mislabeled. He can argue "disruption" by rule breaking is a somehow objectively bad thing. He can believe that selling something shouldn't qualify as "sharing". All of this seems very constructed to me. To me it looks like he just doesn't like those services, rationalized it and spins it in a way where he assumes others were misleaded to gain attention.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
I would say that for the purposes of his essay, he's being a classic Burkean Conservative. That position means that our ability to discern all the things that could be lost by the disruption will be hard to determine up front. Agreed that the assault on the word "sharing" seems tacked on, somehow. I suspect it is - it means "somehow like Napster".

pluckytree 11y ago

Every time you say the word "no" in your article, it’s not a fact, it’s your opinion. Trying to change people’s minds is about educating them, not telling them to stop using words or phrases or to tell them that all their ideas are wrong.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

"The ticket scalpers" happen when prices of tickets are too low. So either price discovery of the correct price is too risky/costly or the seller wants to subsidize the buyer for some other reason. This isn't even dependent on the EMH - if there is no price theory at all, then... So Uber et al could actually be "ticket scalpers" and there's only a deeply normative reason - not a rational one backed by economic theory - to decry them. Of course this illustrates a .... nice example of shear between complex social arrangements and the (ab)use of mathematics. Taxi medallions are a textbook example of rents. A business model that goes after rents almost cannot be "evil. Of course if it's your ox being gored... "Sharing" is Just One Of Those Words - like "nice" or "fair".