5 ms·

Why the term 'sharing economy' needs to die

16 points by henrik_w 11y ago

maus42 11y ago
>A typical analogy for the sort of model people wanted to build was focused on household tools: if you own a drill, you likely don’t use it 364 days of the year; why not let others use it in the meantime? >In its purest sense, that is the sharing economy. But it very quickly ran into an issue: while some people act out of altruism, most don’t. My drill is mine. Why should I share it with you? > [...] And so “sharing” became “renting”. Quite great summary how socialism (at least the utopian kind) implemented at large scale, while a beautiful idea, still remains an elusive dream.
maus42 11y ago
Otherwise, article makes also a good point about services like Uber, that they are not really about sharing anything. A "sharing economy" version of Uber would be more akin to a car-pooling service.
- kedean 11y ago
  I mean in theory, that's what Uber is supposed to be. Drivers share space in their car while on the way to places, and make some spare change. In practice, drivers pick it up as a part time job and just drive around looking for pickups.
  - TheCoelacanth 11y ago
    I don't see any evidence that Uber is intended to work that way. Drivers don't get to filter riders to only get riders who are going somewhere near to where the driver wants to go. They have to take whoever is nearby, and can only reject a small percentage of requests before they are kicked out of Uber.
javiercr 11y ago
I wrote something similar one year ago: https://medium.com/@javier_dev/uber-is-not-sharing-economy-2f6f7ce6f076 https://medium.com/@javier_dev/uber-is-not-sharing-economy-2...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
pinkrooftop 11y ago
This is perhaps an application for blockchain technology, keeping track of "ride credits" that drivers earn and can only spend on rides from other drivers. It's not a Taxi model, it'd be a sharing model. I'm surprised Uber is not running a tier like this, because they could advertise completely free rides (just give a few rides first) and charge a small admin fee
- sewercake 11y ago
  Under this 'definition' of sharing, the only requirement seems to be for the goods transferred to be in a 'closed' system. If someone were ever to create a service that traded 'ride credits' with 'food credits', would it no longer be a sharing model? Couldn't we frame the entire world economy, based off of currency as a 'sharing model'? While I do think sharing models require some kind of 'inclusiveness' to make them viable, I think we must take into account the distribution of goods/resources, and the power relationships that evolve from providing these services. The only way (or at least the only way I can think of off the top of my head) to keep these in check is to allow everyone participating in the system to have a say in how the system operates. Something akin to a co-operative rather than a shareholder driven corporation.
cryoshon 11y ago
For the most part, the "sharing"/"gig"/"contractor"/"race to the bottom" economies are a result of generation-term poor economic times and skyrocketing income inequality resulting in fewer resources to go around and commodification of existing resources in order to make par. Sharing is far too innocent of a term, because really these "sharing" paradigms are another way of treading water. I hope that someone else has mentioned that before, but it seems absent in these discussions most of the time. You think the rich need to share/borrow their power tools via the latest app? Pfft, they don't even need to think about power tools because they can hire tradesmen whenever needed. Sharing is for people who can't afford an expert or their own personal items.
geebee 11y ago
"While renting out a spare room in a flat (or even renting out a flat) may be close enough to “sharing” to be hair-splitting…" It's actually good for me to read these sentences, because it reminds me that clear-minded people can have opinions that I consider borderline nutty. The best thing to do in these situations is to disagree firmly and unambiguously, but politely. Ahem. So, pop quiz, "commerce or sharing?": I put up a listing on a website that says "you may stay in my house on october 11-13 for $275 a night." If you don't pay, you may not stay. If you do pay, we now have a deal. How on earth is that so close to sharing as to be hair-splitting? It is so clearly a quid-pro-quo, money for service transaction that I think it is almost a pure illustration of commerce. If I wanted to illustrate the difference between sharing and commerce and where it gets ambiguous, this would be an excellent example of something that is commerce, not sharing, with no ambiguity.

16 points by henrik_w 11y ago

>A typical analogy for the sort of model people wanted to build was focused on household tools: if you own a drill, you likely don’t use it 364 days of the year; why not let others use it in the meantime? >In its purest sense, that is the sharing economy. But it very quickly ran into an issue: while some people act out of altruism, most don’t. My drill is mine. Why should I share it with you? > [...] And so “sharing” became “renting”. Quite great summary how socialism (at least the utopian kind) implemented at large scale, while a beautiful idea, still remains an elusive dream.

maus42 11y ago

Otherwise, article makes also a good point about services like Uber, that they are not really about sharing anything. A "sharing economy" version of Uber would be more akin to a car-pooling service.

kedean 11y ago
I mean in theory, that's what Uber is supposed to be. Drivers share space in their car while on the way to places, and make some spare change. In practice, drivers pick it up as a part time job and just drive around looking for pickups.
- TheCoelacanth 11y ago
  I don't see any evidence that Uber is intended to work that way. Drivers don't get to filter riders to only get riders who are going somewhere near to where the driver wants to go. They have to take whoever is nearby, and can only reject a small percentage of requests before they are kicked out of Uber.

javiercr 11y ago

I wrote something similar one year ago: https://medium.com/@javier_dev/uber-is-not-sharing-economy-2f6f7ce6f076 https://medium.com/@javier_dev/uber-is-not-sharing-economy-2...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

pinkrooftop 11y ago

This is perhaps an application for blockchain technology, keeping track of "ride credits" that drivers earn and can only spend on rides from other drivers. It's not a Taxi model, it'd be a sharing model. I'm surprised Uber is not running a tier like this, because they could advertise completely free rides (just give a few rides first) and charge a small admin fee

sewercake 11y ago
Under this 'definition' of sharing, the only requirement seems to be for the goods transferred to be in a 'closed' system. If someone were ever to create a service that traded 'ride credits' with 'food credits', would it no longer be a sharing model? Couldn't we frame the entire world economy, based off of currency as a 'sharing model'? While I do think sharing models require some kind of 'inclusiveness' to make them viable, I think we must take into account the distribution of goods/resources, and the power relationships that evolve from providing these services. The only way (or at least the only way I can think of off the top of my head) to keep these in check is to allow everyone participating in the system to have a say in how the system operates. Something akin to a co-operative rather than a shareholder driven corporation.

cryoshon 11y ago

For the most part, the "sharing"/"gig"/"contractor"/"race to the bottom" economies are a result of generation-term poor economic times and skyrocketing income inequality resulting in fewer resources to go around and commodification of existing resources in order to make par. Sharing is far too innocent of a term, because really these "sharing" paradigms are another way of treading water. I hope that someone else has mentioned that before, but it seems absent in these discussions most of the time. You think the rich need to share/borrow their power tools via the latest app? Pfft, they don't even need to think about power tools because they can hire tradesmen whenever needed. Sharing is for people who can't afford an expert or their own personal items.

geebee 11y ago

"While renting out a spare room in a flat (or even renting out a flat) may be close enough to “sharing” to be hair-splitting…" It's actually good for me to read these sentences, because it reminds me that clear-minded people can have opinions that I consider borderline nutty. The best thing to do in these situations is to disagree firmly and unambiguously, but politely. Ahem. So, pop quiz, "commerce or sharing?": I put up a listing on a website that says "you may stay in my house on october 11-13 for $275 a night." If you don't pay, you may not stay. If you do pay, we now have a deal. How on earth is that so close to sharing as to be hair-splitting? It is so clearly a quid-pro-quo, money for service transaction that I think it is almost a pure illustration of commerce. If I wanted to illustrate the difference between sharing and commerce and where it gets ambiguous, this would be an excellent example of something that is commerce, not sharing, with no ambiguity.