7 ms·

>The substitution of individual ownership for a communal one in which individuals retain a stake - a real community, or at a larger scale, a democracy - is not

>The substitution of individual ownership for a communal one in which individuals retain a stake - a real community, or at a larger scale, a democracy - is not inherently bad. IMO it's still terrible if there is effectively only one product option. A democratic decision is just as bad as a shareholder one if it's choosing to favor a majority group over the minority (2 wolves and 1 sheep voting for dinner choices). >outsources the generation of actual value to others If you don't think there is value in the network, feedback mechanisms, and simplicity of using Lyft/Uber/whatever, you have completely missed why they are popular. Cabs would still dominate and would have been as popular as Lyft and Uber are now if all of the value was generated by drivers with cars. I think you probably meant to say 'outsourcing the labor' to others, which is completely different and companies have been doing that for centuries. Labor != Value. I can go dig ditches in a yard for 10 years and not create any value.

lovich 8y ago
If the local can company had an option for me to call one of their cans and i could track it to my door, I probably never would have used Uber. There's some value in being an app you can use in any city, but the number of people who are jet setting around the world _and_ need a cab is probably quite low
- macleginn 8y ago
  Based on my travel experience and given that taxis are rather cheap in many countries, I’d say that most of the people jet setting around the world are very likely to use a universal cab-hailing app at some point.
  - lovich 8y ago
    My point, which I did not make clear, is that there aren't very many people traveling all over the world to begin with. Most people on the planet do not routinely visit other cities outside their home area and could easily be served by a single local company rather than needing a company with a network that spans the globe
    - macleginn 8y ago
      Of course, but all over the world is not needed: a company with a presence in whatever country you go for holidays/work is enough, so an app with a nearly global presence will get all the travelers' money automatically. (For instance, I never use Uber in my home country, but at the moment I am in Romania, and the fact that I could call a cab at the airport in a new city with zero hassle is very sweet; I imagine that people coming to my country and not in the know about the local taxi market will be in the same position.)
      - wott 8y ago
        If there is one place in a country where finding a cab has always been straightforward, that's an airport. I mean, it is easier to find a cab by walking through the airport doors than avoid the cabs there :-) That's really the place where Uber & Co add zero value.
        grimjack00 8y ago
        > That's really the place where Uber & Co add zero value. In my opinion, the added value with Uber at an airport is knowing the price up front. That's not always possible with whatever driver is first in line at the taxi stand.
- pathseeker 8y ago
  >If the local can company had an option for me to call one of their cans and i could track it to my door, I probably never would have used Uber. Yep, and for you to report them when they scam you on rides and lie about broken credit card machines. But alas, most cab companies don't have this so you turn to the apps that do provide it.
  - lovich 8y ago
    Yes, I will put it out there that Uber/Lyft/fasten/local Uber clone all provided an actual benefit since you knew up front what the cost is. That, however, does not mean that their network affects are worth their externalities as any individual company could provide services in a city where you knew the price up front, but did not rely on their global network effects
- paulie_a 8y ago
  I basically avoid cabs at all costs. I'd rather stand in front of an available cab and get an Uber because of crappy cab experiences are. The drivers are miserable and rude and the cleanliness is low.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Except that network is only valuable because it has people in it to do the labor.
- pathseeker 8y ago
  Yes, that's how network effects work. The connectivity provides value. Telephone networks were also useless without the people to call. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect A bunch of people independently operating their cars to give rides with no common means to find them, schedule them, and pay them makes them almost completely useless. The network is the only thing making them useful to consumers. It's like claiming Google is only valuable because it has websites to crawl.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "The network is the only thing making them useful to consumers." No, this statement is entirely and purely false. The reason the network has value is because there are people on the network doing the work. If no one was doing the work, the network would be worthless. Stop falling into the trap of believing that the people actually doing the labor are not contributing, or do not have value.
    - nybble41 8y ago
      "Stop falling into the trap of believing that the people actually doing the labor are not contributing, or do not have value." That is not what pathseeker said. You said (and pathseeker agreed) that the network is only valuable because there are people in it to do the labor. Pathseeker also said that having people willing and able to do the work is only valuable with a network to organize them and connect them to the people who need work done. You're both right. The people and the network are both contributing, and they both have value. Neither would be valuable on its own.
      - chii 8y ago
        > Neither would be valuable on its own. but often the network gets a disproportionaly large share of the reward (i.e., the extraction of value is higher on the network side vs the labour side). This is the same as the capital vs labour argument - one without the other isn't going to produce value, but the capital side is able to extract a higher value than the labour side.
bad-joke 8y ago
> Labor != Value. I can go dig ditches in a yard for 10 years and not create any value. Well that really depends on a) whether someone (including you) wants or needs ditches (farming irrigation? undertaker? dog hiding bone?) and b) the amount of time required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. If someone really wants a ton of ditches, and you can dig faster and deeper than anyone else, is your labor more valuable? As programmers we should hope so. I don't mean to sidetrack the conversation but let's not make sweeping statements of fact without thinking about them!
- pathseeker 8y ago
  >Well that really depends on a) whether someone (including you) wants or needs ditches (farming irrigation? undertaker? dog hiding bone?) You just proved the point though. It's not about how much labor was expended. If we are irrigating and I spend 20 hours digging a ditch by hand and someone spends 10 minutes using heavy machinery, they both produced the same value. Labor is independent of value. >If someone really wants a ton of ditches, and you can dig faster and deeper than anyone else, is your labor more valuable? Only if time and depth are a factor. It's the result that has value to the purchaser, not the labor. If said company could hire someone for half the price that does it in twice the time while still meeting the company's deadline, your labor is definitely not more valuable.

lovich 8y ago

If the local can company had an option for me to call one of their cans and i could track it to my door, I probably never would have used Uber. There's some value in being an app you can use in any city, but the number of people who are jet setting around the world _and_ need a cab is probably quite low

macleginn 8y ago
Based on my travel experience and given that taxis are rather cheap in many countries, I’d say that most of the people jet setting around the world are very likely to use a universal cab-hailing app at some point.
- lovich 8y ago
  My point, which I did not make clear, is that there aren't very many people traveling all over the world to begin with. Most people on the planet do not routinely visit other cities outside their home area and could easily be served by a single local company rather than needing a company with a network that spans the globe
  - macleginn 8y ago
    Of course, but all over the world is not needed: a company with a presence in whatever country you go for holidays/work is enough, so an app with a nearly global presence will get all the travelers' money automatically. (For instance, I never use Uber in my home country, but at the moment I am in Romania, and the fact that I could call a cab at the airport in a new city with zero hassle is very sweet; I imagine that people coming to my country and not in the know about the local taxi market will be in the same position.)
    - wott 8y ago
      If there is one place in a country where finding a cab has always been straightforward, that's an airport. I mean, it is easier to find a cab by walking through the airport doors than avoid the cabs there :-) That's really the place where Uber & Co add zero value.
      - grimjack00 8y ago
        > That's really the place where Uber & Co add zero value. In my opinion, the added value with Uber at an airport is knowing the price up front. That's not always possible with whatever driver is first in line at the taxi stand.
pathseeker 8y ago
>If the local can company had an option for me to call one of their cans and i could track it to my door, I probably never would have used Uber. Yep, and for you to report them when they scam you on rides and lie about broken credit card machines. But alas, most cab companies don't have this so you turn to the apps that do provide it.
- lovich 8y ago
  Yes, I will put it out there that Uber/Lyft/fasten/local Uber clone all provided an actual benefit since you knew up front what the cost is. That, however, does not mean that their network affects are worth their externalities as any individual company could provide services in a city where you knew the price up front, but did not rely on their global network effects
paulie_a 8y ago
I basically avoid cabs at all costs. I'd rather stand in front of an available cab and get an Uber because of crappy cab experiences are. The drivers are miserable and rude and the cleanliness is low.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

Except that network is only valuable because it has people in it to do the labor.

pathseeker 8y ago
Yes, that's how network effects work. The connectivity provides value. Telephone networks were also useless without the people to call. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect A bunch of people independently operating their cars to give rides with no common means to find them, schedule them, and pay them makes them almost completely useless. The network is the only thing making them useful to consumers. It's like claiming Google is only valuable because it has websites to crawl.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "The network is the only thing making them useful to consumers." No, this statement is entirely and purely false. The reason the network has value is because there are people on the network doing the work. If no one was doing the work, the network would be worthless. Stop falling into the trap of believing that the people actually doing the labor are not contributing, or do not have value.
  - nybble41 8y ago
    "Stop falling into the trap of believing that the people actually doing the labor are not contributing, or do not have value." That is not what pathseeker said. You said (and pathseeker agreed) that the network is only valuable because there are people in it to do the labor. Pathseeker also said that having people willing and able to do the work is only valuable with a network to organize them and connect them to the people who need work done. You're both right. The people and the network are both contributing, and they both have value. Neither would be valuable on its own.
    - chii 8y ago
      > Neither would be valuable on its own. but often the network gets a disproportionaly large share of the reward (i.e., the extraction of value is higher on the network side vs the labour side). This is the same as the capital vs labour argument - one without the other isn't going to produce value, but the capital side is able to extract a higher value than the labour side.

bad-joke 8y ago

> Labor != Value. I can go dig ditches in a yard for 10 years and not create any value. Well that really depends on a) whether someone (including you) wants or needs ditches (farming irrigation? undertaker? dog hiding bone?) and b) the amount of time required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. If someone really wants a ton of ditches, and you can dig faster and deeper than anyone else, is your labor more valuable? As programmers we should hope so. I don't mean to sidetrack the conversation but let's not make sweeping statements of fact without thinking about them!

pathseeker 8y ago
>Well that really depends on a) whether someone (including you) wants or needs ditches (farming irrigation? undertaker? dog hiding bone?) You just proved the point though. It's not about how much labor was expended. If we are irrigating and I spend 20 hours digging a ditch by hand and someone spends 10 minutes using heavy machinery, they both produced the same value. Labor is independent of value. >If someone really wants a ton of ditches, and you can dig faster and deeper than anyone else, is your labor more valuable? Only if time and depth are a factor. It's the result that has value to the purchaser, not the labor. If said company could hire someone for half the price that does it in twice the time while still meeting the company's deadline, your labor is definitely not more valuable.