3 ms·

I meant to imply that Uber and AirBnB have other investors which aren't really treated as such by the legal system: the drivers and hosts who have invested thei

by CamTin 8y ago

I meant to imply that Uber and AirBnB have other investors which aren't really treated as such by the legal system: the drivers and hosts who have invested their time and capital driving, hosting guests, buying cars, and renting or buying property. I never meant to imply that the "actual" investors weren't real investors, only that the other sort is just as "actual" despite the legal reality where they are considered the only investors.

harryh 8y ago
This has very little to do with the legal system[1] and much more to do with voluntary exchange. Investors voluntarily gave money to Uber in return for equity. Drivers voluntarily signed up and started driving in return for cash. Either of those exchanges could have been negotiated differently by either side but they chose not to. Such is the world we live in. 1. Obviously not zero, as this AirBnB request makes clear, but for the most part these sorts of restrictions can be dealt with if both sides really want it.
- allenz 8y ago
  You're still making an ideological argument, though you might not realize it. The question is whether workers should have some degree of ownership and control of their company. You point out that the workers voluntarily gave that up. The broader question is whether free market outcomes must be fair/best. What you ignore is that in an unjust society with imbalances of power, markets will reflect and amplify those inequities. For example, what do you make of the fact that most board members are white men? Will you argue that this is the fair outcome? Or is it possible that there other explanations and better outcomes?
  - harryh 8y ago
    CamTin said "Uber and AirBnB have other investors which aren't really treated as such by the legal system" and I pointed out that this wasn't really true. Now perhaps this is bad. Perhaps we would live in a more fair world if our legal system treated Uber drivers and AirBnB hosts differently and forced certain kinds of compensation structures on those transactions. Perhaps that would serve to create a more fair world, but that is not relevant to the point I was making.
    - allenz 8y ago
      CamTin was saying that workers should be considered investors in a moral sense: they put time and effort into the company and deserve a share of the profits. Obviously, workers are not investors in the literal sense.
      - CamTin 8y ago
        I was actually trying to say something more than that workers should be considered investors, because Uber drivers and AirBnB hosts are more than just workers: they literally supply the main working capital of their respective concerns. They are owner-operators in the same sense that a taxi driver who owns his cab is, or in the same sense as an orange grower who is part of the "Florida's Natural" co-op. Certainly workers deserve a seat at the table, and that's a fine debate to have, but surely even the most dyed-in-the-wool capitalists can agree that the owners of the capital deserve a seat at the table, and that an enterprise which by fiat excludes major capital contributors from ownership is not really a capitalist enterprise, but rather some other more exploitative form.
        harryh 8y ago
        If the owners of the houses & cars want to sign over their property to AirBnB & Uber then you might have a point, but if they want to keep their property for themselves then they aren't really supplying "the main working capital of their respective concerns." You can't have your cake and eat it too.

by CamTin 8y ago

harryh 8y ago

This has very little to do with the legal system[1] and much more to do with voluntary exchange. Investors voluntarily gave money to Uber in return for equity. Drivers voluntarily signed up and started driving in return for cash. Either of those exchanges could have been negotiated differently by either side but they chose not to. Such is the world we live in. 1. Obviously not zero, as this AirBnB request makes clear, but for the most part these sorts of restrictions can be dealt with if both sides really want it.

allenz 8y ago
You're still making an ideological argument, though you might not realize it. The question is whether workers should have some degree of ownership and control of their company. You point out that the workers voluntarily gave that up. The broader question is whether free market outcomes must be fair/best. What you ignore is that in an unjust society with imbalances of power, markets will reflect and amplify those inequities. For example, what do you make of the fact that most board members are white men? Will you argue that this is the fair outcome? Or is it possible that there other explanations and better outcomes?
- harryh 8y ago
  CamTin said "Uber and AirBnB have other investors which aren't really treated as such by the legal system" and I pointed out that this wasn't really true. Now perhaps this is bad. Perhaps we would live in a more fair world if our legal system treated Uber drivers and AirBnB hosts differently and forced certain kinds of compensation structures on those transactions. Perhaps that would serve to create a more fair world, but that is not relevant to the point I was making.
  - allenz 8y ago
    CamTin was saying that workers should be considered investors in a moral sense: they put time and effort into the company and deserve a share of the profits. Obviously, workers are not investors in the literal sense.
    - CamTin 8y ago
      I was actually trying to say something more than that workers should be considered investors, because Uber drivers and AirBnB hosts are more than just workers: they literally supply the main working capital of their respective concerns. They are owner-operators in the same sense that a taxi driver who owns his cab is, or in the same sense as an orange grower who is part of the "Florida's Natural" co-op. Certainly workers deserve a seat at the table, and that's a fine debate to have, but surely even the most dyed-in-the-wool capitalists can agree that the owners of the capital deserve a seat at the table, and that an enterprise which by fiat excludes major capital contributors from ownership is not really a capitalist enterprise, but rather some other more exploitative form.
      - harryh 8y ago
        If the owners of the houses & cars want to sign over their property to AirBnB & Uber then you might have a point, but if they want to keep their property for themselves then they aren't really supplying "the main working capital of their respective concerns." You can't have your cake and eat it too.