3 ms·

>hose popular disruptive startups dump plenty of externalities on everyone around them. Don't think for a moment that anyone there is increasing efficiency for

>hose popular disruptive startups dump plenty of externalities on everyone around them. Don't think for a moment that anyone there is increasing efficiency for the sake of increasing efficiency globally Pretty lame analysis. There are lots of companies that are in it to do good or actually improve society. I'd even argue that society is net better off with Lyft (not sure about Uber) even though working there as an employee isn't great. Taxis were awful.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
> There are lots of companies that are in it to do good or actually improve society. I don't disagree. They rarely get media attention though, and I don't mention them here, because their disruption is a quite different thing from Uber/AirBnB disruption. For that "lame analysis" part, I'll give you a task: given that you wrote there are lots of such companies, name three. ;). > I'd even argue that society is net better off with Lyft (not sure about Uber) even though working there as an employee isn't great. Taxis were awful. Taxis were awful in many places, not everywhere. I'm usually taking people's word for it when they describe how Uber service is better than taxi (though I'm increasingly noticing stories about Uber quality declining). But there are cities, including my home town and the current town I live in, where taxis are almost universally good. And yet, Uber came and attacked taxis everywhere, whether good or bad. You can do things like that when you can freely break the law[0] and get away with it[1], and when you can lose money for longer than all your competitors can stay solvent. Honestly, Uber story looks pretty much like a typical story of a corporation entering international market and displacing all little local players, except with more disregard for law, and some weird belief people still have that Uber is a startup. Still, I'll grant Uber that some of the disruption came out for the better, because it allowed more ethical and legal competitors to emerge in this space. And yet: > working there as an employee isn't great Here's a thing: do we consider pushing more and more people into wage slavery to be "improving society"? -- [0] - Not just general "taxi regulations", but also traffic safety (a common story to hear was Uber without valid insurance) and tax laws (in my country, I remember our equivalent of IRS being the most active in hunting down Uber drivers). [1] - Half of the blame here goes to the municipal governments, who should've punished Uber immediately for breaking local laws. AFAIR only Germany behaved correctly, and started issuing service bans quickly.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  Not just general "taxi regulations", but also traffic safety (a common story to hear was Uber without valid insurance) and tax laws (in my country, I remember our equivalent of IRS being the most active in hunting down Uber drivers). Don't forget mandatory rest periods, enforced by technical means. My ex-girlfriend used to drive taxis and if you got caught breaking your mandatory rest period the fines were sky-high. Repeat offenders lose their taxi license. Contrast that to the nice Uber driver, who has no restrictions on driving you around after a double shift at the widget factory and a couple of double whiskies to drown his sorrows, before picking up passengers as an "independent contractor" What really seems lost on some of the more libertarian inclined, regulation hating chaps here is that most regulation is actually there for a reason. Among other things like protecting your life and health. When people here start to delve into the "evil hotel lobby that is so mean to this scrappy AirBnb start-up, which sends all their communication 'with love'" then I usually want to start to gag.
ionised 8y ago
> Pretty lame analysis. There are lots of companies that are in it to do good or actually improve society. Like who?

TeMPOraL 8y ago

> There are lots of companies that are in it to do good or actually improve society. I don't disagree. They rarely get media attention though, and I don't mention them here, because their disruption is a quite different thing from Uber/AirBnB disruption. For that "lame analysis" part, I'll give you a task: given that you wrote there are lots of such companies, name three. ;). > I'd even argue that society is net better off with Lyft (not sure about Uber) even though working there as an employee isn't great. Taxis were awful. Taxis were awful in many places, not everywhere. I'm usually taking people's word for it when they describe how Uber service is better than taxi (though I'm increasingly noticing stories about Uber quality declining). But there are cities, including my home town and the current town I live in, where taxis are almost universally good. And yet, Uber came and attacked taxis everywhere, whether good or bad. You can do things like that when you can freely break the law[0] and get away with it[1], and when you can lose money for longer than all your competitors can stay solvent. Honestly, Uber story looks pretty much like a typical story of a corporation entering international market and displacing all little local players, except with more disregard for law, and some weird belief people still have that Uber is a startup. Still, I'll grant Uber that some of the disruption came out for the better, because it allowed more ethical and legal competitors to emerge in this space. And yet: > working there as an employee isn't great Here's a thing: do we consider pushing more and more people into wage slavery to be "improving society"? -- [0] - Not just general "taxi regulations", but also traffic safety (a common story to hear was Uber without valid insurance) and tax laws (in my country, I remember our equivalent of IRS being the most active in hunting down Uber drivers). [1] - Half of the blame here goes to the municipal governments, who should've punished Uber immediately for breaking local laws. AFAIR only Germany behaved correctly, and started issuing service bans quickly.

CaptainZapp 8y ago
Not just general "taxi regulations", but also traffic safety (a common story to hear was Uber without valid insurance) and tax laws (in my country, I remember our equivalent of IRS being the most active in hunting down Uber drivers). Don't forget mandatory rest periods, enforced by technical means. My ex-girlfriend used to drive taxis and if you got caught breaking your mandatory rest period the fines were sky-high. Repeat offenders lose their taxi license. Contrast that to the nice Uber driver, who has no restrictions on driving you around after a double shift at the widget factory and a couple of double whiskies to drown his sorrows, before picking up passengers as an "independent contractor" What really seems lost on some of the more libertarian inclined, regulation hating chaps here is that most regulation is actually there for a reason. Among other things like protecting your life and health. When people here start to delve into the "evil hotel lobby that is so mean to this scrappy AirBnb start-up, which sends all their communication 'with love'" then I usually want to start to gag.

ionised 8y ago

> Pretty lame analysis. There are lots of companies that are in it to do good or actually improve society. Like who?