4 ms·
The claim was never that "‘Sharing’ was supposed to save us" nor any of the other allegations in the article. In fact there never was any unified claims. Of c
by em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
The claim was never that "‘Sharing’ was supposed to save us" nor any of the other allegations in the article. In fact there never was any unified claims.
Of course the individual companies made claims about how their platform would save you a bit of time and money and friction. And that has largely been true. Millions of people each saves a little time and money, and that in aggregate has benefited us tremendously.
The sharing economy never promised the moon.
- door5 8y agoWho is "us"? Maybe upper middle class consumers, but not the workers at these companies.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- orangecat 8y agoMaybe upper middle class consumers, but not the workers at these companies. That is not at all clear: https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/workforce/uber-competing-restaurants-workers https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/workforce/uber-comp.... It turns out that flexible hours are a large benefit for many people.
- walterstucco 8y agoYou don't need Uber or Airbnb to do what they do and work flexible hours
- geezerjay 8y agoIf those providing services through platforms such as Uber or airbnb didn't benefitted from them then they'd be doing something else instead. Furthermore, of detractors actually cared about "the workers" then they'd be worried about how they have no better options instead of attacking the best options they have. And no, banning Uber or airbnb does not make the workers' lives any better. It just an option off the table, and to some it's the best option they have.
- door5 8y agoThere are choices other than unemployment and shitty gig jobs -- stable, well-paying employment with benefits. Whether these jobs exist or not isn't because of some abstract economic theory: they have to be fought for and won through political struggle (ie unions & strikes). The gig economy disempowers workers and makes solidarity among workers more difficult, because workers may not have a single employer, and are easily replaceable. I'm not saying we should ban these companies, I'm saying their workers should be paid much more than they currently are.
- geezerjay 8y ago> There are choices other than unemployment and shitty gig jobs -- stable, well-paying employment with benefits. There really isn't. Everyone looks after their best interests, and those working for companies such as Uber are already choosing the best option that's available to them. Zero people have passed on well-paying jobs with benefits to pursue a career delivering food through Uber eats. Making vacuous statements regarding the myriad of better options the gig economy workers forego to pursue the siren song of delivering pizzas makes as much sense as depicting winning the lottery as a valid alternative to working a day job, and it's an insult to those who want to make a living but have limited options. People choose to deliver pizzas for a living because it's the best option available to them, and complaining that they should instead just get a stable well-paying job with benefits makes as much sense as complaining that starving people should eat cake instead.
- door5 8y agoyou seem to think that jobs just exist, and pay a certain wage, and that wage is fixed and this is the law of the universe. political struggle (higher minimum wage, stronger regulations, unions, etc) drives wages up.
- pmichalina 8y agoHacker News is a cesspool of anti market socialist types. I don’t even know why I read it anymore. Is discouraging how comments like yours are downvoted into oblivion even though they are the simplest, balanced, and virtuous of the lot. State intervention is never the answer. The geniuses of hacker news are all philosopher king wannabes.
- dredmorbius 8y agoIn a world where, as I’ve argued, average is over — the skills required for any good job keep rising — a lot of people who might not be able to acquire those skills can still earn a good living now by building their own branded reputations, whether it is to rent their kids’ rooms, their cars or their power tools. -- Thomas Friedman, The New York Times, July 21, 2013 https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/opinion/sunday/friedman-welcome-to-the-sharing-economy.html?pagewanted=all https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/opinion/sunday/friedman-w... HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6076875 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6076875
- neonate 8y agoWell, that's Friedman. If ever there were an exception to prove the rule.
- dredmorbius 8y agoI'm all but positive there are more. That turned up just looking through older "sharing economy" posts in HN. And a single instance suffices to disprove the claim made. Though it's somewhat heartening to see that the skepticism was dialed way up from the start, for the most part, among commenters.