12 ms·

It's debatable which SV debacle is the worst, but Airbnb and Uber are probably the most baldly extractive examples; they had no long-term strategy beyond grabbi

by jtode 3y ago

It's debatable which SV debacle is the worst, but Airbnb and Uber are probably the most baldly extractive examples; they had no long-term strategy beyond grabbing a stake in the lawlessness and attempting to own that segment somehow, forever. These will be the first to go down as interest rates do not, because they do the opposite of creating value.

Sakos 3y ago
I'dsay Airbnb is several orders of magnitude worse because housing stock is generally extremely limited and most places have very low production rates. Services like Uber have quite a few tangible benefits that put it in another category for me.
- scrubs 3y ago
  "housing stock is generally extremely limited" Agree .. but why is something I'd love to learn
  - tuatoru 3y ago
    There's a nice review of a book, on Astral Codex Ten,[1] that suggests a large part of the answer is a combination of:- a) The design of the US's government system overly privileging its judicial branch b) Ralph Nader. 1. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-public-citizens https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-publi...
    - Der_Einzige 3y ago
      Ralph Nader is objectively a good man, and the things he's done for this country have left it unequivocally better. This substack article is laughably bad. Seriously, blaming him for encouraging citizens to sue the government? Oh please. This man was character assassinated enough in the early 2000s. Let him rest.
      - cvalka 3y ago
        Ralph Nader will burn in hell.
        Der_Einzige 3y ago
        Tu quoque
  - BirdieNZ 3y ago
    There's a combination of factors, of which some are: - Holding cost of land is near 0 in most cities, so you can use it extremely unproductively without any issues. There's a Christmas tree farm in a central suburb in my city; it could easily hold a 5-story apartment block or 8 townhouses housing tens of people instead. [Solution: land value tax] - In most Western democracies, there are significant regulatory requirements that make it more expensive to build housing. This isn't necessarily entirely bad, but it does increase the cost to build more housing, thus reducing its supply. [Solution: there's no real easy solution for this one. Some regulations are necessary, it's hard work to make the regulations really good] - In most cities, there are restrictions on what you can build and where. Again, not always entirely bad per se, but the settings are usually dialed up to the point of absurdity. This means even if you wanted to build more housing within some suburb, you might be unable to build it densely enough to increase how many people are housed. [Solution: more flexible zoning laws to enable more freedom in what people can build on their land; if you want a standalone house, go for it, if you want a 28 story apartment block, go for it, if you want a 3-story townhouse row, go for it, if you want a work-and-live store with an apartment on top, go for it] - Even in areas where there are fewer restrictions, e.g. new land areas opened up for development, developers are incentivised to keep the available supply of housing low to keep the price high. This means that a large development of hundreds of houses will often only release the houses 5-10 at a time, artificially reducing supply. [Solution: increase the holding price of land, aka land value tax]
    - brutusborn 3y ago
      I’m happy to see someone advocating LVT, it doesn’t seem to come up much in debates on housing affordability. Reading “Progress and Poverty” really opened my eyes to how distortionary and immoral most taxation systems are.
  - diogenescynic 3y ago
    Zoning, permitting, and property taxes (especially in California) encourage people to just sit on old properties instead of using them more efficiently.
_8j50 3y ago
They do the opposite of creating value? Are you serious? What bubble do you live in? Not just to me but to many millions, both uber and airbnb have be almost life changing. I don't want to write long-text here so I will just say that taxis, hotels and in-person grocery shopping can die a slow and painful death and it will bring me much joy. Uber and airbnb created value using technology by solving many pain points of consumers. My main beef with them is how they lack transparency. I think if they manage to remove even more humans from the loop with the right legal regulation, it would be even better for consumers and shareholders.
- lukev 3y ago
  I disagree. Perhaps there’s a case for Uber… having a decent app-based way to summon a ride is a net positive. But the experience is even better in European cities where Uber has successfully integrated with the local taxi system rather than competing with it. Hotels have always been a better experience than AirBnb, and in the last few years at least, a much better price too. And I’m glad shopping apps exist for when I’m sick or whatever, but for the common case the extra cost and hassle is strictly worse than just swinging by the store on my way home.
  - ramblenode 3y ago
    > Hotels have always been a better experience than AirBnb, and in the last few years at least, a much better price too. I find AirBnb to have far more options, generally better prices, usually better rooms, almost always more amenities, often better locations, and frequently better/more personable hosts. It's completely changed travel for me. Before AirBnb I was shoehorning my travel plans into the limitations of the hotel, but now I can have a common private space for my entire travel group, cook my own meals in a real kitchen, and have dinner on a patio or a backyard. The hotel charges me a premium for unneeded housekeeping, bland continental breakfast, and valet parking that I won't use--this model was ripe for disruption, regulatory arbitrage aside.
    - lukev 3y ago
      I guess it depends what you're looking for. I travel mostly for work, and I want something above all easy and reliable. I'm expensing all my meals so restaurants aren't a problem. I hate the uncertainty of AirBNBs. They have greatly increased probability for booking issues, not being as described, weird dynamics with neighbors, and arbitrary cleanup/checkout processes. If I was staying with others, on my own dime, for more than a few days, then yes, the calculus does change.
Thorentis 3y ago
The irony is that Airbnb and Uber were created to try and make use of spare capacity i.e. Spare rooms, floor space, extra passenger spots in people's cars. Instead, it created an economy where people increased the amount of housing they had or bought cars dedicated to driving Uber. This seems like a hard problem to solve.
- diogenescynic 3y ago
  Uber isn’t causing vehicle shortages though. It’s an apples to oranges comparison.
  - andromeduck 3y ago
    Airbnb isn't the one limiting the supply of new housing, city hall is.
philwelch 3y ago
Uber doesn’t hold a candle to traditional taxis in terms of extractiveness.
diogenescynic 3y ago
I agree about AirBNB but Uber seems like an upgrade to taxis. Taxis were always expensive (more than Uber), filthy, and unreliable (they’d take a longer route than needed etc). Even in NYC, I still often find Uber is cheaper and easier than a taxi.

by jtode 3y ago

Sakos 3y ago

I'dsay Airbnb is several orders of magnitude worse because housing stock is generally extremely limited and most places have very low production rates. Services like Uber have quite a few tangible benefits that put it in another category for me.

scrubs 3y ago
"housing stock is generally extremely limited" Agree .. but why is something I'd love to learn
- tuatoru 3y ago
  There's a nice review of a book, on Astral Codex Ten,[1] that suggests a large part of the answer is a combination of:- a) The design of the US's government system overly privileging its judicial branch b) Ralph Nader. 1. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-public-citizens https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-publi...
  - Der_Einzige 3y ago
    Ralph Nader is objectively a good man, and the things he's done for this country have left it unequivocally better. This substack article is laughably bad. Seriously, blaming him for encouraging citizens to sue the government? Oh please. This man was character assassinated enough in the early 2000s. Let him rest.
    - cvalka 3y ago
      Ralph Nader will burn in hell.
      - Der_Einzige 3y ago
        Tu quoque
- BirdieNZ 3y ago
  There's a combination of factors, of which some are: - Holding cost of land is near 0 in most cities, so you can use it extremely unproductively without any issues. There's a Christmas tree farm in a central suburb in my city; it could easily hold a 5-story apartment block or 8 townhouses housing tens of people instead. [Solution: land value tax] - In most Western democracies, there are significant regulatory requirements that make it more expensive to build housing. This isn't necessarily entirely bad, but it does increase the cost to build more housing, thus reducing its supply. [Solution: there's no real easy solution for this one. Some regulations are necessary, it's hard work to make the regulations really good] - In most cities, there are restrictions on what you can build and where. Again, not always entirely bad per se, but the settings are usually dialed up to the point of absurdity. This means even if you wanted to build more housing within some suburb, you might be unable to build it densely enough to increase how many people are housed. [Solution: more flexible zoning laws to enable more freedom in what people can build on their land; if you want a standalone house, go for it, if you want a 28 story apartment block, go for it, if you want a 3-story townhouse row, go for it, if you want a work-and-live store with an apartment on top, go for it] - Even in areas where there are fewer restrictions, e.g. new land areas opened up for development, developers are incentivised to keep the available supply of housing low to keep the price high. This means that a large development of hundreds of houses will often only release the houses 5-10 at a time, artificially reducing supply. [Solution: increase the holding price of land, aka land value tax]
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    I’m happy to see someone advocating LVT, it doesn’t seem to come up much in debates on housing affordability. Reading “Progress and Poverty” really opened my eyes to how distortionary and immoral most taxation systems are.
- diogenescynic 3y ago
  Zoning, permitting, and property taxes (especially in California) encourage people to just sit on old properties instead of using them more efficiently.

_8j50 3y ago

They do the opposite of creating value? Are you serious? What bubble do you live in? Not just to me but to many millions, both uber and airbnb have be almost life changing. I don't want to write long-text here so I will just say that taxis, hotels and in-person grocery shopping can die a slow and painful death and it will bring me much joy. Uber and airbnb created value using technology by solving many pain points of consumers. My main beef with them is how they lack transparency. I think if they manage to remove even more humans from the loop with the right legal regulation, it would be even better for consumers and shareholders.

lukev 3y ago
I disagree. Perhaps there’s a case for Uber… having a decent app-based way to summon a ride is a net positive. But the experience is even better in European cities where Uber has successfully integrated with the local taxi system rather than competing with it. Hotels have always been a better experience than AirBnb, and in the last few years at least, a much better price too. And I’m glad shopping apps exist for when I’m sick or whatever, but for the common case the extra cost and hassle is strictly worse than just swinging by the store on my way home.
- ramblenode 3y ago
  > Hotels have always been a better experience than AirBnb, and in the last few years at least, a much better price too. I find AirBnb to have far more options, generally better prices, usually better rooms, almost always more amenities, often better locations, and frequently better/more personable hosts. It's completely changed travel for me. Before AirBnb I was shoehorning my travel plans into the limitations of the hotel, but now I can have a common private space for my entire travel group, cook my own meals in a real kitchen, and have dinner on a patio or a backyard. The hotel charges me a premium for unneeded housekeeping, bland continental breakfast, and valet parking that I won't use--this model was ripe for disruption, regulatory arbitrage aside.
  - lukev 3y ago
    I guess it depends what you're looking for. I travel mostly for work, and I want something above all easy and reliable. I'm expensing all my meals so restaurants aren't a problem. I hate the uncertainty of AirBNBs. They have greatly increased probability for booking issues, not being as described, weird dynamics with neighbors, and arbitrary cleanup/checkout processes. If I was staying with others, on my own dime, for more than a few days, then yes, the calculus does change.

Thorentis 3y ago

The irony is that Airbnb and Uber were created to try and make use of spare capacity i.e. Spare rooms, floor space, extra passenger spots in people's cars. Instead, it created an economy where people increased the amount of housing they had or bought cars dedicated to driving Uber. This seems like a hard problem to solve.

diogenescynic 3y ago
Uber isn’t causing vehicle shortages though. It’s an apples to oranges comparison.
- andromeduck 3y ago
  Airbnb isn't the one limiting the supply of new housing, city hall is.

philwelch 3y ago

Uber doesn’t hold a candle to traditional taxis in terms of extractiveness.

diogenescynic 3y ago

I agree about AirBNB but Uber seems like an upgrade to taxis. Taxis were always expensive (more than Uber), filthy, and unreliable (they’d take a longer route than needed etc). Even in NYC, I still often find Uber is cheaper and easier than a taxi.