4 ms·
> Again, I could go rent this stuff, but I want it delivered, and I don't want to pay a price that is pretty close to what it would cost to just buy the tool!
by jarrett 13y ago
> Again, I could go rent this stuff, but I want it delivered, and I don't want to pay a price that is pretty close to what it would cost to just buy the tool!
This is probably the biggest problem with a sharing/renting economy.
Manufacturing has gotten to the point where producing an object is so inexpensive, it's cheaper to buy than rent. But why should that be? At any given production cost, why isn't it still cheaper to produce fewer and let multiple people use them, either via a renting system or something else? You're making fewer objects and still satisfying demand, so why doesn't this save money?
The reason is the labor and real estate costs of administering such a system. You need people to staff the rental/sharing agency. You also need a conveniently-located (and thus expensive) building where people go to pick up and return the objects. Or, if you're doing delivery, you can choose a more out-of-the-way location, but now you're paying the labor cost of drivers.
Because the overhead of running a sharing system is so high, it's actually cheaper most of the time to allocate one of each object to each person, except for the most expensive objects.
- j2d3 13y agoThis is why a tool sharing service could work. Users would only be paying for the inventory management (an automated system, an app that keeps track of which tool is in which users' home), and - optional delivery - via an uber like service. They would willingly contribute tools they already own to the library of available tools. The capital used to buy the tools will have already been contributed by the users who own the tools they share. In exchange for sharing, they get to borrow tools they don't have. Those who have no tools to offer to the pool would have to pay a little more, and the service could use collected money from those who don't have any "credits" for contributing tools to purchase the most requested but unavailable tools to add to the sharing pool. There would be no central place where the tools are stored, they will just be stored in the homes of subscribers to the service.
- michaelt 13y agoThe reason is the labor and real estate costs of administering such a system. There's also the question of damage an incentives. If I own a nonstick frying pan, I've got every incentive not to scratch the nonstick coating, and if I do it won't hurt anyone but me. If I loan my nonstick frying pan out to 10 people and expect it to come back without any scratches on the nonstick coating, I'd probably be disappointed.
- jarrett 13y agoYes, this is definitely a problem with rental equipment. Most rented tools I've used are in bad shape, though still usable on a one-off basis. Rental companies tend to charge for excessive damage to the tools (if they bother to inspect the tools upon return). So that can help to align the incentives. But it doesn't work as well with individuals lending to each other. Think of all the bad eBay experiences people have reported. The reputation system was supposed to solve that, but apparently it hasn't. I take good care of my tools, and I wouldn't lend them to a stranger. Especially knowing that I'm not guaranteed payment in the event of loss or damage.