5 ms·

"Sharing economy" should share its wealth

32 points by johninsfo 13y ago

lnlyplnt 13y ago
I don't think I've ever seen an editorial that was this far off from the truth before.
- ktothemc 13y ago
  They're so full of shit.
- obvious01 13y ago
  Just because you don't agree with the author's conclusion, doesn't mean his argument does not have a factual basis.
chrismcb 13y ago
I didn't realize Twitter was part of the sharing economy
- selectout 13y ago
  Probably "sharing information" economy. I think if they wanted to they could make any company a part of the sharing economy.
- MattHeard 13y ago
  Link sharing?
sciguy77 13y ago
> the companies and their wealthy investors are profiting from exploiting their communities and refusing to play by the rules. That's a point of pride among the tech titans, who speak proudly of the "disruption" that they create and adopt vaguely libertarian anti-government postures when it suits their interests. Ok I don't think when an entrepreneur says "disruption" he means "exploiting my community." The community wants Airbnb and Uber, that's why the pay for them.
- JonFish85 13y ago
  "The community wants Airbnb and Uber, that's why the pay for them." Really? A specific community wants Airbnb and Uber. Other specific communities do NOT want them. Most rental companies and condo associations probably do NOT want Airbnb. Cities may or may not want Uber (at least not outside of their control & tax claws). Airbnb & Uber are able to be cheaper than their "competitors" (hotels & cabs) at least partially because they don't have to live by the same rules: taxation & regulation. People that I know that like these services use them because they're generally cheaper than the alternative (also the cool app, certainly). They pay for them because the alternative is to pay more elsewhere. That's the friction caused by taxation and regulation, at least partly.
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    Consumers have a choice not to use their services. If they are so bad, no one is making you use them. The rules supposedly exist to benefit consumers. But if that was the case, consumers wouldn't knowingly use services that don't comply to them.
    - codyb 13y ago
      The rules also exist to benefit society. When an insured cab crashes insurance companies are there to help people potentially rebuild their lives. When an uninsured cab crashes without insurance and there's no insurance... Well then you're out of luck. And lets not forget that it's not only the customer of the taxi that can get hurt in a car crash. I wouldn't be surprised if many taxi fees and regulations went to help the roads that those taxis proceed to drive on (in many places). Uber cars aren't contributing to that and the steadfast refusal to do so at the behest of municipalities hurts everyones system as a whole. It's not just about whether the consumers will choose to use this or that. It's about a system that works for everyone. Of course you can overdo regulation, and disruptors are a necessary forward for change but just because of libertarian principles which have never worked as espoused anywhere doesn't mean that these people shouldn't be subject to certain regulations and shouldn't thumb their noses when asked to comply. Now most of this is just what I think. I don't have examples where a municipality requires its taxis to pay for the roads through fees, but hopefully the point has been made clearly.
bluedevil2k 13y ago
This article should be retitled "Government wants a piece of the pie"
- unfunco 13y ago
  This is a ridiculous comment. Governments should be entitled to a reward for schooling these people to wealth, for likely funding their growth (as people) and health, for protecting them from criminals, for collecting their trash, for cleaning the streets around their office, governments (despite many government workers) don't just sit around trying to extort businesses, they're trying to fund a happy future. I'm not saying I agree with the article in its' entirety, but there is a solid reasoning behind taxation.
  - bluedevil2k 13y ago
    "Governments should be entitled to a reward" -> what??? They're entitled to a reward for a business becoming successful? You're mixing up corporate taxes and individual taxes. I find your comment somewhat ridiculous - "entitled to a reward for schooling these people to wealth, for likely funding their growth (as people) and health" - even if you believe that to be the case, which is debatable, they've already paid individual taxes their entire lives to receive those things - it's not like the government waived their taxes and took a stake in their company. If you've paid taxes your entire life for the services you've already received, why would the government be entitled to your business's taxes in the future if you've created a business outside their tax scope. Take Uber - they claim they aren't a taxi service, so the government is rewriting the laws to get make them a taxi company and get their money from Uber. I highly doubt the government is doing this to try fund a happy future.
  - xacaxulu 13y ago
    I went to all private schools, my healthcare if provided by a private company and I work for a privately owned company. And none of the investors in my company are government entities. Also, the government hasn't been doing a good job protecting me from criminals, only imprisoning minorities with a dimebag on them or shooting the mentally ill. Trash pick up and road cleaning? Sure, I'll keep paying for that. But they are most definitely extorting businesses.
gruseom 13y ago
Regardless of one's opinion, how can you have a serious discussion without mentioning the benefit users get from these products? That's what drives the whole thing.
- pilom 13y ago
  >"the benefit users get from these products" By being exposed to risk by uninsured operators? The operators (drivers or hosts) undercut current offerings (taxis and hotels) by not being insured.
  - gruseom 13y ago
    The benefit is getting a car, or a place to stay, far more easily. My point isn't that these services are net good (though I do think so). It's that any "net bad" argument that doesn't consider these benefits isn't serious and so discredits its own side.
    - pilom 13y ago
      I also agree that these services are a net good, but I think what the original article was trying to say was "why don't they just suck it up and insure their operators?" Then the "net bad" argument disappears.
      - gruseom 13y ago
        If you're right, then I misread the article, which is quite possible.
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    And if you don't like that, no one is forcing you to use it.
  - xacaxulu 13y ago
    Every driver on the road is a potential uninsured operator. Uber didn't create uninsured drivers. And they require their drivers to be insured. Should we ban all vehicles because they might at some point be uninsured?
frogpelt 13y ago
Individuals can freely choose a taxi cab over Uber if insurance is a concern for them. Individuals who are not concerned with insurance may find that they should have been. Governments should not make it their job to protect individuals from every bad choice they could make. Why is this concept which is so simple so terribly hard to grasp?
- EliRivers 13y ago
  You just choose to draw the line in a different place. I bet you still draw the line.
- JonFish85 13y ago
  "Governments should not make it their job to protect individuals from every bad choice they could make." Essentially, one role of government is to step in when there are harmful things being done to people. This author seems to argue that this is exactly why some things are regulated, and argues that their "competitors" (probably not the right term) should fall under the same rules: hotels, taxis, etc. Personally I agree that the government's job isn't to protect people from their own stupid choices, but it's a big grey area of where to draw that line.
- obvious01 13y ago
  No they can't. Sure, they can make a decision, but it won't be a informed one. Most people are unaware that Uber drivers are questionably insured. They don't read HackerNews or ArsTechnica, or even WSJ, NYT. Moreover, Uber doesn't advertise that fact on their website or in their smartphone apps. So it is impossible for an uninformed customer to make such a decision in the first place.
- michaelt 13y ago
  Individuals can freely choose a taxi cab over Uber if insurance is a concern for them. People hit by Uber drivers with invalid insurance don't get a free choice in the matter. And if higher numbers of uninsured drivers drive up premiums for regular motorists, they don't a free choice either. This is what economists call an externality [1]. A voluntary transaction that looks good to the two parties who have a choice in the matter, but which imposes a cost on a third party who doesn't have a choice. If I own an apartment and the apartment next door gets sold to an investor who rents it out on AirBnB for nightly loud parties, eroding my property's value, that's the same thing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
EliRivers 13y ago
Jesus. It's like the Rand club let out early around here.
sharemywin 13y ago
Domino's disrupted the pizza industry with 30 minutes or less, then they got the shit sued out of them. McDonald's disrupted the coffee market by offering super hot coffee through the drive thru then they got the shit sued out of them. As sad as it is sometimes trial lawyers accomplish what the government can't.
- Bartweiss 13y ago
  Although the general point about lawsuits stands, it's worth being aware that the McDonald's suit isn't actually a fantastic example of frivolous lawsuits. By the time the famous lawsuit came through there had been several hundred claims of coffee-induced injuries resulting in half a million dollars in payouts. The Liebeck case kicked off after McDonald's offered $800 on $10k of medical bills after paying out sizeable amounts of money to other people who were injured. There's still room to dispute the value of the suit, but it's not as simple as it's made out to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restauran...
  - sharemywin 13y ago
    I wasn't implying that they were frivolous. Do I think individuals should get punitive damages and lawyers 30% of millions of dollars verdicts probably not, but sometimes lawsuits are the only things corporations listen to.
sneak 13y ago
Oh, look, the word "disrupt" (via "disruption") just got weaponized against the people who coined it. Good work, guys.

32 points by johninsfo 13y ago

lnlyplnt 13y ago

I don't think I've ever seen an editorial that was this far off from the truth before.

ktothemc 13y ago
They're so full of shit.
obvious01 13y ago
Just because you don't agree with the author's conclusion, doesn't mean his argument does not have a factual basis.

chrismcb 13y ago

I didn't realize Twitter was part of the sharing economy

selectout 13y ago
Probably "sharing information" economy. I think if they wanted to they could make any company a part of the sharing economy.
MattHeard 13y ago
Link sharing?

sciguy77 13y ago

> the companies and their wealthy investors are profiting from exploiting their communities and refusing to play by the rules. That's a point of pride among the tech titans, who speak proudly of the "disruption" that they create and adopt vaguely libertarian anti-government postures when it suits their interests. Ok I don't think when an entrepreneur says "disruption" he means "exploiting my community." The community wants Airbnb and Uber, that's why the pay for them.

JonFish85 13y ago
"The community wants Airbnb and Uber, that's why the pay for them." Really? A specific community wants Airbnb and Uber. Other specific communities do NOT want them. Most rental companies and condo associations probably do NOT want Airbnb. Cities may or may not want Uber (at least not outside of their control & tax claws). Airbnb & Uber are able to be cheaper than their "competitors" (hotels & cabs) at least partially because they don't have to live by the same rules: taxation & regulation. People that I know that like these services use them because they're generally cheaper than the alternative (also the cool app, certainly). They pay for them because the alternative is to pay more elsewhere. That's the friction caused by taxation and regulation, at least partly.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  Consumers have a choice not to use their services. If they are so bad, no one is making you use them. The rules supposedly exist to benefit consumers. But if that was the case, consumers wouldn't knowingly use services that don't comply to them.
  - codyb 13y ago
    The rules also exist to benefit society. When an insured cab crashes insurance companies are there to help people potentially rebuild their lives. When an uninsured cab crashes without insurance and there's no insurance... Well then you're out of luck. And lets not forget that it's not only the customer of the taxi that can get hurt in a car crash. I wouldn't be surprised if many taxi fees and regulations went to help the roads that those taxis proceed to drive on (in many places). Uber cars aren't contributing to that and the steadfast refusal to do so at the behest of municipalities hurts everyones system as a whole. It's not just about whether the consumers will choose to use this or that. It's about a system that works for everyone. Of course you can overdo regulation, and disruptors are a necessary forward for change but just because of libertarian principles which have never worked as espoused anywhere doesn't mean that these people shouldn't be subject to certain regulations and shouldn't thumb their noses when asked to comply. Now most of this is just what I think. I don't have examples where a municipality requires its taxis to pay for the roads through fees, but hopefully the point has been made clearly.

bluedevil2k 13y ago

This article should be retitled "Government wants a piece of the pie"

unfunco 13y ago
This is a ridiculous comment. Governments should be entitled to a reward for schooling these people to wealth, for likely funding their growth (as people) and health, for protecting them from criminals, for collecting their trash, for cleaning the streets around their office, governments (despite many government workers) don't just sit around trying to extort businesses, they're trying to fund a happy future. I'm not saying I agree with the article in its' entirety, but there is a solid reasoning behind taxation.
- bluedevil2k 13y ago
  "Governments should be entitled to a reward" -> what??? They're entitled to a reward for a business becoming successful? You're mixing up corporate taxes and individual taxes. I find your comment somewhat ridiculous - "entitled to a reward for schooling these people to wealth, for likely funding their growth (as people) and health" - even if you believe that to be the case, which is debatable, they've already paid individual taxes their entire lives to receive those things - it's not like the government waived their taxes and took a stake in their company. If you've paid taxes your entire life for the services you've already received, why would the government be entitled to your business's taxes in the future if you've created a business outside their tax scope. Take Uber - they claim they aren't a taxi service, so the government is rewriting the laws to get make them a taxi company and get their money from Uber. I highly doubt the government is doing this to try fund a happy future.
- xacaxulu 13y ago
  I went to all private schools, my healthcare if provided by a private company and I work for a privately owned company. And none of the investors in my company are government entities. Also, the government hasn't been doing a good job protecting me from criminals, only imprisoning minorities with a dimebag on them or shooting the mentally ill. Trash pick up and road cleaning? Sure, I'll keep paying for that. But they are most definitely extorting businesses.

gruseom 13y ago

Regardless of one's opinion, how can you have a serious discussion without mentioning the benefit users get from these products? That's what drives the whole thing.

pilom 13y ago
>"the benefit users get from these products" By being exposed to risk by uninsured operators? The operators (drivers or hosts) undercut current offerings (taxis and hotels) by not being insured.
- gruseom 13y ago
  The benefit is getting a car, or a place to stay, far more easily. My point isn't that these services are net good (though I do think so). It's that any "net bad" argument that doesn't consider these benefits isn't serious and so discredits its own side.
  - pilom 13y ago
    I also agree that these services are a net good, but I think what the original article was trying to say was "why don't they just suck it up and insure their operators?" Then the "net bad" argument disappears.
    - gruseom 13y ago
      If you're right, then I misread the article, which is quite possible.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  And if you don't like that, no one is forcing you to use it.
- xacaxulu 13y ago
  Every driver on the road is a potential uninsured operator. Uber didn't create uninsured drivers. And they require their drivers to be insured. Should we ban all vehicles because they might at some point be uninsured?

frogpelt 13y ago

Individuals can freely choose a taxi cab over Uber if insurance is a concern for them. Individuals who are not concerned with insurance may find that they should have been. Governments should not make it their job to protect individuals from every bad choice they could make. Why is this concept which is so simple so terribly hard to grasp?

EliRivers 13y ago
You just choose to draw the line in a different place. I bet you still draw the line.
JonFish85 13y ago
"Governments should not make it their job to protect individuals from every bad choice they could make." Essentially, one role of government is to step in when there are harmful things being done to people. This author seems to argue that this is exactly why some things are regulated, and argues that their "competitors" (probably not the right term) should fall under the same rules: hotels, taxis, etc. Personally I agree that the government's job isn't to protect people from their own stupid choices, but it's a big grey area of where to draw that line.
obvious01 13y ago
No they can't. Sure, they can make a decision, but it won't be a informed one. Most people are unaware that Uber drivers are questionably insured. They don't read HackerNews or ArsTechnica, or even WSJ, NYT. Moreover, Uber doesn't advertise that fact on their website or in their smartphone apps. So it is impossible for an uninformed customer to make such a decision in the first place.
michaelt 13y ago
Individuals can freely choose a taxi cab over Uber if insurance is a concern for them. People hit by Uber drivers with invalid insurance don't get a free choice in the matter. And if higher numbers of uninsured drivers drive up premiums for regular motorists, they don't a free choice either. This is what economists call an externality [1]. A voluntary transaction that looks good to the two parties who have a choice in the matter, but which imposes a cost on a third party who doesn't have a choice. If I own an apartment and the apartment next door gets sold to an investor who rents it out on AirBnB for nightly loud parties, eroding my property's value, that's the same thing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

EliRivers 13y ago

Jesus. It's like the Rand club let out early around here.

sharemywin 13y ago

Domino's disrupted the pizza industry with 30 minutes or less, then they got the shit sued out of them. McDonald's disrupted the coffee market by offering super hot coffee through the drive thru then they got the shit sued out of them. As sad as it is sometimes trial lawyers accomplish what the government can't.

Bartweiss 13y ago
Although the general point about lawsuits stands, it's worth being aware that the McDonald's suit isn't actually a fantastic example of frivolous lawsuits. By the time the famous lawsuit came through there had been several hundred claims of coffee-induced injuries resulting in half a million dollars in payouts. The Liebeck case kicked off after McDonald's offered $800 on $10k of medical bills after paying out sizeable amounts of money to other people who were injured. There's still room to dispute the value of the suit, but it's not as simple as it's made out to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restauran...
- sharemywin 13y ago
  I wasn't implying that they were frivolous. Do I think individuals should get punitive damages and lawyers 30% of millions of dollars verdicts probably not, but sometimes lawsuits are the only things corporations listen to.

sneak 13y ago

Oh, look, the word "disrupt" (via "disruption") just got weaponized against the people who coined it. Good work, guys.