5 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - Houshalter 13y ago
      While good in theory, the rules are more than likely to be abused to limit or get rid of uber entirely to protect the existing taxi industry. If corruption and incompetence weren't issues we could just trust them to do whatever and not have to worry about it. I thought gas taxes were the established way of paying for roads anyways. And all drivers should be required to have insurance to begin with - the fact someone else is in the car has nothing to do with it.
  - bowlofpetunias 13y ago
    I am not a "consumer", I am a citizen. I have no choice if my neighbors choose to use AirBnB, but I do have to deal with the consequences.
    - Houshalter 13y ago
      Please explain, I don't understand how that would affect you.
    - stickfigure 13y ago
      You have no legal right to choose your neighbors in any case.
      - gamblor956 13y ago
        No, but I have a legal right to compel my neighbors not to interfere with my habitation of my own living quarters through nuisance law. Nuisance law and other private means of address simply aren't available when you're dealing with a constant stream of strangers.
    - stefan_kendall3 13y ago
      If you had an HOA, you would. If you're renting, it's not your property to police. If you want to protect yourself from AirBnB, there are ways to do it.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    > Consumers have a choice not to use their services. You have a choice on whether to rent out your apartment on AirBnB. You balance the money you can make from doing so against the risk created by randos walking through your building. Your neighbor, on the other hand, bears additional risk if you decide to rent on AirBnB,[1] but does not benefit in any way from the transaction. This is a textbook example of an inefficient negative externality. [1] It also substantially reduces her property value, as people hate buying property in buildings with lots of transients. Condo prices in a building with apartment units can be substantially lower than in a building without them, purely because people put a lot of value on not having renters in their building.
- sentenza 13y ago
  The fault line in this discussion lies between the different perspectives on the common good in question. Here's a hypothetical: What if we "disrupted" the regulation on what you can hook up to the electric grid and how you have to do it, so everybody can start messing around with "throw-on" connections as they do in Egypt? Probably a lot of HN users would dislike having to cope with the thus ensuing frequent power-outages. The problems that Airbnb causes in residential areas can have a similar impact on life, it's just that it is the life of people from a different demographic than the HN crowd.
endersshadow 13y ago
The customers aren't the ones being exploited. What you're missing is what we in economics call an "externality"[1]. Let's say you rent out your apartment through Airbnb to somebody. Well, now what you've done is taken money for that transaction, but who assumed the risk? Sure, you risked some of your things, but your landlord has assumed the risk of liability and property damage without his or her knowledge or consent. In fact, it was probably strictly prohibited in your lease. The cost of the landlord's risk (which is not $0) is an externality. Let alone your neighbors, who are now living in a less secure building due to your actions. Understand that these businesses have a larger impact on the economy and your community than just the money flowing between them and their customers. Also understand that laws exist for reasons--not infallible reasons, just reasons. Whenever a law seems to be completely nonsensical to you, start looking into it a bit more. Typically, the answer is just behind the curtain, or people were exploiting the system in ways you didn't even think of. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
- Houshalter 13y ago
  There is an externality, but it's still smaller than the total benefit. I think the ideal way to handle it would be to find some way to insure for it, or hold the tenant responsible. It certainly shouldn't be illegal, just at best violate a private contract/agreement with the landlord.
  - JonFish85 13y ago
    Isn't violating a contract by definition illegal?
    - Houshalter 13y ago
      I mean in the sense they can agree to any contract they want in theory. As opposed to having a law that no one anywhere can do it legally even if the owner agrees to it.
    - sneak 13y ago
      Nope - illegal generally refers to violations of criminal laws. Breaches of contractual obligations are civil matters. You don't go to jail, generally.

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.
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    While good in theory, the rules are more than likely to be abused to limit or get rid of uber entirely to protect the existing taxi industry. If corruption and incompetence weren't issues we could just trust them to do whatever and not have to worry about it. I thought gas taxes were the established way of paying for roads anyways. And all drivers should be required to have insurance to begin with - the fact someone else is in the car has nothing to do with it.
- bowlofpetunias 13y ago
  I am not a "consumer", I am a citizen. I have no choice if my neighbors choose to use AirBnB, but I do have to deal with the consequences.
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    Please explain, I don't understand how that would affect you.
  - stickfigure 13y ago
    You have no legal right to choose your neighbors in any case.
    - gamblor956 13y ago
      No, but I have a legal right to compel my neighbors not to interfere with my habitation of my own living quarters through nuisance law. Nuisance law and other private means of address simply aren't available when you're dealing with a constant stream of strangers.
  - stefan_kendall3 13y ago
    If you had an HOA, you would. If you're renting, it's not your property to police. If you want to protect yourself from AirBnB, there are ways to do it.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > Consumers have a choice not to use their services. You have a choice on whether to rent out your apartment on AirBnB. You balance the money you can make from doing so against the risk created by randos walking through your building. Your neighbor, on the other hand, bears additional risk if you decide to rent on AirBnB,[1] but does not benefit in any way from the transaction. This is a textbook example of an inefficient negative externality. [1] It also substantially reduces her property value, as people hate buying property in buildings with lots of transients. Condo prices in a building with apartment units can be substantially lower than in a building without them, purely because people put a lot of value on not having renters in their building.
sentenza 13y ago
The fault line in this discussion lies between the different perspectives on the common good in question. Here's a hypothetical: What if we "disrupted" the regulation on what you can hook up to the electric grid and how you have to do it, so everybody can start messing around with "throw-on" connections as they do in Egypt? Probably a lot of HN users would dislike having to cope with the thus ensuing frequent power-outages. The problems that Airbnb causes in residential areas can have a similar impact on life, it's just that it is the life of people from a different demographic than the HN crowd.

endersshadow 13y ago

The customers aren't the ones being exploited. What you're missing is what we in economics call an "externality"[1]. Let's say you rent out your apartment through Airbnb to somebody. Well, now what you've done is taken money for that transaction, but who assumed the risk? Sure, you risked some of your things, but your landlord has assumed the risk of liability and property damage without his or her knowledge or consent. In fact, it was probably strictly prohibited in your lease. The cost of the landlord's risk (which is not $0) is an externality. Let alone your neighbors, who are now living in a less secure building due to your actions. Understand that these businesses have a larger impact on the economy and your community than just the money flowing between them and their customers. Also understand that laws exist for reasons--not infallible reasons, just reasons. Whenever a law seems to be completely nonsensical to you, start looking into it a bit more. Typically, the answer is just behind the curtain, or people were exploiting the system in ways you didn't even think of. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Houshalter 13y ago
There is an externality, but it's still smaller than the total benefit. I think the ideal way to handle it would be to find some way to insure for it, or hold the tenant responsible. It certainly shouldn't be illegal, just at best violate a private contract/agreement with the landlord.
- JonFish85 13y ago
  Isn't violating a contract by definition illegal?
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    I mean in the sense they can agree to any contract they want in theory. As opposed to having a law that no one anywhere can do it legally even if the owner agrees to it.
  - sneak 13y ago
    Nope - illegal generally refers to violations of criminal laws. Breaches of contractual obligations are civil matters. You don't go to jail, generally.