3 ms·

I think they miss the boat in some ways... Ownership is nothing but having the right to deprive others of using something combined with responsibility for it's

by jowiar 12y ago

I think they miss the boat in some ways... Ownership is nothing but having the right to deprive others of using something combined with responsibility for it's upkeep. It can be convenient, but in many cases, for me, it's irrelevant, or suboptimal. I don't care about having the ability to prevent other people from using a particular vehicle. It's not worth the maintenance time for me - forgetting about the cost altogether. What I really care about is having access to a vehicle when I need one once-or-twice a week - ideally one best suited to the task at hand. Communication technology has improved such that I can get what I want/need without the actual benefits and drawbacks of "ownership".

001sky 12y ago
Maybe, but you are the buyside. its not about you. its about the sell side, and why they bother. the thesis is that the cost of carry on the assets is too high (eg, expensive real-estate). to make the sell side work, its a hassle. people overcome the hassle, because the need the money. and in turn, the sell to people like you who want to lose the hassle by not owning. So, the sell side is long hassle-factor. The buy side is short hassle factor. One side has cash, and one side needs it. If the allocation in the last sentence was reversed, there would be a busted market. But since it's not--presto the market works. Its a worthwhile bit of understanding. And its generally true in other eras. EG many large victorian homes in SF were too expensive to be single family homes, so they became flats in the 20th century. Same deal--the house is too valuable to carry as a single-use asset, so sub-divide it and capitalize to other peopel who didn't want the "hassle" of a massively expensive house. Basicaly the upkeep became a problem when servants became too expensive. That kind of thing--ie, a form of economic infeasibility--is what people are facing. Then, as now, even in higher price points. And thus you see decent listings for nightly and weekedn rentals in good neighborhoods where rents have shot up and people who could have afforede a private space now have "temp roomates" or what not a couple times a month to net a couple hundred dollars.
- ArkyBeagle 12y ago
  At some point, you have to consider not living there. If you have a luxury zipcode but not the income to support it, that's your choice. If you could build the Transporter from Star Trek, the entire real estate industry would gather en masse to have you and the invention erased such that you never existed.
- jowiar 12y ago
  Roll back further in history though and the notion of "owning things" was an invention - it wasn't that people wanted to "own a horse" - it's that the entire notion of ownership was invented to determine who got to "ride a horse when they wanted it". For me, I don't want "to own a house with a lawn". I want "a convenient piece of grass to throw a football around, sit outside and eat lunch, and walk my dog". I don't want "to own a car" - rather, I want "A few times a month, access to a vehicle within a few blocks of my apartment for a few hours". I think we're saying the same thing here, but the "sharing economy", is, more than anything else, about using communication technology to create finer grained matching between supply and demand - about matching access to goods with people who want to use them, about providing an opportunity to turn time into money and money into time to the extent that one needs and desires.
  - randomflavor 12y ago
    this sounds utopian. but if you didn't need the money would you go thru the hassle of sharing your car or house? the only reason people do it is to recover money because they didn't make enough to cover their lifestyle. others make it a business, renting multiple apartments in walkups and sell on airbnb creating private mini hotels. i do not know one person that has a savings and or a decent salary that would let a stranger into their home, or drive a stranger to a destination because they just love to share what they have and participate. they do it because they are fucked or close to it. the concept of the timeshare vacation rental is closer to reality of what you speak about. shared leases, mortgages, etc etc. a startup that divides the credit potential of multiple people into a mortgage would be a real sharing, and be able to purchase into it for a time period. i know i need to raise a family and need a 3 bedroom house for X time. Can I effectively purchase someones mortgage for 18 years at a premium on the base apr?
    - rezistik 12y ago
      I think he means more like Zipcar than some other sharing thing. Where you share from a corporation, it feels like sharing and is considered sharing but it's actually renting.
    - 12y ago

by jowiar 12y ago

001sky 12y ago

Maybe, but you are the buyside. its not about you. its about the sell side, and why they bother. the thesis is that the cost of carry on the assets is too high (eg, expensive real-estate). to make the sell side work, its a hassle. people overcome the hassle, because the need the money. and in turn, the sell to people like you who want to lose the hassle by not owning. So, the sell side is long hassle-factor. The buy side is short hassle factor. One side has cash, and one side needs it. If the allocation in the last sentence was reversed, there would be a busted market. But since it's not--presto the market works. Its a worthwhile bit of understanding. And its generally true in other eras. EG many large victorian homes in SF were too expensive to be single family homes, so they became flats in the 20th century. Same deal--the house is too valuable to carry as a single-use asset, so sub-divide it and capitalize to other peopel who didn't want the "hassle" of a massively expensive house. Basicaly the upkeep became a problem when servants became too expensive. That kind of thing--ie, a form of economic infeasibility--is what people are facing. Then, as now, even in higher price points. And thus you see decent listings for nightly and weekedn rentals in good neighborhoods where rents have shot up and people who could have afforede a private space now have "temp roomates" or what not a couple times a month to net a couple hundred dollars.

ArkyBeagle 12y ago
At some point, you have to consider not living there. If you have a luxury zipcode but not the income to support it, that's your choice. If you could build the Transporter from Star Trek, the entire real estate industry would gather en masse to have you and the invention erased such that you never existed.
jowiar 12y ago
Roll back further in history though and the notion of "owning things" was an invention - it wasn't that people wanted to "own a horse" - it's that the entire notion of ownership was invented to determine who got to "ride a horse when they wanted it". For me, I don't want "to own a house with a lawn". I want "a convenient piece of grass to throw a football around, sit outside and eat lunch, and walk my dog". I don't want "to own a car" - rather, I want "A few times a month, access to a vehicle within a few blocks of my apartment for a few hours". I think we're saying the same thing here, but the "sharing economy", is, more than anything else, about using communication technology to create finer grained matching between supply and demand - about matching access to goods with people who want to use them, about providing an opportunity to turn time into money and money into time to the extent that one needs and desires.
- randomflavor 12y ago
  this sounds utopian. but if you didn't need the money would you go thru the hassle of sharing your car or house? the only reason people do it is to recover money because they didn't make enough to cover their lifestyle. others make it a business, renting multiple apartments in walkups and sell on airbnb creating private mini hotels. i do not know one person that has a savings and or a decent salary that would let a stranger into their home, or drive a stranger to a destination because they just love to share what they have and participate. they do it because they are fucked or close to it. the concept of the timeshare vacation rental is closer to reality of what you speak about. shared leases, mortgages, etc etc. a startup that divides the credit potential of multiple people into a mortgage would be a real sharing, and be able to purchase into it for a time period. i know i need to raise a family and need a 3 bedroom house for X time. Can I effectively purchase someones mortgage for 18 years at a premium on the base apr?
  - rezistik 12y ago
    I think he means more like Zipcar than some other sharing thing. Where you share from a corporation, it feels like sharing and is considered sharing but it's actually renting.
  - 12y ago