3 ms·

The author is operating under the strange notion that doing a transaction outside the context of full-time work, or operating a business, is illegal. Maybe bus

The author is operating under the strange notion that doing a transaction outside the context of full-time work, or operating a business, is illegal. Maybe businesses like Lyft, Uber and AirBnB facilitate people working in legal grey areas, but they also facilitate direct individual-customer relationships. These open up markets, and are therefore bad for incumbents (e.g. people already in the taxi industry) but good for people who for whatever weren't able to work in that industry before. And what's with referring to people as "kids"? Is this how you assert your status as alpha male?

GauntletWizard 12y ago
No, they don't think it's illegal; They just think it's immoral. Everyone should want to be tied down to a 9-5 full time job, for some crazy idea of middle-class "Stability". They fundamentally misattribute the death of the middle class on rise of the sharing economy, not the other way around; Nor as a function of the increasing automation, and by-the-by the increasing gap between the value of true knowledge-workers and automaton persons.
- _broody 12y ago
  The author isn't blaming the sharing economy for the death of the middle class, but describing it as a symptom (and as a patchwork solution that doesn't actually solve any problem -having to work more for subsistency isn't going to restore your quality of life, it's just going to knock you a level down Maslow's pyramid of needs, and make you more miserable and actually less likely to cut it professionally in the long term).
QuantumChaos 12y ago
Just to clarify for the downvoters: >Today there are people all over Baltimore subleasing places they don’t own, peddling without a license, hacking. This is a criminal offense. The law does not recognize the right of the people to earn enough to eat. >All these entrepreneurs, most of them running little scams to get by, all of them held in contempt by the law and by most of society. Lyft and Uber and Air BnB face legal sanction too—but it’s just a civil matter. The author clearly conflates the two issues of (A) not working for an employer or company, and (B) transactions that are illegal. I already said how these may be linked in some cases. But it is unreasonable to imply that any work that is not done for an employer (preferable while working full time) must be some kind of scam. EDIT: I'm not sure I like the new HN where I can't say something that is manifestly true (as proven by my quotes) without getting massively downvoted.
- zodiac 12y ago
  Hmm, I didn't interpret the author's quoted words as meaning that any transaction outside of full-time employment or business is illegal. I thought he was just alluding to the common argument that has been used in lawsuits against Lyft and Uber. The argument goes that Lyft and Uber are transport providers and hence must operate under existing laws - for instance, obtaining transport provider licenses, accepting liabilities for accidents, and treating drivers as employees. Lyft and Uber instead say that they are a technology company and don't need to. It's a subtly different argument. I do wish the author had presented the argument explicitly, though.
- CPLX 12y ago
  He's actually making a much simpler argument that may be unfamiliar to those not familiar with the underground economies of the inner city. What he's saying is that the basic transaction that Uber or Lyrt facilitate is not novel, that people have been using single family residences as informal transient hotels and have been engaging in street corner unlicensed taxi type transportation for decades. Except when they do it, it's often a criminal offense. The drivers are ticketed or even arrested, the people who rent out rooms on a nightly basis are evicted or charged with municipal violations. They are primarily poorer and blacker. Then well financed tech companies come along and do the exact same thing -- literally -- and instead of being seen as a civic nuisance at worst or a sign of a severely crippled local economy at best, it's called "sharing" and "fun" and hailed as the next big thing.
DannoHung 12y ago
No, what he's saying is that AirBnB, Lyft, Uber, etcetera might face lawsuits incurring civil penalties while the people they "hire" would incur criminal penalties if caught working for those companies. It's showing that there is a dual class of law for management vs the worker.

GauntletWizard 12y ago

No, they don't think it's illegal; They just think it's immoral. Everyone should want to be tied down to a 9-5 full time job, for some crazy idea of middle-class "Stability". They fundamentally misattribute the death of the middle class on rise of the sharing economy, not the other way around; Nor as a function of the increasing automation, and by-the-by the increasing gap between the value of true knowledge-workers and automaton persons.

_broody 12y ago
The author isn't blaming the sharing economy for the death of the middle class, but describing it as a symptom (and as a patchwork solution that doesn't actually solve any problem -having to work more for subsistency isn't going to restore your quality of life, it's just going to knock you a level down Maslow's pyramid of needs, and make you more miserable and actually less likely to cut it professionally in the long term).

QuantumChaos 12y ago

Just to clarify for the downvoters: >Today there are people all over Baltimore subleasing places they don’t own, peddling without a license, hacking. This is a criminal offense. The law does not recognize the right of the people to earn enough to eat. >All these entrepreneurs, most of them running little scams to get by, all of them held in contempt by the law and by most of society. Lyft and Uber and Air BnB face legal sanction too—but it’s just a civil matter. The author clearly conflates the two issues of (A) not working for an employer or company, and (B) transactions that are illegal. I already said how these may be linked in some cases. But it is unreasonable to imply that any work that is not done for an employer (preferable while working full time) must be some kind of scam. EDIT: I'm not sure I like the new HN where I can't say something that is manifestly true (as proven by my quotes) without getting massively downvoted.

zodiac 12y ago
Hmm, I didn't interpret the author's quoted words as meaning that any transaction outside of full-time employment or business is illegal. I thought he was just alluding to the common argument that has been used in lawsuits against Lyft and Uber. The argument goes that Lyft and Uber are transport providers and hence must operate under existing laws - for instance, obtaining transport provider licenses, accepting liabilities for accidents, and treating drivers as employees. Lyft and Uber instead say that they are a technology company and don't need to. It's a subtly different argument. I do wish the author had presented the argument explicitly, though.
CPLX 12y ago
He's actually making a much simpler argument that may be unfamiliar to those not familiar with the underground economies of the inner city. What he's saying is that the basic transaction that Uber or Lyrt facilitate is not novel, that people have been using single family residences as informal transient hotels and have been engaging in street corner unlicensed taxi type transportation for decades. Except when they do it, it's often a criminal offense. The drivers are ticketed or even arrested, the people who rent out rooms on a nightly basis are evicted or charged with municipal violations. They are primarily poorer and blacker. Then well financed tech companies come along and do the exact same thing -- literally -- and instead of being seen as a civic nuisance at worst or a sign of a severely crippled local economy at best, it's called "sharing" and "fun" and hailed as the next big thing.

DannoHung 12y ago

No, what he's saying is that AirBnB, Lyft, Uber, etcetera might face lawsuits incurring civil penalties while the people they "hire" would incur criminal penalties if caught working for those companies. It's showing that there is a dual class of law for management vs the worker.