3 ms·

What's with all the hit pieces on the sharing economy as of late? There's another piece on the front page here too - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=76519

What's with all the hit pieces on the sharing economy as of late? There's another piece on the front page here too - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7651968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7651968 I'm struggling to figure out what the big problem is with more people becoming entrepreneurs?

eropple 13y ago
Aside from the "sharing economy"'s brightest lights being designed to enrich everybody but the people doing the work, while offloading all of the risk onto the people doing the work? Nothing, I guess.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  I don't think uber drivers would be volunteering to drive if they were making more money doing typical limosuine or taxi services. Same with AirBnb. If they're not making money - why would they be doing it?
  - rjd 13y ago
    Because in the short term it sounds good, like eating takeaways. But in the long run its pathogenic. If you can't see the whole system and need a quick buck why not. Theres a reason most of these industries have existed unregulated through out history, exploitation occurs, become regulated, and are now reappearing with a new tact and hitting up existing laws... and hence all the court cases where they are desperately trying to claim the services aren't illegal. Theres a lot of consumer safety to be considered you rarely hear of, let alone what is technically stealing by reselling things you don't own. Theres a reason regulation happens, and its usually because exploitation occurs.
danielharan 13y ago
It's not sharing: it's renting.
- 001sky 13y ago
  The thesis is more that it's 'whoring' And the pimp as the 'enabler', (although ostensibly benign) This seems a tad overly dramatic But it works for an essay / thought piece. Pimping definitely scales better, for example. (Scale also diversifies revenue streams) Whereas 'whoring' does not scale well; its not long-term a viable profession. (exploits the young/etc)
  - socialist_coder 13y ago
    I think "whoring" and "pimping" are great analogies. We all know the only person getting a good deal in these transactions are the pimps and the johns, while the whores get screwed and end up trading their time for peanuts. It's not a path to a healthy middle class.
throwaway8972d8 13y ago
The problem is people in precarious jobs becoming "entrepreneurs". Risk - the very thing that was used to justify the profits of the Man - is shifted to the employees.
- chronid 13y ago
  The shift of risk to the employees started when executives realized that they could cover they mistakes with a "reorganization" and still get a bonus in the end.
abalone 13y ago
Ok come on. You can at least comprehend the thesis of the piece. "Entrepreneur" drivers have poor job security. Is this a fundamentally better model for the middle class than being an Avon salesperson? That is a totally legit issues to discuss. This may be a perfectly good short-term way to earn some cash, but the article is about the bigger picture for our economy. Don't pretend to not understand when you're really just tuning it out.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  >"Entrepreneur" drivers have poor job security That's true of entrepreneurs in general. I think most of the people doing that would rather have "poor job security" than "no job security" (or the alternative of simply no job) - which is the case for almost all workers without specific special skills. > Is this a fundamentally better model for the middle class than being an Avon salesperson? Comparing it to MLM who's business model is dependent on replicating itself is a completely different use case than what this is.
  - abalone 13y ago
    There is a bigger point that the article tries to call our attention to. If the choice is between "poor" job security and "no" job security, that is a pretty terrible choice. It does not blame Lyft et al directly. It asks us to consider the broader implications for our economy, and if anything, whether the "sharing economy" is truly its savior. That is the analogy with Avon et al for the previous generation (not the precise business model).
  - Mvandenbergh 13y ago
    >That's true of entrepreneurs in general. Of course, but these people have the insecurity of small businesses without the potential upside of having an ownership stake in a business.

eropple 13y ago

Aside from the "sharing economy"'s brightest lights being designed to enrich everybody but the people doing the work, while offloading all of the risk onto the people doing the work? Nothing, I guess.

joelrunyon 13y ago
I don't think uber drivers would be volunteering to drive if they were making more money doing typical limosuine or taxi services. Same with AirBnb. If they're not making money - why would they be doing it?
- rjd 13y ago
  Because in the short term it sounds good, like eating takeaways. But in the long run its pathogenic. If you can't see the whole system and need a quick buck why not. Theres a reason most of these industries have existed unregulated through out history, exploitation occurs, become regulated, and are now reappearing with a new tact and hitting up existing laws... and hence all the court cases where they are desperately trying to claim the services aren't illegal. Theres a lot of consumer safety to be considered you rarely hear of, let alone what is technically stealing by reselling things you don't own. Theres a reason regulation happens, and its usually because exploitation occurs.

danielharan 13y ago

It's not sharing: it's renting.

001sky 13y ago
The thesis is more that it's 'whoring' And the pimp as the 'enabler', (although ostensibly benign) This seems a tad overly dramatic But it works for an essay / thought piece. Pimping definitely scales better, for example. (Scale also diversifies revenue streams) Whereas 'whoring' does not scale well; its not long-term a viable profession. (exploits the young/etc)
- socialist_coder 13y ago
  I think "whoring" and "pimping" are great analogies. We all know the only person getting a good deal in these transactions are the pimps and the johns, while the whores get screwed and end up trading their time for peanuts. It's not a path to a healthy middle class.

throwaway8972d8 13y ago

The problem is people in precarious jobs becoming "entrepreneurs". Risk - the very thing that was used to justify the profits of the Man - is shifted to the employees.

chronid 13y ago
The shift of risk to the employees started when executives realized that they could cover they mistakes with a "reorganization" and still get a bonus in the end.

abalone 13y ago

Ok come on. You can at least comprehend the thesis of the piece. "Entrepreneur" drivers have poor job security. Is this a fundamentally better model for the middle class than being an Avon salesperson? That is a totally legit issues to discuss. This may be a perfectly good short-term way to earn some cash, but the article is about the bigger picture for our economy. Don't pretend to not understand when you're really just tuning it out.

joelrunyon 13y ago
>"Entrepreneur" drivers have poor job security That's true of entrepreneurs in general. I think most of the people doing that would rather have "poor job security" than "no job security" (or the alternative of simply no job) - which is the case for almost all workers without specific special skills. > Is this a fundamentally better model for the middle class than being an Avon salesperson? Comparing it to MLM who's business model is dependent on replicating itself is a completely different use case than what this is.
- abalone 13y ago
  There is a bigger point that the article tries to call our attention to. If the choice is between "poor" job security and "no" job security, that is a pretty terrible choice. It does not blame Lyft et al directly. It asks us to consider the broader implications for our economy, and if anything, whether the "sharing economy" is truly its savior. That is the analogy with Avon et al for the previous generation (not the precise business model).
- Mvandenbergh 13y ago
  >That's true of entrepreneurs in general. Of course, but these people have the insecurity of small businesses without the potential upside of having an ownership stake in a business.