3 ms·

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

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.

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.