6 ms·

The Case Against Sharing

13 points by zorpner 12y ago

brownbat 12y ago
[AirBNB, Uber, Craigslist sellers, ...] have "a steamroller approach to laws and regulations that protect workers and consumers" That begs the central question. It'd be a clearer case of preserving consumer and worker rights if cities weren't haranguing Uber over insurance while ignoring the comparatively paltry coverage offered by local taxi companies: http://blog.uber.com/uberXridesharinginsurance http://blog.uber.com/uberXridesharinginsurance Tesla's not part of the "sharing economy," but it's another disruptive model that chafes against legacy regulations. Most of us are sympathetic with Tesla's fight against the dealers because we see the regulations as utterly irrational, even if they were protecting against injustices 50 years ago. Or maybe we're unsympathetic to dealers because we've been screwed by one. Either way, we find it difficult or laughable to see franchises as a tool ensuring consumer protection and fair play. The sticking point, of course, is that you can't let every company be its own arbiter of what laws are reasonable and which are not.
api 12y ago
This is typical of the emerging tech-criticism genre on the so-called left. It raises some very valid points: job security or lack thereof, lack of protections if something goes wrong, etc. But it doesn't offer a solution. These pieces never offer a solution. That's because they don't have one. Instead they degenerate into vague pining for the good old days. ... like the good old days of taxi medallions, a closed and corrupt insiders club that excludes the vast majority from entry while artificially inflating transportation prices for those who don't have a car readily available. They also drop plenty of dog whistle terms like "neoliberal" just to make sure you know who the bad guys are. The bad guys of course are the ones doing new things and being successful at it. (gasp! success!) It's part of why IMHO there actually are no liberals on the contemporary scene. There are just different kinds of conservatives. It's trivially easy to criticize anything. Do you have a better idea? If not, we're done.
m0llusk 12y ago
This article lacks coherence. The housing crisis is caused by a lack of supply relative to demand. Tech workers are part of the increased demand but cannot be blamed for the lack of supply. The taxi industry is being disrupted by new services because it failed to adapt to the needs of customers. This is called creative destruction and has always been common. The problems of people lacking jobs or not being well paid are complex and involve many factors. Productivity and compensation have come apart and the business environment has been transformed in many ways most notably including much higher volatility such that big companies now last around 15 years instead of 50. Sharing itself isn't even all that interesting.

13 points by zorpner 12y ago

[AirBNB, Uber, Craigslist sellers, ...] have "a steamroller approach to laws and regulations that protect workers and consumers" That begs the central question. It'd be a clearer case of preserving consumer and worker rights if cities weren't haranguing Uber over insurance while ignoring the comparatively paltry coverage offered by local taxi companies: http://blog.uber.com/uberXridesharinginsurance http://blog.uber.com/uberXridesharinginsurance Tesla's not part of the "sharing economy," but it's another disruptive model that chafes against legacy regulations. Most of us are sympathetic with Tesla's fight against the dealers because we see the regulations as utterly irrational, even if they were protecting against injustices 50 years ago. Or maybe we're unsympathetic to dealers because we've been screwed by one. Either way, we find it difficult or laughable to see franchises as a tool ensuring consumer protection and fair play. The sticking point, of course, is that you can't let every company be its own arbiter of what laws are reasonable and which are not.

api 12y ago

This is typical of the emerging tech-criticism genre on the so-called left. It raises some very valid points: job security or lack thereof, lack of protections if something goes wrong, etc. But it doesn't offer a solution. These pieces never offer a solution. That's because they don't have one. Instead they degenerate into vague pining for the good old days. ... like the good old days of taxi medallions, a closed and corrupt insiders club that excludes the vast majority from entry while artificially inflating transportation prices for those who don't have a car readily available. They also drop plenty of dog whistle terms like "neoliberal" just to make sure you know who the bad guys are. The bad guys of course are the ones doing new things and being successful at it. (gasp! success!) It's part of why IMHO there actually are no liberals on the contemporary scene. There are just different kinds of conservatives. It's trivially easy to criticize anything. Do you have a better idea? If not, we're done.

m0llusk 12y ago

This article lacks coherence. The housing crisis is caused by a lack of supply relative to demand. Tech workers are part of the increased demand but cannot be blamed for the lack of supply. The taxi industry is being disrupted by new services because it failed to adapt to the needs of customers. This is called creative destruction and has always been common. The problems of people lacking jobs or not being well paid are complex and involve many factors. Productivity and compensation have come apart and the business environment has been transformed in many ways most notably including much higher volatility such that big companies now last around 15 years instead of 50. Sharing itself isn't even all that interesting.