Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

daily.jstor.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 93 posts

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#11

Post by SolarNet »

> Why didn’t we see it coming? How did sharing economy companies manage to evade scrutiny for so long?

Plenty of people saw it coming. As much as fellow members of my generation enthusiastically embraced the sharing/gig economy for survival, most of them acknowledged that the companies were in the end going to be worse. They were just less worse than having no income. Those that thought this were the future were just deluding themselves because of how fucking terrible the job market is.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#12

Post by mkirklions »

kevin_b_er wrote: post #10

The "Sharing Economy" was always a lie. It was always about illegal acts rebranded. Illegal rebranded taxis. Illegal rebranded hotels. etc

The only reason these were illegal was cronyism.

And before you get excited about the safety we get with regulation. Capitalism has proven with billion dollar companies, we don't want regulated taxis.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#13

Post by will_brown »

smacktoward wrote: post #5
vkou wrote: post #2

I don't understand how people can be tricked by the branding of the 'sharing economy.' The average seven year old is capable of understanding the difference between actual sharing (A friend giving you a lift), and 'sharing' (An unmarked taxi.) They could also probably grasp the difference between CouchSurfing[1], and AirBnB. [1] Couchsurfing was the actual sharing economy, but as it turns out, you can't make billions…

The point was not to trick average people, it was to trick regulators by creating sufficient ambiguity around whether these companies were different enough from their already-existing counterparts to justify not applying the same regulations to them. And it worked! For as long as it needed to, anyway.

It didn’t trick regulators...in my county (Miami-Dade) Uber racked up millions in fines and “settled” for $4M.

There are ~3,000 counties in the US...and significant outstanding debts/legal liabilities.

The only people tricked is investors who are unaware of the real legal liabilities and whose funds are being used to float the illegal operations and some drivers who now have criminal records from doing a job they were paid to do.

Now they are going to trick the public with a public offering and offload these toxic shares.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#14

Post by pragmacoders »

mkirklions wrote: post #12
kevin_b_er wrote: post #10

The "Sharing Economy" was always a lie. It was always about illegal acts rebranded. Illegal rebranded taxis. Illegal rebranded hotels. etc

The only reason these were illegal was cronyism. And before you get excited about the safety we get with regulation. Capitalism has proven with billion dollar companies, we don't want regulated taxis.

If I'm lucky, I'll never see the term "Capitalism has proven..." again, in my lifetime

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#15

Post by rib3ye »

pesmhey wrote: post #7
jandrese wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or: "This is just an unmarked taxi." "Except hailing/billing isn't stuck in the past so you don't have to get lucky to find an empty one on the street or call a surly dispatcher and wait 45 minutes. You also get the bill up front so you know how much it will cost before you even say yes. You can always pay by credit card too, you'll never arrive at the destination and then only be informed that the credit card reader…

It's definitely better, no arguments here. My point is that Silicon Valley has branded everything it does as 'tech' when in reality, it's just a better taxi company, a better hotel company, etc. unencumbered by the old ways. Like, the reality would have been good enough, 'We're a taxi (or insert whatever industry you want) company doing things way better than before." Instead, it's 'We're using algorithms and this sh…

There is something about traditional engineering culture that sees marketing as big lie, but one of the reasons these companies have been so successful at transitioning public opinion is because they treat the whole business as iterative. Instead of thinking "boring finance dept" and "slimey marketing guys", they think "financial and social engineering".

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#16

Post by drawkbox »

The movie Sorry to Bother You has a satirical look at the sharing economy gone awry. In the movie a controversial company called WorryFree exists that promises lifelong security where people willingly become slaves to live in dorms and survive without worry but for free. The movie is excellent.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#17

Post by chrisco255 »

SolarNet wrote: post #11

> Why didn’t we see it coming? How did sharing economy companies manage to evade scrutiny for so long? Plenty of people saw it coming. As much as fellow members of my generation enthusiastically embraced the sharing/gig economy for survival, most of them acknowledged that the companies were in the end going to be worse. They were just less worse than having no income. Those that thought this were the future were just…

The job market might have been terrible 5 years ago, but this is not the case today. 3.7% unemployment in the U.S. Lowest since 1969.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#18

Post by dragonwriter »

chrisco255 wrote: post #17
SolarNet wrote: post #11

> Why didn’t we see it coming? How did sharing economy companies manage to evade scrutiny for so long? Plenty of people saw it coming. As much as fellow members of my generation enthusiastically embraced the sharing/gig economy for survival, most of them acknowledged that the companies were in the end going to be worse. They were just less worse than having no income. Those that thought this were the future were just…

The job market might have been terrible 5 years ago, but this is not the case today. 3.7% unemployment in the U.S. Lowest since 1969.

It's kind of funny that most of the people that recognized that the headline unemployment number wasn't a complete picture of the job market when Obama was President have somehow forgotten that since late January of 2017.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#19

Post by api »

dragonwriter wrote: post #18
chrisco255 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The job market might have been terrible 5 years ago, but this is not the case today. 3.7% unemployment in the U.S. Lowest since 1969.

It's kind of funny that most of the people that recognized that the headline unemployment number wasn't a complete picture of the job market when Obama was President have somehow forgotten that since late January of 2017.

Every time the ruling party switches, followers of both parties warp into parallel universes with entirely different realities. Same thing happens for Democrats and their opinions of foreign military adventures. It's an unnecessary war when a Republican is in office, but it's a "peacekeeping mission" or a "humanitarian mission" when a Democrat is in office.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#20

Post by yalogin »

I am more bothered by the fact that these companies establish a permanent record of your behavior across a large swathe of “businesses”. So things cannot be forgotten. There is a legitimate need for that in some cases but in most cases is unnecessary. This is the capitalist equivalent of the coduct based credit imposed by China. Somehow feels too drastic and draconian to me.
Post reply on HN