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

31–40 of 93 posts

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#31

Post by pessimizer »

It's weird to spend so many words arguing against a word used as branding. There was never a sharing economy, because it is people paying money for things. What was created was a piecework economy, which was obviously going to be successful if it could figure out a way to skirt the laws that made piecework jobs illegal. Investors could see that, and added so much cash in anticipation of a monopoly (and with the understanding that it would take quick growth and a bunch of expensive legislative and marketing work to take this monopoly) that these companies could afford to sell dollars for $0.90.

I'm going to start a business utilizing children as hospital, hospice, and old age home laborers and call it "the childcare industry" just to see it debunked 10 years and 100 billion dollars later: "Revealed: The Childcare Industry Was Never About Caring For Children."

I'll then press release that it was shameful that slate dot com chose to diminish the experiences and character growth of millions of children, dismiss the importance of our elders and their health, shill for the interests of big healthcare, and denigrate the millions of relationships formed between the oldest generations and the youngest.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#32

Post by digitaltrees »

It does seem that many of the business models were really just regulatory arbitrage, but were presented as some fundamental innovation.

It also seems that they fooled some investors into believing hyper growth that was fueled with negative unit economics would eventually lead to a monopoly market position, maybe some will...but I doubt it as the barrier of entry is to low an the "network effect" that was believed make the monopoly quasi-permanent doesn't seem to exist for most industries.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#33

Post by shittyadmin »

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

I mean, you get more than that, no one looked at Uber and went "ooh, illegal taxis". They looked at it and went "ooh I can use it from my phone with the push of a button and it's cheaper". The whole point of the "sharing economy" is to compete on efficiency, ease of use and price.

Ridiculous, anti-competitive laws were in place in these systems, I applaud their death.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#34

Post by matchbok »

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.

Eh, the only people who like unregulated mini-hotels (airbnb) in residential areas are the ones making money.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#35

Post by moosey »

api wrote: post #19
dragonwriter wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nothing that Obama or Clinton did even came close to comparing to the wars started by Bush II. In order to find a comparable mishap on the part of Democratic governance and war you have to go back to Truman, and you won't find me defending the Vietnam War, nor Obama's use of drones.

> Every time the ruling party switches, followers of both parties warp into parallel universes with entirely different realities.

There is plenty of information that shows this to be untrue, especially in this case of warfare that you talk about, example:

> 37 percent of Democrats back Trump’s missile strikes. In 2013, 38 percent of Democrats supported Obama’s plan. That is well within the margin of error.

> In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post–ABC News poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians.

> A new Post-ABC poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason. Only 11 percent are opposed.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/04/gop-voters-love-same-...

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#36

Post by ArchTypical »

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.

Even on HN, you're going to use the intentionally politicized value (people still tracked on unemployment, contractors sometimes, etc): https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

instead of something close to the actual? https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53452

I don't understand how people are still this lazy.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#37

Post by noja »

ArchTypical wrote: post #36
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.

Even on HN, you're going to use the intentionally politicized value (people still tracked on unemployment, contractors sometimes, etc): https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 instead of something close to the actual? https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53452 I don't understand how people are still this lazy.

> I don't understand how people are still this lazy.

You didn't give the value.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#38

Post by AnimalMuppet »

moosey wrote: post #35
api wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nothing that Obama or Clinton did even came close to comparing to the wars started by Bush II. In order to find a comparable mishap on the part of Democratic governance and war you have to go back to Truman, and you won't find me defending the Vietnam War, nor Obama's use of drones. > Every time the ruling party switches, followers of both parties warp into parallel universes with entirely different realities. There…

Have to go back to Truman? You seem to have forgotten Vietnam...

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#39

Post by ctdonath »

digitaltrees wrote: post #29
api wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No they don't. You are just presenting false equivalence while ignoring the magnitude of the reality distortion field that republicans push with no close equivalent from democrats. - Name a 10 year war democrats have championed... - Name a democrat that questions the legitimacy of employment numbers or the objectivity of the data being provided... - Name an rejection of scientific consensus like Global Warming (and b…

No, you've made it sufficiently clear you subscribe to a straw man narrative, and are uninterested in discussion.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#40

Post by CuriouslyC »

noja wrote: post #37
ArchTypical wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even on HN, you're going to use the intentionally politicized value (people still tracked on unemployment, contractors sometimes, etc): https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 instead of something close to the actual? https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53452 I don't understand how people are still this lazy.

> I don't understand how people are still this lazy. You didn't give the value.

Factoring in overall labor force participation, it goes from 3.7 to ~3.8. Saying 3.7 is politicized is pretty hyperbolic.
Post reply on HN