The sharing economy was always a scam • Hacker News Board

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#41

Post by orangecat » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 5:22 AM UTC

door5 wrote: post #8

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #5

The claim was never that "‘Sharing’ was supposed to save us" nor any of the other allegations in the article. In fact there never was any unified claims. Of course the individual companies made claims about how their platform would save you a bit of time and money and friction. And that has largely been true. Millions of people each saves a little time and money, and that in aggregate has benefited us tremendously. T…

Who is "us"? Maybe upper middle class consumers, but not the workers at these companies.

Maybe upper middle class consumers, but not the workers at these companies.

That is not at all clear: https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/workforce/uber-comp.... It turns out that flexible hours are a large benefit for many people.

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#42

Post by wyqydsyq » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 5:25 AM UTC

thinkingkong wrote: post #36

sandeeps_ wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does one need to idle in neural even on automatic gear cars?

He was probably slipping the clutch.

I think you'll find it's been years if not decades since there was a Camry available with a manual transmission

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#43

Post by zanny » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 5:26 AM UTC

neokantian wrote: post #15

MereInterest wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, how dare we insist that people be paid a living wage! And health insurance is only for employees, not employees-in-everything-but-name!

I am free to make the deals that I want, regardless of what they include or don't include. Why would I need you to protect me from myself? Why do you want to micromanage other people's lives? Is your own life not interesting enough already?

Because the price you offer for your time influences the perception of the value of time for everyone around you.

Its why minimum wage exists at all. Without it, the most desperate depress wages to the absolute edge of starvation and destitution. It is not, and has never been, and never will be an answer to poverty, but it is a promise by the government that your time can never be valued at less than an absolute floor they set.

Because nature and reality are cruel. For many people, in many circumstances, their time is practically worthless. Minimum wage has a carrying effect on the economic baseline - by having minimum wage workers, there exists industry to meet their extraordinarily limited means. Its the old Ford adage that he need pay his workers enough to afford his cars lest he have no market to sell to.

This matters to state level actors the same way opiates in the US matter. If isolated, rare, instances of irrationality reign and someone ends up dead from a drug overdose that is a manageable risk for the freedom granted in return. But when millions are addicted, tens of thousands are dead, and whole communities are collapsing from it the individual choices that led people to drug addiction are a consequence to the whole of society.

It doesn't even need be in that large a scale. If your brother is a drunk he will by nature he less productive and stable in his life, more prone to disease and illness, and often fall upon his family for support because he cannot support himself due to his own choices. You can then of course choose to not help him, but for those that do their now deflated resources from supporting their drunk brother depress their participation in markets they would have had more voice in. It takes only one bad apple to ruin a family, a bushel to destroy a community, and an orchard can ravage whole counties.

Its why anyone contemplating suicide is told its a selfish way out. Because you make the choice, but everyone else gets to deal with the consequences. Almost nothing you do is wholly restricted to yourself alone - everything has consequences, and society at all is built on a foundation of trading personal liberty for freedom from others liberties.

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#44

Post by geezerjay » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 5:27 AM UTC

MereInterest wrote: post #13

neokantian wrote: post #11

If you do not like the sharing economy, then do not participate in it. "Other people should not be doing this, and should not be doing that, ..." is one bridge too far. For heaven's sake, who the hell are you, to tell other people what to do?

Yeah, how dare we insist that people be paid a living wage! And health insurance is only for employees, not employees-in-everything-but-name!

> Yeah, how dare we insist that people be paid a living wage! And health insurance is only for employees, not employees-in-everything-but-name!

You're doing no such thing. You're actually preaching that people with less opportunities than you should be left with even less options because your paternalist view of them makes you feel you're entitled to tell others how they can and cannot do to earn a living.

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#45

Post by shard972 » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 5:29 AM UTC

chongli wrote: post #18

neokantian wrote: post #11

If you do not like the sharing economy, then do not participate in it. "Other people should not be doing this, and should not be doing that, ..." is one bridge too far. For heaven's sake, who the hell are you, to tell other people what to do?

When someone decides to turn their apartment until a hotel room, it affects all of their neighbours. They can't then decide not to participate in the sharing economy, it is thrust upon them unwillingly.

The obvious solution here is to then share your apartment and go live in your nicer house.

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#46

Post by argonaut » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 5:31 AM UTC

gmmeyer wrote: post #27

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot that I agree with in your post and in that thread, but this in particular I take issue with: > One poinI have no idea what orifice @AOC pulled the$3.37 number from, but it’s wrong at best or intentionally deceptive at worst. I never made less than $10/hour and usually made $15-$45 an hour. And this was BEFORE Uber allowed tipping via the app. This woman is clearly not taking her expenses into account wh…

It was a study that was retracted: https://qz.com/1222744/mits-uber-study-couldnt-possibly-have... She probably never heard about the retraction, it got a lot less press than the original study

AOC's tweet about Uber was posted a year ago. Before the study was retracted.

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#47

Post by geezerjay » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 5:33 AM UTC

MereInterest wrote: post #31

chillacy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can land a job as an employee with no fixed hours, no manager, where you bring your own equipment, etc? Seems closer to contractors. I think it would have been smart if Uber let drivers set their own prices, then they'd be more akin to Amazon sellers, who feel more independent (but get screwed in other ways).

Where all the money goes to Uber, and is then distributed to the drivers? Where drivers are forbidden from subcontracting? Where drivers are forbidden from establishing regular routes for repeat customers? Those sound more like employees than contractors.

Visa or paypal isn't suddenly everyone's employer just because they process payments, and at least in some jurisdictions drivers can and do subcontract. In fact, there are licensed car rental companies that also provide services through Uber.

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#48

Post by KorematsuFred » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 5:33 AM UTC

chongli wrote: post #18

neokantian wrote: post #11

If you do not like the sharing economy, then do not participate in it. "Other people should not be doing this, and should not be doing that, ..." is one bridge too far. For heaven's sake, who the hell are you, to tell other people what to do?

When someone decides to turn their apartment until a hotel room, it affects all of their neighbours. They can't then decide not to participate in the sharing economy, it is thrust upon them unwillingly.

Then those people should amend HOA rules or move to some other place where they can sign a contract of no AirBnB. If the AirBnB hosts causes an actual loss make him pay for it.

At any rate the armchair philosophers should not advice others on what should be allowed or not.

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#49

Post by nnnnnande » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 5:34 AM UTC

joejerryronnie wrote: post #38

MereInterest wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, how dare we insist that people be paid a living wage! And health insurance is only for employees, not employees-in-everything-but-name!

See, I have a problem with this line of thought. You are not an employee of these companies if you can sign up through an app, choose how much or little you want to work, and have no boss. If you want the living wage, health insurance, and employee perks then apply for an actual job and go through the full interview process like the rest of us. This mentality of “I want everything you have but I don’t want to actuall…

> This mentality of “I want everything you have but I don’t want to actually put the time and effort in to get it” is very frustrating.

How do you know that these people haven't already put time and effort into trying to get an "actual job"? It would seem to me that the free market does not serve everyone with equal economic opportunity and that the world economy is more nuanced than what your average libertarian would like you to believe.

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#50

Post by orangecat » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 5:35 AM UTC

door5 wrote: post #10

jetrink wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Until prices then rise Which they didn't do entirely through the invisible hand. In many areas, taxi regulation was also used limit competition (e.g. medallion systems, unnecessarily difficult licensing exams). In addition to higher prices it permitted lower quality service. If you want to prevent destructive wildfires, you need to do forest management to reduce the fuel that builds up. The taxi industry was a fore…

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/02/nyregion/taxi-drivers-sui... It's easy to be cavalier if you ignore the effect on Taxi workers. Ride sharing replaced a stable, unionized, middle class career with low-paying, low-benefit gig jobs. It ruined people's lives and destroyed a stable field of work. This wasn't a technological innovation -- it was a legal one, where they figured out a way to evade regulations to undercut…

It ruined people's lives and destroyed a stable field of work.

Telephone operators and travel agents used to have stable careers.

This wasn't a technological innovation

If the technology is so insignificant, why didn't taxi companies develop ride-hailing apps? Either it's actually complex, or they decided they had no need to improve service because of their oligopoly.