The sharing economy was always a scam • Hacker News Board

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#121

Post by DangitBobby » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:05 AM UTC

PostOnce wrote: post #21

anovikov wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it must be represented by one simple thing: rental yields. What is the rental yield for a typical property in your place? If it's going way up, you can easily afford buying instead of renting so you don't have that problem (at a rental yield of about 6% or so, a mortgage becomes smaller than the rent). If it's going way low, it's a stupid idea to buy and owning will probably never pay for itself and lose money l…

Well, that assumes someone wants to sell a house, or that you're allowed to build a new one. Neither of those may be the case.

Or that you can afford to save for a down payment on top of current rent and other living expenses.

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#122

Post by antisthenes » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:06 AM UTC

neonate wrote: post #109

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…

> taking advantage of people's poor ability to do math Are you sure you're not being patronizing there? i.e. underestimating people's ability to choose what works for them? I talk to most Uber/Lyft drivers I ride with, every one of them has said they're happy with it, and most have given specific reasons why.

None of what you said implies they have ever done any sort of calculation of their maintenance costs and profitability.

They could have reasons (or just stated reasons) beyond considering raw profitability.

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#123

Post by wallace_f » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:07 AM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #117

akiselev wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporate average fuel economy regulations [1] set targets for the average fuel efficiency of all the vehicles a manufacturer sells. Since SUVs are popular and higher margin, car companies often have to do tricks like the auto-off engines to offset poor fuel economies in more profitable segments. Manufacturers that want to go over the limits have to pay a penalty or buy credits from their competitors who go under the…

Does that make a meaningful mileage difference or is it just a marketing trick because it’s so obvious to the user when the engine shuts off that “it must be saving fuel”. During a normal 15 minute drive, the engine auto shutdown shaves maybe 20 seconds of runtime for me (smaller city without long lights) and it’s at the lowest engine consumption level (idle). Given that an engine can idle for approx an hour on a gal…

Read the person you are replying to. It doesn't matter if it is useless in real world. What matters is if it beats the tests created by govt bureaucrats.

>stop/start is estimated to boost fuel economy by 4 to 5 percent using the EPA test cycle

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a19561461/automakers-incre...

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#124

Post by basicplus2 » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:07 AM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #50

door5 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Its not comparable as Uber is running at a loss underwritten by certain Arab interests so the traditional Taxi service system cannot compete

https://www.investors.com/news/uber-loss-q3-revenue-slows-ub...

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#125

Post by door5 » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:09 AM UTC

geezerjay wrote: post #95

door5 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are choices other than unemployment and shitty gig jobs -- stable, well-paying employment with benefits. Whether these jobs exist or not isn't because of some abstract economic theory: they have to be fought for and won through political struggle (ie unions & strikes). The gig economy disempowers workers and makes solidarity among workers more difficult, because workers may not have a single employer, and are e…

> There are choices other than unemployment and shitty gig jobs -- stable, well-paying employment with benefits. There really isn't. Everyone looks after their best interests, and those working for companies such as Uber are already choosing the best option that's available to them. Zero people have passed on well-paying jobs with benefits to pursue a career delivering food through Uber eats. Making vacuous statement…

you seem to think that jobs just exist, and pay a certain wage, and that wage is fixed and this is the law of the universe.

political struggle (higher minimum wage, stronger regulations, unions, etc) drives wages up.

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#126

Post by razorbladeknife » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:09 AM UTC

arcturus17 wrote: post #104

jeffbax wrote: post #12

Articles like this ignore the impact on individuals. For every group that is trying to full time Uber/Lyft or turn an AirBNB into a hotel, there's also tons of people who are doing in the spare time to make some extra or work the better allocation of resources into something beneficial for them. See threads like: https://twitter.com/RantyAmyCurtis/status/110272136190510694... That's what sharing is about, more optima…

What about those of us who do not wish to take in any of this and still pay the consequences? In Madrid rent is up a staggering 17% YoY, mostly due to AirBnB. That affects anyone looking for an apartment and I’m sure if renters were to pick between having AirBnB available for their travels - which is eye-wateringly expensive anyway! - or cheaper rent, they will invariably pick the latter.

Some party will always be at loss and market will decide which one.

Just stop traveling to Madrid after all not everyone is entitled to invade life of locals and make their place crowded.

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#127

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:11 AM UTC

geezerjay wrote: post #102

aikah wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The main driving principle of the sharing economy is actually the ability to give a lift from time to time without any bother. Except for people driving for Uber full-time. The whole "grass root sharing economy" Uber style is a masquerade.

Some people work for Uber full-time because regulation restricts supply, thus providing the service becomes too profitable and generates enough income to make a living working full time. I also have a hard time trying to see the point of this sort of argument. Are taxi services suddenly bad, and driving a taxi for a living something to frown upon?

[deleted]

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#128

Post by dymk » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:11 AM UTC

argonaut wrote: post #46

gmmeyer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sounds like a good opportunity to retract the tweet too, then

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#129

Post by razorbladeknife » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:13 AM UTC

People forget that sharing economy always existed in some form

You ask your friend to drop you off at the work or your sister to babysit your son, it's all sharing.

I can argue such kind of sharing (without cash) puts other people at disadvantages who don't have friends or family maybe due to some disability.

Now even those people can hail a ride on Uber.

What's wrong with it? I don't need to maintain a list of friends which worsens my anexeity/depression, I simply pay and I am happy.

I can see why people who have social circle to maintain such favours will not like this because now a lonely soul can get same level of service from others around him.

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#130

Post by smadge » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:18 AM UTC

ksec wrote: post #94

smadge wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that twitter story is an example of the financially precarious position many workers are in. It only supports the idea that our economy is fundamentally unfair to working people. How is it acceptable that a mother of three going to nursing school has to support herself and her family through contributions from friends and family, multiple part time jobs, and driving for Uber? Going to school and raising a fam…

Incoming Unpopular opinion. I had a somewhat similar discussion, and it turns out many people from different origins and Culture think differently. And hence why politics are complicated. In America that would be considered as hard working American. Some are proud ( until the hard cold market reality got in to their end I suppose ) and they don't even think there is anything wrong with it. In Europe, that would be co…

I agree. If Uber drivers view themselves as individuals acting rationally to maximize their material conditions in an environment they can't alter, then why would they have issues with Uber? If driving for Uber wasn't a net positive over not driving for Uber, they wouldn't be Uber drivers. But they can and should alter the economic environment they exist in, through politics and labor organizing. The median cut Uber takes from drivers is 40%. This is before accounting for vehicle fuel, insurance, and maintenance. Presumably some percentage of the cut is necessary to develop and maintain the application infrastructure, but clearly not that much. I imagine most Americans would be furious if the government instituted a 40% flat tax on their income, but within the individualist mindset it is seen as inevitable and they accept it.