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

The sharing economy was always a scam

onezero.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 179 posts

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#151

Post by smadge »

Pristina wrote: post #141
smadge wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can choose to not participate in Uber's system. You can not choose to not pay tax. Well, you can choose that but you will go to jail and be potentially sodomised.

I think the metaphor about taxes was more distracting than illuminating of my point.

The main point was that we shouldn't be celebrating that a mother of 3, going to school, and working multiple part time jobs is able to supplement their income by driving for Uber but instead be asking why is their income so low in the first place that they have to spend their nights and weekends driving in order to afford groceries. This was all in that original linked tweet. I'm sure they would rather be resting, interacting with their children, or studying for school. We can take a step back and recognize that this is a globally suboptimal outcome. At some point the "freedom to earn supplemental income" promised by the gig economy becomes "an obligation to overwork oneself in order to afford groceries." How can this person "choose to not participate in Uber's system", when they've calculated that being an Uber driver is the only way for them to afford groceries for their family?

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#152

Post by AstralStorm »

neonate wrote: post #139
benj111 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its patronising, some (many?) people just aren't good at maths. I know a couple of intelligent people that have a real blind spot when it comes to dealing with figures. So this isn't a 'stupid people' thing. Have you never had a conversation with someone about their new car/phone. They say it's cheap because it only costs them X per month. You ask them what the total cost is, and they have no idea? Beca…

Sure, but why assume that Uber and Lyft drivers all fall into that category? That's what seems patronizing to me. They'd have to be dumb to take that gig for very long if it wasn't economic for them, and many of the ones I've talked to have stuck with it for a long time now. To me it seems disrespectful to assume that they don't know their own interests, and it fits with a meme of poorer people being dumber, which I…

This is why Uber (no idea about Lyft) faces huge employee turnover. That one is in the stats. About 96% quit after a few months. (Less than half a year.) People get smarter once they get hit with a fat payment (repair for example, a crash, uninsured liability) and cannot keep up on the meager pay. They net a loss and often a big one.

Yes, the company is taking advantage of this. Welcome to capitalism. A sucker is born every second.

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#153

Post by AstralStorm »

Pristina wrote: post #143
TeMPOraL wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MLMs makes participants scam other people, so IMO they should be burned to the ground. As for "sharing economy" & drugs and - banning them outright may not be a good idea, but it sure would be best if working for Uber came with Surgeon's General warning.

So if I don't scam people, do MLMs whip me or something? How do they 'make' me?

You do not get contracts, referrals, benefits, other cult business.

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#154

Post by bobthepanda »

wallace_f wrote: post #57
bobthepanda wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allowing people to participate in activities is useful, but that assumes that they are well-informed and rational. People also willingly participate in multi-level marketing; that doesn’t mean it’s good for them and society to do so.

And people will also abuse drugs if decriminalized; it doesn't mean prohibition of even such inherently dangerous activities is making things better

There’s a middle ground, and it’s called regulation. Of course, the ridesharing companies will holler and cry uncle about even the most basic regulations (see: Austin and fingerprinting.)

New York recently made moves to, among other things, establish a floor wage for rideshare drivers similar to how there is a minimum wage for tipped workers.

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#155

Post by Pristina »

smadge wrote: post #151
Pristina wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can choose to not participate in Uber's system. You can not choose to not pay tax. Well, you can choose that but you will go to jail and be potentially sodomised.

I think the metaphor about taxes was more distracting than illuminating of my point. The main point was that we shouldn't be celebrating that a mother of 3, going to school, and working multiple part time jobs is able to supplement their income by driving for Uber but instead be asking why is their income so low in the first place that they have to spend their nights and weekends driving in order to afford groceries.…

It is not a globally suboptimal outcome. She chose to have 3 children without a strong financial foundation. This is why she has no money.

Groceries don't fall from the sky. Somebody has to make them. So the option here is to either take from people to give to people who choose to irresponsibly have children, or don't.

If you chose the latter, then the optimal reproductive strategy would be to breed as much as possible and have other people take care of your children. That is not a 'globally optimal outcome'

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#156

Post by benj111 »

neonate wrote: post #139
benj111 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its patronising, some (many?) people just aren't good at maths. I know a couple of intelligent people that have a real blind spot when it comes to dealing with figures. So this isn't a 'stupid people' thing. Have you never had a conversation with someone about their new car/phone. They say it's cheap because it only costs them X per month. You ask them what the total cost is, and they have no idea? Beca…

Sure, but why assume that Uber and Lyft drivers all fall into that category? That's what seems patronizing to me. They'd have to be dumb to take that gig for very long if it wasn't economic for them, and many of the ones I've talked to have stuck with it for a long time now. To me it seems disrespectful to assume that they don't know their own interests, and it fits with a meme of poorer people being dumber, which I…

Personally I don't read the parents comment as referring to all Uber drivers, but that's just me.

"it fits with a meme of poorer people being dumber "

I agree that that's the meme, the parent doesn't actually refer to Uber driver's wealth, rich or poor.

I'm guessing theres an unspoken assumption that Uber drivers are poorer, because it isn't that well paid? People don't seem to be giving up careers to do it.

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#157

Post by CM30 »

I wouldn't say it was a scam. I mean, at the end of the day, these 'sharing economy' services are basically platforms with a middleman taking a cut, and were originally meant for people to use as a hobby more than anything else. You might occasionally drive for Uber for a bit of spare cash, or lease out a room on Airbnb because you weren't using it right now.

In that scenario, it's fine. It doesn't provide a living wage, but really, it wasn't meant to replace your full time income.

But the thing is, where a market and platform exists, that's where you see a creeping level of 'professionalism' among participants, and eventually, the people doing it for fun do getting crowded out by people doing it for a living.

Yet the model doesn't work for that. What's sustainable for legions of people doing things in their spare time/using their spare resources is not sustainable as a full time replacement for hotels or taxis or what not. The problem is that the gig economy is just that; about gigs, not full time work.

And to some degree, you can see this trend everywhere. YouTube was at one point meant as a place to post amateur videos; now nearly everyone sees it as a full time job. Medium was a place for amateur writers, now it's see as a market for selling articles. Even game mods, an area which used to be 100% free now has a growing percentage of devs trying to treat it as a full time career.

Hence the problems with the sharing economy (and arguably platforms as a whole) are really two fold:

1. What works as a hobby/extra way to make money on the side doesn't really scale well to a full time career, but more and more people seem to expect the latter. It's like trying to use a paper round (or a ton of them) to pay the mortgage.

2. The existing markets/businesses these platforms target become unprofitable due to the huge increase in competition and lower number of regulations.

But that's not really a scam. It's just technology and society unlocking a lot more supply in these areas than there was before, and the existing businesses in the market suffering because of it. You don't even a platform for that, the internet has basically destroyed journalism as a viable career in much the same way as Uber has taxis.

On another note, the article also seems to conflate two different things; platform/gig economy services and subscription services. Something like Amazon Prime Video isn't that. It's another example of how companies seem to be trying to kill off private property with the endless subscription, and a whole 'nother kettle of fish in itself.

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#158

Post by jaclaz »

geezerjay wrote: post #89
benwr wrote: post #7

The title seems totally unsupported by the article to me. A less misleading one might be "The 'sharing economy' has evolved into a collection of large, unregulated, rental businesses"

The sharing economy was always fron day 1 about rentals. That's the central premise. What's deviating from the original concept is that barriers to entry are restricting supply to the point that providing a service becomes too profitable and actually pays off to provide it full time. Consider Uber. The principle behind ride sharing is quite simple: if you're already driving somewhere you can help someone out by shari…

>The sharing economy was always fron day 1 about rentals. That's the central premise.

If I may, the central premise is about being middle-man in a (renting) transaction, shaving off a fee from it for the service of establishing a contact between the two parties and - optionally - provide ancillary services (again at a cost for either party involved in the transaction).

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#159

Post by agent008t »

bobthepanda wrote: post #154
wallace_f wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And people will also abuse drugs if decriminalized; it doesn't mean prohibition of even such inherently dangerous activities is making things better

There’s a middle ground, and it’s called regulation. Of course, the ridesharing companies will holler and cry uncle about even the most basic regulations (see: Austin and fingerprinting.) New York recently made moves to, among other things, establish a floor wage for rideshare drivers similar to how there is a minimum wage for tipped workers.

How about letting people opt out?

Ban things that we have good reasons to believe are harmful for people (or sign them up by default for things we believe are beneficial for them), but allow people to opt out by submitting some document that basically says "I know what I am doing is likely bad for me but I accept the risks"?

This way you both protect people from their own irrationality and maximize liberty.

Re: The sharing economy was always a scam

#160

Post by geezerjay »

jaclaz wrote: post #158
geezerjay wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sharing economy was always fron day 1 about rentals. That's the central premise. What's deviating from the original concept is that barriers to entry are restricting supply to the point that providing a service becomes too profitable and actually pays off to provide it full time. Consider Uber. The principle behind ride sharing is quite simple: if you're already driving somewhere you can help someone out by shari…

>The sharing economy was always fron day 1 about rentals. That's the central premise. If I may, the central premise is about being middle-man in a (renting) transaction, shaving off a fee from it for the service of establishing a contact between the two parties and - optionally - provide ancillary services (again at a cost for either party involved in the transaction).

You've just defined a business transaction. Being paid for providing a service is not the central premise, and completely misses the whole point.

The central premise of sharing economy is that people have access to resources, whether they are goods or services, that are underused or even wasted, resulting in an unnecessarily high level of economic inefficiency. Thus if a system is set to encourage those who have the resources to make them available to potential clients for a fee then everyone involved wins. A key concept is to set a centealized service which handles the hard part of a business such as transactions, business models, and disputes.

Post reply on HN