Why The Sharing Economy Isn’t

Maybe it's because I work for a nonprofit, but this piece seems like speculation and paranoia. Oh, so this group Peers is actually funded by a handful of wealthy patrons? Guess what--all nonprofits make 90%+ of their revenues from the top 10% or less of donors. Some nonprofits only really have ONE donor. That's just how the nonprofit sector works. All of it. By the author's logic, the Red Cross is astroturf.

I think it's a fair point that these companies aren't building a sharing economy. They're building companies that let people sell individual surplus of capital or time or skills through a convenient platform. That might not be sharing, but there's real economic value in that. They wouldn't be able to take a cut from these small transactions unless they genuinely offered some valuable service to the other parties. I just recently stayed in a wonderful AirBNB apartment while on a trip, and I know I wouldn't have managed that without the AirBNB service, and I know I would have paid more and gotten less for a hotel.

The author assumes--wrongly, from my experience in public policy--that the status quo organizations and regulations exist for the common good. Some do, but many don't. Lots of bad laws and crooked organizations raise unjustifiable barriers to entry--not just for Silicon Valley start-ups, but for the mom-and-pop businesses too.

I can't say for sure whether Peers is good, bad, or neutral. I can say with certainty that this article is heavily biased, ignorant of how most nonprofits work, and ignorant of the public policy process.

So great piece with a lot of valid criticism but I also feels like it keeps judging the speech on a claim it doesn't continue to make.

The author continues judging the speech as a claim to counter capitalism when in fact the speaker comes clean early on. This is unfortunate because it muddles the argument.

The way I understand the argument its more that instead of companies making money on individuals its individuals making money on each other. It's removing the middle man so to speak.

For instance when he write

"The laws that he is talking about are licensing laws and other laws put in place to protect employees, customers, and neighbourhoods. These laws are not all perfect. But the sharing economy has nothing to replace them beyond magical thinking about “trust” (with little accountability)."

He is basically cherry picking. There is also quite a few laws that are actually hindering progress.

Technology does move faster than legislation.

> By the author's logic, the Red Cross is astroturf.

It would be like that if the Red Cross claimed to be a grassroots organisation and engaged in advocacy for its funders. As far as I know neither of those things are the case, and if they are I hope somebody will write critical blog posts about it.

All platforms can be thought of as positioning themselves for rent seeking - that is app stores, linkedin, and yeah airbnb.

Things that require a network effect, after they get it, are in a super leveraged position that they can cash in.

That said, the platforms that choose not to cash in on this tend to not be as successful. Couchsurfing wasn't. Cash and the promise of cash for investors allows a company to spend a great deal to market and secure with insurance this sharing economy. These are important functions to make the public understand and get used to this new weird future.

In the end, we need those rent-seeking-seeming fees to jumpstart this whatever-you-want-to-call-it sharing economy. We don't get an airbnb without a large commission on every renting agreement made.

I believe that once the public is comfortable with 'sharing economy' as an integrated part of our lives, then the race to the bottom platforms might start happening - when companies are competing on price and features. Of course, those incumbents will fight tooth and nail to keep their monopolies and may well succeed. We'll see.

Right now is the golden age for these types of companies.

> This is most certainly a dream, because in reality women's rights and feminist movements are in part about getting women actually paid for the labor they perform.

The idea that capitalism subverted feminism in the pursuit of cheap labour is shared by some feminists, and isn't necessarily inherently antifeminist.