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

Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 566 posts

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#251

Post by gaius »

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #224
qiqing wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minor quibble, but Airbnb doesn't own the hosts' homes or apartments, and Uber doesn't own the drivers' cars. Renting is an accurate descriptor of Netflix or Kindle (and Google Play movies actually does have "rent" on the label of the button when you want to rent a movie). And I can see what you mean from the perspective of the guest or rider, but not from the perspective of the host or driver.

I'd also agree that Uber/AirBnB do not really fit well in that comment. These are companies that mostly just serve as middlemen. They could theoretically be entirely decentralized enabling people to genuinely connect directly with other people to offer a service. There are even technological solutions towards avoiding bad actors and abuse. For instance mutual facial recognition to ensure people are who they say they…

I'd also agree that Uber/AirBnB do not really fit well in that comment

They are not “sharing” anything in the sense that people normally understand the word. Money is exchanged for services, as normal. The only thing they do differently is evade regulations and taxes.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#252

Post by eric_the_read »

pc86 wrote: post #175
amelius wrote: post #6

It may be better for the environment to not own stuff, but instead use services. For example, take a fridge. If I buy a fridge, the company I buy it from has an incentive to make it break in N years, so they can sell me a new one, i.e. "planned obsolescence". However, if I subscribe to a service to keep my food and beverages at a certain temperature, then the company has the incentive to make the fridge last as long…

> If I buy a fridge, the company I buy it from has an incentive to make it break in N years They also have an incentive to make it last a long time so you're a loyal customer. Loyalty is extremely important if you only purchase a half dozen of something your entire life. Guess which incentive is stronger? As a corollary, there is a big difference between being incentivized to do something and simply not being incenti…

Not to mention, if you buy from a company that makes a quality, reliable fridge, you'll recommend it to friends who need a new one; if they intentionally sell you a barely-qualified lemon, you'll steer everyone away from them where possible.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#253

Post by _bxg1 »

paulpauper wrote: post #227
_bxg1 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whether you own music or rent it doesn't give you a stake in the system, nor does owning a car vs using public transport. You're correct, but it does at least give you some agency independent of the system. If you own a DRM-free mp3, you can listen to that song every day for the rest of your life if you want to. Whereas if you just have a Spotify subscription, a record company can decide to pull the track whenever…

but you need electricity, hence a service

And the people (via the government) regulate electricity, so that electricity companies don't gain an inordinate amount of power over society. We just don't have that kind of legislation yet for the sudden influx of service-style companies that have popped up in recent years.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#254

Post by dredmorbius »

qiqing wrote: post #205
_bxg1 wrote: post #134

The article identifies some problems but totally misses their actual source. The problem isn't that we own less stuff, it's that the ownership is replaced by a dependency on a handful of corporations which we have no ability to influence or appeal to. The substitution of individual ownership for a communal one in which individuals retain a stake - a real community, or at a larger scale, a democracy - is not inherentl…

Minor quibble, but Airbnb doesn't own the hosts' homes or apartments, and Uber doesn't own the drivers' cars. Renting is an accurate descriptor of Netflix or Kindle (and Google Play movies actually does have "rent" on the label of the button when you want to rent a movie). And I can see what you mean from the perspective of the guest or rider, but not from the perspective of the host or driver.

Content isn't king.

Channel control is.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#255

Post by hotgoldminer »

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #224
qiqing wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minor quibble, but Airbnb doesn't own the hosts' homes or apartments, and Uber doesn't own the drivers' cars. Renting is an accurate descriptor of Netflix or Kindle (and Google Play movies actually does have "rent" on the label of the button when you want to rent a movie). And I can see what you mean from the perspective of the guest or rider, but not from the perspective of the host or driver.

I'd also agree that Uber/AirBnB do not really fit well in that comment. These are companies that mostly just serve as middlemen. They could theoretically be entirely decentralized enabling people to genuinely connect directly with other people to offer a service. There are even technological solutions towards avoiding bad actors and abuse. For instance mutual facial recognition to ensure people are who they say they…

They're protocol. Without a trusted party in the middle, there isn't a market.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#256

Post by rapnie »

sandworm101 wrote: post #191
ictoan wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, monopoly.

Monopoly is if one corporation owns an entire market. This is about multiple corporations. The proper word is cartel or "corpocracy" which dislike as corporations are just a legal fiction. Someone still owns the corporation. The article isn't really about americans not owning stuff. It is about average americans not owning stuff. Poor, or at least not-rich, people are today less likely to own things like houses and c…

Plutocracy is the name of governance style where a few parties hold all the power.

But on a corporate level oligopoly would be better. A few corporations dominating an entire market segment.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#257

Post by kartan »

ryandrake wrote: post #241

I’m surprised at the criticism here and I think the critics are missing the author’s point. He’s not saying, “buy more stuff you don’t need” or even, “possess more stuff.” He’s saying, “you ought to own the stuff you possess.” Which I didn’t think was a controversial opinion but I guess I stand corrected. I might be an outlier. I make a deliberate effort to own instead of rent. My commute is enormous because I moved…

> “you ought to own the stuff you possess.”

That is the base that Richard Stallman created for the open source movement. You should own your own hardware, and the only way of fulfilling that is to own the software that makes it run. And I also thought that this is common sense at least for the past generation of developers. I am not so sure how much the message has been lost, but it is not so strong as it used to be.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#258

Post by mikestew »

mywittyname wrote: post #243
mikestew wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How often have you considered taking the money for a new Camry and applying to any of a plethora of defensive driving schools or track schools? My thinking is that those fancy airbags only do you any good if something sets them off. But I am curious what progress you feel has been made in auto safety in the last ten years that is "staggering". By 2008, I think we got the low-hanging fruit: 1. ABS 2. Airbags 3. Side-c…

I used to be a fixture in the local SCCA, but my wife has been in far few accidents than me, so probably not a great use of time/money. As far as safety progress over the past ten years - 2008: SID-II Crash test dummies. These dummies are designed to simulate smaller humans (women and children). 2010: NHSTA revamps five star rating because cars became "too safe." Almost every vehicle on the road had a five star ratin…

There's a bunch more but I'm tired of reading research papers on teh subject.

Well, thank you for taking the time to post what you did in response to my question.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#259

Post by elicash »

User23 wrote: post #178
elicash wrote: post #37

> The nation was based on the notion that property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system. Why is the fact that people without property were not given the right to vote because they "didn't have a stake" as our nation was founded being lifted up as a good thing? It's such a bizarre thing to say that this ideology was a good one. The author can't really believe that renters have less a stake in the system a…

Renters have less skin in the game than owners, and this drives a number of long term sub-optimal decisions.

Sub-optimal decisions FOR WHO? Clearly not sub-optimal decisions for the renters or they wouldn't favor the different policy.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#260

Post by gnopgnip »

amelius wrote: post #6

It may be better for the environment to not own stuff, but instead use services. For example, take a fridge. If I buy a fridge, the company I buy it from has an incentive to make it break in N years, so they can sell me a new one, i.e. "planned obsolescence". However, if I subscribe to a service to keep my food and beverages at a certain temperature, then the company has the incentive to make the fridge last as long…

Planned obsolescence is only an issue if there is a monopoly or significant collusion. The market incentives will sort this out.
Post reply on HN