Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by kkop » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 6:32 PM UTC

_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…

The biggest change probably isn't that you are renting things, even from companies (which tends to be a bad thing to do long term). But that the people, or companies, you rent from doesn't even own their stuff. Banks i.e. capital increasingly owns everything. They are the record companies of reality. Takes little of the risk, does little of the work, but profits handsomely and makes everything more expensive.

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

#262

Post by dionidium » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 6:32 PM UTC

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…

> My commute is enormous

And:

> rather than be beholden to some landlord whose interests are not aligned with my own

It sounds like you're now beholden to a situation that's misaligned with your interests. You've traded one kind of serfdom for another.

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

#263

Post by TangoTrotFox » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 6:33 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #167

This is beyond ridiculous. The crux of the article is: > Each of these changes is beneficial, yet I worry that Americans are, slowly but surely, losing their connection to the idea of private ownership. The nation was based on the notion that property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system. It set Americans apart from feudal peasants, taught us how property rights and incentives operate, and was a kind of…

I think you might have a logical hole here. The biggest problem with renting things is precisely that they have a negative effect on your net worth. When you buy a product that is something that you have the right to sell, rent, trade or otherwise enrich yourself with, at least within the confines of intellectual property law.

As an example I enjoy games and my Steam account likely now is 'worth' some thousands of dollars that I should be able to sell at some depreciated rate. Except it's not, and I cannot. As I'm effectively renting access to these products instead of actually 'buying' them, my account is worth exactly $0. I could try to sell it nonetheless, but it would be unlawful. If I was instead able to actually own these games, my little hobby would still have cost me money, but I'd be able to recoup a substantial portion of it at a later date -- or perhaps even work to monetize "my" games in some way, again within the confines of the law.

This is sort of a microcosm of what causes wealth inequality. A more typical example would be a poor individual spending decades paying rent each month that is simply subtracted from his net worth. A wealthier individual might be paying off a mortgage on a property that eventually begin to earn money for him, or at the minimum provide him a residence with no rent due other than that which the government demands. It's interesting to consider this aspect of the migration to cities. People move into these extremely dense areas where they're obligated to rent homes which, due to high demand, consume a very large chunk of their earnings - and then at the end of the days, weeks, years, decades, they have absolutely 0 to show for what will amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars for most people.

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

#264

Post by baxtr » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 6:33 PM UTC

_bxg1 wrote: post #247

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.

> a centralized company which outsources the generation of actual value to others I would argue that you're still renting from Uber and AirBnB, who are just outsourcing their labor and properties to others. Companies like this - I'm looking at you, Facebook - like to claim that they're only impartial platforms, but the reality is that they gain an enormous amount of power over both sides; stealthily, because they hid…

It’s somehow funny to think about these companies as utilities or infrastructure, which is traditionally created and maintained by the state. I’m not sure if that’s the better scenario

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

#265

Post by macleginn » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 6:35 PM UTC

lovich wrote: post #207

pathseeker wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 inherently bad. IMO it's still terrible if there is effectively only one product option. A democratic decision is just as bad as a shareholder one if it's choosing to favor a majority group over the minority (2 wolves and 1 sheep voting for dinner choices). >o…

If the local can company had an option for me to call one of their cans and i could track it to my door, I probably never would have used Uber. There's some value in being an app you can use in any city, but the number of people who are jet setting around the world _and_ need a cab is probably quite low

Based on my travel experience and given that taxis are rather cheap in many countries, I’d say that most of the people jet setting around the world are very likely to use a universal cab-hailing app at some point.

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

#266

Post by lallysingh » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 6:36 PM UTC

_bxg1 wrote: post #247

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.

> a centralized company which outsources the generation of actual value to others I would argue that you're still renting from Uber and AirBnB, who are just outsourcing their labor and properties to others. Companies like this - I'm looking at you, Facebook - like to claim that they're only impartial platforms, but the reality is that they gain an enormous amount of power over both sides; stealthily, because they hid…

They're brokers.

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

#267

Post by _bxg1 » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 6:37 PM UTC

baxtr wrote: post #264

_bxg1 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a centralized company which outsources the generation of actual value to others I would argue that you're still renting from Uber and AirBnB, who are just outsourcing their labor and properties to others. Companies like this - I'm looking at you, Facebook - like to claim that they're only impartial platforms, but the reality is that they gain an enormous amount of power over both sides; stealthily, because they hid…

It’s somehow funny to think about these companies as utilities or infrastructure, which is traditionally created and maintained by the state. I’m not sure if that’s the better scenario

Created and maintained by the state, or simply regulated by the state. One of the two is absolutely appropriate for at least the most important of the companies we're talking about, but we currently have neither.

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

#268

Post by dalbasal » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 6:39 PM UTC

_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…

I think topics like this (definitely Cowan's style) are better left a little more open.

The "thing that is happening" is a sort of etherealization of property. One underlying cause is that the bits of "property" themselves are digital/ethereal. Books, songs, films... They are no longer physical, and the economic norms around them are changing to reflect that. In conjunction, I think the cultural impact of consuming more digital goods (and probably a million other things) is that people are used to this type of economy. They want the same for their car, bike, etc.

I would call uber a step passed renting, or an extreme form renting. Leasing has already been the norm for a while, along with financing that is indistinguishable from leasing.

The "handful of corporations" part is... more of a consequence, I think. Etherealization/digitization is proving to be very centralization (or winner-take-most) friendly. There are a bunch of drivers to this though. One big reason is centralization of wealth. Big piles of money need big investments to go into. Uber could raise money on better terms than an "uber-for-aukland," adjusting for scale. $1 of profit/revenue/DAU is simply worth less than 1/100th of $100 in profit, on the "speculative investment" market.

I agree on your main points. There is a danger of becoming more of a "rentier" economy. If this trend continues (projecting trends is always speculative) we could end up with more property/wealth in corporate hands, and private individuals will only have liabilities and consumption.

The big elephant in this room is the same elephant that stomped through pyramid rooms 5,000 years ago: real estate, or "land" as it was once known. This is the big ticket item, and represents most of the wealth ordinary people own if they own anything. Cars, CDs and such just don't add up to much value, not anymore.

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

#269

Post by dionidium » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 6:40 PM UTC

fallingfrog wrote: post #187

Everything this guy illustrates in this article as frightening and subversive, I see as positive. Americans confuse control with love; that's why we say things like "you belong to me" and "I only hurt you because I love you". That's why we substitute possessions for relationships. It's a thoroughly poisonous attitude. The most bizarre statement is when he says "The nation was based on the notion that property ownersh…

> Americans confuse control with love

Ownership culture has always exhibited this sort of pathological tendency. People who live next to a park with a basketball court insist on an inferior hoop in their driveway. The suburbs are littered with garden sheds full of identical, mostly-idle tools. We insist on a car for every member of the household.

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

#270

Post by nostrademons » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 6:42 PM UTC

hotgoldminer wrote: post #255

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

...which makes me wonder if maybe the blockchain aficionados are onto something. The problem that blockchains solve is precisely to replace the "trusted middlemen" with a distributed network of miners and coin-holders, and to split the rewards that would accrue to them across a competitive market. If every Internet marketplace were replaced with a smart contract, that's a massive potential market.