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

The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

daily.jstor.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#81

Post by eli_gottlieb »

rib3ye wrote: post #15
pesmhey wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely better, no arguments here. My point is that Silicon Valley has branded everything it does as 'tech' when in reality, it's just a better taxi company, a better hotel company, etc. unencumbered by the old ways. Like, the reality would have been good enough, 'We're a taxi (or insert whatever industry you want) company doing things way better than before." Instead, it's 'We're using algorithms and this sh…

There is something about traditional engineering culture that sees marketing as big lie, but one of the reasons these companies have been so successful at transitioning public opinion is because they treat the whole business as iterative. Instead of thinking "boring finance dept" and "slimey marketing guys", they think "financial and social engineering".

>Instead of thinking "boring finance dept" and "slimey marketing guys", they think "financial and social engineering".

I concur with that sounding much worse. I like my lizards to be green and scaly, not wearing people-suits.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#82

Post by pesmhey »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #75
pesmhey wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely better, no arguments here. My point is that Silicon Valley has branded everything it does as 'tech' when in reality, it's just a better taxi company, a better hotel company, etc. unencumbered by the old ways. Like, the reality would have been good enough, 'We're a taxi (or insert whatever industry you want) company doing things way better than before." Instead, it's 'We're using algorithms and this sh…

I think that's really unfair to what Uber has built. I routinely take UberPool in Manhattan for 30-40 minutes during rush hour for around $5. Along the way, it's not uncommon to share the car with another 4-6 passengers, as people are picked up and dropped off along the way. That's not just a better taxi company, that's a whole new modality of transportation that's only possible because of technology.

It’s cool af, and revolutionary. Uber also seems to have a cutting-edge machine learning presence. I don’t want to diminish in any way how great the new technologies coming out of Silicon Valley are.

The thing about it, though, is that ‘technology’ has been around for millions of years, if we’re being honest. Fifty years ago, on top of a network of cutting edge phone communication tech, automotive tech, oil and gas tech, the ‘old guard’ taxi industry was doing its thing.

It’s a fine line between pride and arrogance, and the idea that Silicon Valley has somehow invented even the idea of technology is...well, it’s pretty arrogant. Publishing, advertising, transportation, etc. are not new things.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#83

Post by tryptophan »

sroussey wrote: post #67
chrisco255 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The job market might have been terrible 5 years ago, but this is not the case today. 3.7% unemployment in the U.S. Lowest since 1969.

Labor participation rate is a better number to follow. The headline you are quoting assumes you have a job once your unemployment runs out. Look around any city and see the homeless. It’s been increasing, and not just in SF.

No its not, unless of course you are implying the growing elderly population should be working and the fact that they are not is somehow a problem.

The metric(U3/U6) has also been measured the same way forever. Is trumpler now measuring people as employed once their unemployment runs out at a greater/lesser rate than before? I would guess no. This means comparisons across time are valid, despite the metric having flaws.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#84

Post by elliekelly »

will_brown wrote: post #13
smacktoward wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point was not to trick average people, it was to trick regulators by creating sufficient ambiguity around whether these companies were different enough from their already-existing counterparts to justify not applying the same regulations to them. And it worked! For as long as it needed to, anyway.

It didn’t trick regulators...in my county (Miami-Dade) Uber racked up millions in fines and “settled” for $4M. There are ~3,000 counties in the US...and significant outstanding debts/legal liabilities. The only people tricked is investors who are unaware of the real legal liabilities and whose funds are being used to float the illegal operations and some drivers who now have criminal records from doing a job they wer…

> Now they are going to trick the public with a public offering and offload these toxic shares.

You're right, they'll offload them right into a bunch of retirement funds.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#85

Post by rolleiflex »

pessimizer wrote: post #31

It's weird to spend so many words arguing against a word used as branding. There was never a sharing economy, because it is people paying money for things. What was created was a piecework economy, which was obviously going to be successful if it could figure out a way to skirt the laws that made piecework jobs illegal. Investors could see that, and added so much cash in anticipation of a monopoly (and with the under…

You have a gift for PR-speak.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#86

Post by AckSyn »

matchbok wrote: post #34
mkirklions wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason these were illegal was cronyism. And before you get excited about the safety we get with regulation. Capitalism has proven with billion dollar companies, we don't want regulated taxis.

Eh, the only people who like unregulated mini-hotels (airbnb) in residential areas are the ones making money.

Are you kidding? I love the $29-$39/night rooms I have when traveling. It's a boon.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#87

Post by drawkbox »

savanaly wrote: post #26
drawkbox wrote: post #16

The movie Sorry to Bother You has a satirical look at the sharing economy gone awry. In the movie a controversial company called WorryFree exists that promises lifelong security where people willingly become slaves to live in dorms and survive without worry but for free. The movie is excellent.

How is it a look at the sharing economy in particular? It was a satirical take on modern capitalism, sure, but I didn't see how WorryFree was supposed to remind you of a person working a contracting job such as an Uber driver. Quite the opposite in fact, the employees of WorryFree seemed to be signing up for lifelong, permanent and inflexible employment terms. Uber drivers may get a raw deal but surely one would ackn…

It is more about modern sharecropper capitalism I agree but WorryFree is the endgame of the sharing/gig economy, basically people fed up with hustling in the gig economy or sharecropper systems can become slaves and have their worries handled for them (dorm, food etc) almost like a mix of prison mixed with dorms at work like Foxconn.

In the movie Cassius "Cash" Green, the main character, works as a telemarketer and all the telemarketers are looking to unionize but there is little control or solace in any work in their look at modern society.

Throughout the movie, when the work is a complete hustle, WorryFree draws these people in by marketing that they don't have to worry about the hustle anymore, just become a slave to make the hustle easier. In the future of Sorry to Bother You, you can either be a sharecropper/hustler/sales or slave.

Here's a look at all the elements in the movie regarding modern economies and their drive for cheap labor and ultimately pliant slaves [1] Boots Riley, who created the movie and was previously a rapper, made one hell of a movie director/screenwriter debut, it is already a cult classic.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffewing/2018/07/13/could-sorr...

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#88

Post by gaius »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #75
pesmhey wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely better, no arguments here. My point is that Silicon Valley has branded everything it does as 'tech' when in reality, it's just a better taxi company, a better hotel company, etc. unencumbered by the old ways. Like, the reality would have been good enough, 'We're a taxi (or insert whatever industry you want) company doing things way better than before." Instead, it's 'We're using algorithms and this sh…

I think that's really unfair to what Uber has built. I routinely take UberPool in Manhattan for 30-40 minutes during rush hour for around $5. Along the way, it's not uncommon to share the car with another 4-6 passengers, as people are picked up and dropped off along the way. That's not just a better taxi company, that's a whole new modality of transportation that's only possible because of technology.

it's not uncommon to share the car with another 4-6 passengers, as people are picked up and dropped off along the way

I guess you have never been to Egypt or any other third world country where this is completely normal and not an app in sight

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#89

Post by rchaud »

shittyadmin wrote: post #33
kevin_b_er wrote: post #10

The "Sharing Economy" was always a lie. It was always about illegal acts rebranded. Illegal rebranded taxis. Illegal rebranded hotels. etc

I mean, you get more than that, no one looked at Uber and went "ooh, illegal taxis". They looked at it and went "ooh I can use it from my phone with the push of a button and it's cheaper". The whole point of the "sharing economy" is to compete on efficiency, ease of use and price. Ridiculous, anti-competitive laws were in place in these systems, I applaud their death.

> no one looked at Uber and went "ooh, illegal taxis"

That's because it was falsely framed as "ride sharing" to begin with, when it was obviously a taxi service.

It should also go without saying that millions in VC cash can prettify anything and buy enough positive PR and lobbying to give the service an air of legitimacy.

Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival

#90

Post by Torgo »

kevin_b_er wrote: post #10

The "Sharing Economy" was always a lie. It was always about illegal acts rebranded. Illegal rebranded taxis. Illegal rebranded hotels. etc

"Family planning" was always a lie. It was always about illegal acts rebranded. Illegal birth control. Illegal abortions. etc
Post reply on HN