I never got why Uber would be part of a sharing economy.
Sharing economy is about sharing underutilized resources, in other words, fully utilizing expensive assets by spreading usage across a larger number of users. The focus here is on the asset, not the service.
AirBnB? Check, that's sharing economy, you're clearly increasing usage of an underutilized asset (your home when you travel, or your spare bedroom), although there are exceptions (those who buy a place to rent on AirBnB like a hotel).
TaskRabbit? Nope. Uber? Nope. That's just the service economy, nothing new to see here folks.
Even AirBnB isn't sharing though, in the traditional sense of the word. This should be obvious when you compare it to CouchSurfing, which is genuinely about sharing.
I would argue that the way it's traditionally understood, sharing is something that happens between equals, or people who have an intention of becoming equals. "Let me share some advice with you" is fundamentally about a relationship between equals or possibly a relationship between people who are not exactly equals in some aspect, but either feel like they belong to some common in-group or like they will be equals eventually.
From this perspective, it's obvious that CouchSurfing is sharing while AirBnB isn't: on AirBnB, the expectation is that there is a split between the seller and the buyer; on CouchSurfing, there is a shared identity of "travelers" and an expectation of reciprocity.
Let me also point out that by your own definition of how you use the word sharing, it's not so clear why you wouldn't call Uber a sharing service. After all, somebody might decide that their car is an underused asset which should be "shared". (Hold on, you say, those people are also selling their labor? Well, so do AirBnB hosts when they clean the room after you stayed in it...).
tl;dr: Your conclusions don't actually follow from your implied definition of sharing, and your definition of sharing doesn't match the general feeling that the word evokes.
Guess I should have made my definition of "sharing" more explicit:
Share: have a portion of (something) with another or others.
I never said sharing should be free. Carrier share towers (for fees), companies share office buildings, warehouses, etc.
"I would argue that the way it's traditionally understood, sharing is something that happens between equals, or people who have an intention of becoming equals."
Well, that's your definition. We can spend the rest of our lives arguing about definitions.
"From this perspective, it's obvious that CouchSurfing is sharing while AirBnB isn't: on AirBnB, the expectation is that there is a split between the seller and the buyer; on CouchSurfing, there is a shared identity of "travelers" and an expectation of reciprocity."
So, by my definitions, AirBnB is sharing, so is CouchSurfing.
"by your own definition of how you use the word sharing"
Again, you're implying a different definition of sharing than I'm using (or even that the dictionary uses).
"somebody might decide that their car is an underused asset which should be "shared""
The car yes, but you're not paying for usage of the car, you're paying for a transportation service.
"Well, so do AirBnB hosts when they clean the room after you stayed in it...)."
That's asset maintenance. Someone driving a car isn't asset maintenance, it's a service. And that's even charged separately, usually (as a "cleaning fee").
"tl;dr: Your conclusions don't actually follow from your implied definition of sharing, and your definition of sharing doesn't match the general feeling that the word evokes."
Not only you wrongly implied my definition of "sharing", which I actually took from a dictionary, but you also didn't understand the difference between usage of assets and labor services. Another way to look at it is: what's the main cost component? Is it return on assets or labor?
Nope, not significant at all, you can lease a reasonable, "uberable" car for way less than $200/month (which already includes depreciation).
If the car is used on Uber for (a very conservative estimate) of 20 hours per week, ~150 hours per month, that's about $1/hour in asset costs. Let's say maintenance and what not costs another 50% of that plus another 50% of whatever, we're still talking $2/hour in asset costs, which is far less than minimum wage.
Dictionaries don't specify that sharing be free, sure, but that's because the concept of 'i give you part of something i am in excess of in exchange for something' is already called selling, and 'i allow you to use part of something i am in excess of in exchange for something' (airBnB) is already called renting. Those activities are not sharing because they are already renting and selling, which are incompatable with sharing.
By induction, sharing must not involve transaction of money between the two parties doing the sharing. A timeshare is sharing because the people who share the condo do not pay each other, they both pay someone else and agree on when each party will have access.
Also, Uber's claim to be 'ride sharing' is the idea that the rider is filling otherwise empty space in the drivers car. It's original purpose was to let drivers pick up strangers to fill otherwise empty seats while on their way to do other things, it just mutated into the 'driver as a profession' form that we have now, so I think it does fit your definition.
verb
verb: share; 3rd person present: shares; past tense: shared; past participle: shared; gerund or present participle: sharing
1. have a portion of (something) with another or others.
We share the same dictionary definition of the word share.
By way of example; you and I may share a ride in an Uber drivers car. The Uber driver (as a profession) does not share our same purpose so is more accurately described as renting out their service and vehicle.
With example of carriers sharing a tower care must be taken to clarify the roles of the participants.
If three carriers are using the tower then all three are sharing. Note the common purpose.
If one of the carriers owns the tower then this carrier is also renting. There is nothing precluding both renting and sharing from occurring at the same time but to include sharing there must be a common purpose.
Since the dictionary definition of sharing speaks to a 'portion' with out regard to financial reward and rent is a 'payment for use' then the correct way to describe the financial transaction that occurs with an Uber driver is 'rent'.
As @kedean correctly points out; Uber may have started out as a service for sharing a common purpose but it is no longer that. The fact that Uber drivers are contractors, or in the State of California, employees is clear evidence that the driver and rider no longer share a common purpose.
As the word economy connotes finance and there is not a common purpose to portion out the more accurate phrase is 'Rental Economy'.
I agree, except AirBnB means you are expected to operate a mini-hotel (without the protections of a hotel).
Clean room, fresh towels, etc.... AirBNB = you are renting.
Notice you are operating without the protections of a landlord (i.e. landlords have formal leases)
Notice you are operating without the protections of a hotel (i.e. hotels have as part of their contract a statement that hotel guests are not renters no matter how long the guest stays - read the contract on the back of every hotel door; it is there for this very important reason.)
This is IMPORTANT.
In most states if a person stays a certain number of contiguous days (~30days), has a key - they become a renter de jure. And renters cannot be evicted without a formal eviction process.
What I question is the fact that these startups become too big to fail which puts them on par with corporations, meaning we start to support corporations rather than the underdog. Corps still win.
Same here. I have read several of the IMF Blanchard's school in grad school and naturally thought it would be the same guy. I got a little confused too.
"Laws that took decades to come up with by the community in which they apply, whose intent was to established the most ideal balance possible between cab fares and consumer protections. "
This sounds a little bit too naive to me.
I am not saying that it is not like this. Just this is not the full picture and perhaps not the honest one.
I think that some industries do need disruption, but I agree with the author that perhaps not the kind we are seeing right now.
I think some companies/individuals hide behind the name(Sharing Economy)?
It just sounds fair, progressive, and everyone benefits? This Sharing Economy has make a lot of people insanely rich, provided a lot of middle class jobs(Programmers, Tech workers), and a lot of promises to the rest of us.
What's going to happen when these companies are streamlined, and running pretty well? All the kinks have been eliminated. The point, if they ever completely get past all the regulation; where all they really care about is customer growth? What's going to happen to all those good paying Programmer/Tech jobs? (In reality, I hope Tech workers will just move on to the next opportunity. I just hope certain companies don't get preferential treatment because they were the first to arrive? I hope Tech workers will have a lot of opportunities.)
I do think some of us will look back, and reminisce about the good ole days? And yes--that seems to happen with ever bull market, and subsequent fall.
I wouldn't be that concerned, but it looks like the big boys(Uber, Airbnb, etc.) are buying their rights to the party? A party that looking harder to get into daily? I thought by now, we would have a bunch of Ubers? It looks like their only competition is Lyft? Yea--I know everyone is waiting on the side lines waiting to see exactly what regulations Uber is required to follow? Maybe that's true?
Companies like Uber and AirBnb have put a spotlight on the cost of old and sometimes outdated information and are driving changes that were not going to come from within the system. In some cases we end up with a better end state, in others we are forced to weigh all the pros and cons and we rejig our current model.
I think the end game here is better regulation for companies like Uber. Not to defend taxi companies, (i.e. not protectionism) but we need at least some of those rules to apply, such as background checks for drivers. There is also the question of whether drivers are employees or not. (and thus due greater benefits)
To my mind, Uber is unquestionably a good disruption; I'm glad its happening. I hope that the "end state" won't be the status quo of today, however.
Is anyone old enough to remember the original "Sharing Economy" -- ZipCar and FlexCar and the newish bike shares. When did the term get misapplied to "contractor economy"?
There's an incomplete history at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharing_economy but I'd like to see a histogram of uses... might be heard to filter for current usage/valance however.
Needless to say, adopted and popularized because branding.
I don't get why he thinks a sharing economy couldn't do all the things he points out to be bad without being mislabeled.
He can argue "disruption" by rule breaking is a somehow objectively bad thing. He can believe that selling something shouldn't qualify as "sharing".
All of this seems very constructed to me.
To me it looks like he just doesn't like those services, rationalized it and spins it in a way where he assumes others were misleaded to gain attention.
I would say that for the purposes of his essay, he's being a classic Burkean Conservative. That position means that our ability to discern all the things that could be lost by the disruption will be hard to determine up front.
Agreed that the assault on the word "sharing" seems tacked on, somehow. I suspect it is - it means "somehow like Napster".
Every time you say the word "no" in your article, it’s not a fact, it’s your opinion. Trying to change people’s minds is about educating them, not telling them to stop using words or phrases or to tell them that all their ideas are wrong.
"The ticket scalpers" happen when prices of tickets are too low. So either price discovery of the correct price is too risky/costly or the seller wants to subsidize the buyer for some other reason.
This isn't even dependent on the EMH - if there is no price theory at all, then...
So Uber et al could actually be "ticket scalpers" and there's only a deeply normative reason - not a rational one backed by economic theory - to decry them. Of course this illustrates a .... nice example of shear between complex social arrangements and the (ab)use of mathematics.
Taxi medallions are a textbook example of rents. A business model that goes after rents almost cannot be "evil. Of course if it's your ox being gored...
"Sharing" is Just One Of Those Words - like "nice" or "fair".
29 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 55.6 ms ] threadThere are many very interesting discussions to be had about the Sharing Economy [1]. But the name isn't one of them.
[1] https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/networks-and-the-nature-o...
Sharing economy is about sharing underutilized resources, in other words, fully utilizing expensive assets by spreading usage across a larger number of users. The focus here is on the asset, not the service.
AirBnB? Check, that's sharing economy, you're clearly increasing usage of an underutilized asset (your home when you travel, or your spare bedroom), although there are exceptions (those who buy a place to rent on AirBnB like a hotel).
TaskRabbit? Nope. Uber? Nope. That's just the service economy, nothing new to see here folks.
I would argue that the way it's traditionally understood, sharing is something that happens between equals, or people who have an intention of becoming equals. "Let me share some advice with you" is fundamentally about a relationship between equals or possibly a relationship between people who are not exactly equals in some aspect, but either feel like they belong to some common in-group or like they will be equals eventually.
From this perspective, it's obvious that CouchSurfing is sharing while AirBnB isn't: on AirBnB, the expectation is that there is a split between the seller and the buyer; on CouchSurfing, there is a shared identity of "travelers" and an expectation of reciprocity.
Let me also point out that by your own definition of how you use the word sharing, it's not so clear why you wouldn't call Uber a sharing service. After all, somebody might decide that their car is an underused asset which should be "shared". (Hold on, you say, those people are also selling their labor? Well, so do AirBnB hosts when they clean the room after you stayed in it...).
tl;dr: Your conclusions don't actually follow from your implied definition of sharing, and your definition of sharing doesn't match the general feeling that the word evokes.
# "Theft" is part of the economy too, with a purchase price of zero.
https://www.quora.com/Intellectual-Property-Law/Is-copyright...
"I would argue that the way it's traditionally understood, sharing is something that happens between equals, or people who have an intention of becoming equals."
Well, that's your definition. We can spend the rest of our lives arguing about definitions.
"From this perspective, it's obvious that CouchSurfing is sharing while AirBnB isn't: on AirBnB, the expectation is that there is a split between the seller and the buyer; on CouchSurfing, there is a shared identity of "travelers" and an expectation of reciprocity."
So, by my definitions, AirBnB is sharing, so is CouchSurfing.
"by your own definition of how you use the word sharing"
Again, you're implying a different definition of sharing than I'm using (or even that the dictionary uses).
"somebody might decide that their car is an underused asset which should be "shared""
The car yes, but you're not paying for usage of the car, you're paying for a transportation service.
"Well, so do AirBnB hosts when they clean the room after you stayed in it...)."
That's asset maintenance. Someone driving a car isn't asset maintenance, it's a service. And that's even charged separately, usually (as a "cleaning fee").
"tl;dr: Your conclusions don't actually follow from your implied definition of sharing, and your definition of sharing doesn't match the general feeling that the word evokes."
Not only you wrongly implied my definition of "sharing", which I actually took from a dictionary, but you also didn't understand the difference between usage of assets and labor services. Another way to look at it is: what's the main cost component? Is it return on assets or labor?
- Uber: labor
- TaskRabbit: labor
- AirBnB: return on asset
If the car is used on Uber for (a very conservative estimate) of 20 hours per week, ~150 hours per month, that's about $1/hour in asset costs. Let's say maintenance and what not costs another 50% of that plus another 50% of whatever, we're still talking $2/hour in asset costs, which is far less than minimum wage.
By induction, sharing must not involve transaction of money between the two parties doing the sharing. A timeshare is sharing because the people who share the condo do not pay each other, they both pay someone else and agree on when each party will have access.
Also, Uber's claim to be 'ride sharing' is the idea that the rider is filling otherwise empty space in the drivers car. It's original purpose was to let drivers pick up strangers to fill otherwise empty seats while on their way to do other things, it just mutated into the 'driver as a profession' form that we have now, so I think it does fit your definition.
verb verb: share; 3rd person present: shares; past tense: shared; past participle: shared; gerund or present participle: sharing 1. have a portion of (something) with another or others.
You're the one making your own definitions...
By way of example; you and I may share a ride in an Uber drivers car. The Uber driver (as a profession) does not share our same purpose so is more accurately described as renting out their service and vehicle.
With example of carriers sharing a tower care must be taken to clarify the roles of the participants. If three carriers are using the tower then all three are sharing. Note the common purpose. If one of the carriers owns the tower then this carrier is also renting. There is nothing precluding both renting and sharing from occurring at the same time but to include sharing there must be a common purpose.
Since the dictionary definition of sharing speaks to a 'portion' with out regard to financial reward and rent is a 'payment for use' then the correct way to describe the financial transaction that occurs with an Uber driver is 'rent'.
As @kedean correctly points out; Uber may have started out as a service for sharing a common purpose but it is no longer that. The fact that Uber drivers are contractors, or in the State of California, employees is clear evidence that the driver and rider no longer share a common purpose.
As the word economy connotes finance and there is not a common purpose to portion out the more accurate phrase is 'Rental Economy'.
By the first definition of sharing on the dictionary, my argument is valid.
If you want to use another definition, than don't expect my argument to be valid.
Clean room, fresh towels, etc.... AirBNB = you are renting.
Notice you are operating without the protections of a landlord (i.e. landlords have formal leases)
Notice you are operating without the protections of a hotel (i.e. hotels have as part of their contract a statement that hotel guests are not renters no matter how long the guest stays - read the contract on the back of every hotel door; it is there for this very important reason.)
This is IMPORTANT.
In most states if a person stays a certain number of contiguous days (~30days), has a key - they become a renter de jure. And renters cannot be evicted without a formal eviction process.
AirBnB doesn't sound very "sharing" now does it?
Not necessarily, you can just rent a basic room with nothing else, some people do.
But I agree with you on the point of the law, that's a tricky issue, but easily solvable by changing laws.
But in the end, like my Uber example, the largest part of the cost is still the asset compensation, not the additional services.
This sounds a little bit too naive to me.
I am not saying that it is not like this. Just this is not the full picture and perhaps not the honest one.
I think that some industries do need disruption, but I agree with the author that perhaps not the kind we are seeing right now.
It just sounds fair, progressive, and everyone benefits? This Sharing Economy has make a lot of people insanely rich, provided a lot of middle class jobs(Programmers, Tech workers), and a lot of promises to the rest of us.
What's going to happen when these companies are streamlined, and running pretty well? All the kinks have been eliminated. The point, if they ever completely get past all the regulation; where all they really care about is customer growth? What's going to happen to all those good paying Programmer/Tech jobs? (In reality, I hope Tech workers will just move on to the next opportunity. I just hope certain companies don't get preferential treatment because they were the first to arrive? I hope Tech workers will have a lot of opportunities.)
I do think some of us will look back, and reminisce about the good ole days? And yes--that seems to happen with ever bull market, and subsequent fall.
I wouldn't be that concerned, but it looks like the big boys(Uber, Airbnb, etc.) are buying their rights to the party? A party that looking harder to get into daily? I thought by now, we would have a bunch of Ubers? It looks like their only competition is Lyft? Yea--I know everyone is waiting on the side lines waiting to see exactly what regulations Uber is required to follow? Maybe that's true?
To my mind, Uber is unquestionably a good disruption; I'm glad its happening. I hope that the "end state" won't be the status quo of today, however.
Needless to say, adopted and popularized because branding.
He can argue "disruption" by rule breaking is a somehow objectively bad thing. He can believe that selling something shouldn't qualify as "sharing".
All of this seems very constructed to me.
To me it looks like he just doesn't like those services, rationalized it and spins it in a way where he assumes others were misleaded to gain attention.
Agreed that the assault on the word "sharing" seems tacked on, somehow. I suspect it is - it means "somehow like Napster".
This isn't even dependent on the EMH - if there is no price theory at all, then...
So Uber et al could actually be "ticket scalpers" and there's only a deeply normative reason - not a rational one backed by economic theory - to decry them. Of course this illustrates a .... nice example of shear between complex social arrangements and the (ab)use of mathematics.
Taxi medallions are a textbook example of rents. A business model that goes after rents almost cannot be "evil. Of course if it's your ox being gored...
"Sharing" is Just One Of Those Words - like "nice" or "fair".