
"Sharing economy" should share its wealth - johninsfo
http://www.sfbg.com/2014/03/25/sharing-economy-should-share-its-wealth
======
sciguy77
> the companies and their wealthy investors are profiting from exploiting
> their communities and refusing to play by the rules. That's a point of pride
> among the tech titans, who speak proudly of the "disruption" that they
> create and adopt vaguely libertarian anti-government postures when it suits
> their interests.

Ok I don't think when an entrepreneur says "disruption" he means "exploiting
my community." The community wants Airbnb and Uber, that's why the pay for
them.

~~~
endersshadow
The customers aren't the ones being exploited. What you're missing is what we
in economics call an "externality"[1]. Let's say you rent out your apartment
through Airbnb to somebody. Well, now what you've done is taken money for that
transaction, but who assumed the risk? Sure, you risked some of your things,
but your landlord has assumed the risk of liability _and_ property damage
_without his or her knowledge or consent_. In fact, it was probably _strictly
prohibited in your lease_. The cost of the landlord's risk (which is not $0)
is an externality. Let alone your neighbors, who are now living in a less
secure building due to your actions.

Understand that these businesses have a larger impact on the economy and your
community than just the money flowing between them and their customers. Also
understand that laws exist for reasons--not infallible reasons, just reasons.
Whenever a law seems to be completely nonsensical to you, start looking into
it a bit more. Typically, the answer is just behind the curtain, or people
were exploiting the system in ways you didn't even think of.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality)

~~~
Houshalter
There is an externality, but it's still smaller than the total benefit. I
think the ideal way to handle it would be to find some way to insure for it,
or hold the tenant responsible. It certainly shouldn't be illegal, just at
best violate a private contract/agreement with the landlord.

~~~
JonFish85
Isn't violating a contract _by definition_ illegal?

~~~
sneak
Nope - illegal generally refers to violations of criminal laws.

Breaches of contractual obligations are civil matters. You don't go to jail,
generally.

------
frogpelt
Individuals can freely choose a taxi cab over Uber if insurance is a concern
for them.

Individuals who are not concerned with insurance may find that they should
have been.

Governments should not make it their job to protect individuals from every bad
choice they could make.

Why is this concept which is so simple so terribly hard to grasp?

~~~
michaelt

      Individuals can freely choose a taxi cab 
      over Uber if insurance is a concern for them.
    

People hit by Uber drivers with invalid insurance don't get a free choice in
the matter. And if higher numbers of uninsured drivers drive up premiums for
regular motorists, they don't a free choice either.

This is what economists call an externality [1]. A voluntary transaction that
looks good to the two parties who have a choice in the matter, but which
imposes a cost on a third party who doesn't have a choice.

If I own an apartment and the apartment next door gets sold to an investor who
rents it out on AirBnB for nightly loud parties, eroding my property's value,
that's the same thing.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality)

~~~
Houshalter
Liability insurance is required for all drivers, not just taxis. If the driver
didn't have insurance, he was violating the law regardless. The fact he was
operating a taxi service has nothing to do with anything. License plate
readers could trivially identify cars on the road without insurance if it's a
huge problem.

~~~
sharemywin
the insurance company won't cover it because it's personal insurance not
commercial insurance. Personal insurance isn't priced on people driving around
in their cars all day.

~~~
stickfigure
Has this ever actually happened with an Uber/Lyft/etc driver that was involved
in an accident? Or is this theoretical?

~~~
gamblor956
The insurance company for the Uber driver who hit and killed a little girl
refused to pay on his policy arguing that he was engaged in a commercial
activity at the time and thus not covered by his personal auto insurance
liability coverage, which excludes commercial insurance liability claims.

~~~
stickfigure
Do you have a link? All I can find by searching is that Uber denied liability
for the accident.

------
gruseom
Regardless of one's opinion, how can you have a serious discussion without
mentioning the benefit users get from these products? That's what drives the
whole thing.

~~~
pilom
>"the benefit users get from these products"

By being exposed to risk by uninsured operators? The operators (drivers or
hosts) undercut current offerings (taxis and hotels) by not being insured.

~~~
gruseom
The benefit is getting a car, or a place to stay, far more easily.

My point isn't that these services are net good (though I do think so). It's
that any "net bad" argument that doesn't consider these benefits isn't serious
and so discredits its own side.

~~~
pilom
I also agree that these services are a net good, but I think what the original
article was trying to say was "why don't they just suck it up and insure their
operators?" Then the "net bad" argument disappears.

~~~
gruseom
If you're right, then I misread the article, which is quite possible.

------
chrismcb
I didn't realize Twitter was part of the sharing economy

~~~
selectout
Probably "sharing information" economy. I think if they wanted to they could
make any company a part of the sharing economy.

------
sharemywin
Domino's disrupted the pizza industry with 30 minutes or less, then they got
the shit sued out of them. McDonald's disrupted the coffee market by offering
super hot coffee through the drive thru then they got the shit sued out of
them. As sad as it is sometimes trial lawyers accomplish what the government
can't.

~~~
Bartweiss
Although the general point about lawsuits stands, it's worth being aware that
the McDonald's suit isn't actually a fantastic example of frivolous lawsuits.
By the time the famous lawsuit came through there had been several hundred
claims of coffee-induced injuries resulting in half a million dollars in
payouts. The Liebeck case kicked off after McDonald's offered $800 on $10k of
medical bills after paying out sizeable amounts of money to other people who
were injured. There's still room to dispute the value of the suit, but it's
not as simple as it's made out to be.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restauran...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants)

~~~
sharemywin
I wasn't implying that they were frivolous. Do I think individuals should get
punitive damages and lawyers 30% of millions of dollars verdicts probably not,
but sometimes lawsuits are the only things corporations listen to.

------
lnlyplnt
I don't think I've ever seen an editorial that was this far off from the truth
before.

~~~
ktothemc
They're so full of shit.

------
EliRivers
Jesus. It's like the Rand club let out early around here.

------
sneak
Oh, look, the word "disrupt" (via "disruption") just got weaponized against
the people who coined it. Good work, guys.

------
bluedevil2k
This article should be retitled "Government wants a piece of the pie"

~~~
unfunco
This is a ridiculous comment. Governments should be entitled to a reward for
schooling these people to wealth, for likely funding their growth (as people)
and health, for protecting them from criminals, for collecting their trash,
for cleaning the streets around their office, governments (despite many
government workers) don't just sit around trying to extort businesses, they're
trying to fund a happy future.

I'm not saying I agree with the article in its' entirety, but there is a solid
reasoning behind taxation.

~~~
bluedevil2k
"Governments should be entitled to a reward" -> what??? They're entitled to a
reward for a business becoming successful? You're mixing up corporate taxes
and individual taxes. I find your comment somewhat ridiculous - "entitled to a
reward for schooling these people to wealth, for likely funding their growth
(as people) and health" \- even if you believe that to be the case, which is
debatable, they've already paid individual taxes their entire lives to receive
those things - it's not like the government waived their taxes and took a
stake in their company. If you've paid taxes your entire life for the services
you've already received, why would the government be entitled to your
business's taxes in the future if you've created a business outside their tax
scope. Take Uber - they claim they aren't a taxi service, so the government is
rewriting the laws to get make them a taxi company and get their money from
Uber. I highly doubt the government is doing this to try fund a happy future.

