
Why the term 'sharing economy' needs to die - henrik_w
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/05/why-the-term-sharing-economy-needs-to-die
======
cryoshon
For the most part, the "sharing"/"gig"/"contractor"/"race to the bottom"
economies are a result of generation-term poor economic times and skyrocketing
income inequality resulting in fewer resources to go around and
commodification of existing resources in order to make par. Sharing is far too
innocent of a term, because really these "sharing" paradigms are another way
of treading water. I hope that someone else has mentioned that before, but it
seems absent in these discussions most of the time.

You think the rich need to share/borrow their power tools via the latest app?
Pfft, they don't even need to think about power tools because they can hire
tradesmen whenever needed. Sharing is for people who can't afford an expert or
their own personal items.

------
maus42
>A typical analogy for the sort of model people wanted to build was focused on
household tools: if you own a drill, you likely don’t use it 364 days of the
year; why not let others use it in the meantime?

>In its purest sense, that is the sharing economy. But it very quickly ran
into an issue: while some people act out of altruism, most don’t. My drill is
mine. Why should I share it with you?

> [...] And so “sharing” became “renting”.

Quite great summary how socialism (at least the utopian kind) implemented at
large scale, while a beautiful idea, still remains an elusive dream.

------
javiercr
I wrote something similar one year ago:

[https://medium.com/@javier_dev/uber-is-not-sharing-
economy-2...](https://medium.com/@javier_dev/uber-is-not-sharing-
economy-2f6f7ce6f076)

------
geebee
"While renting out a spare room in a flat (or even renting out a flat) may be
close enough to “sharing” to be hair-splitting…"

It's actually good for me to read these sentences, because it reminds me that
clear-minded people can have opinions that I consider borderline nutty. The
best thing to do in these situations is to disagree firmly and unambiguously,
but politely.

Ahem.

So, pop quiz, "commerce or sharing?": I put up a listing on a website that
says "you may stay in my house on october 11-13 for $275 a night." If you
don't pay, you may not stay. If you do pay, we now have a deal.

How on earth is that so close to sharing as to be hair-splitting? It is so
clearly a quid-pro-quo, money for service transaction that I think it is
almost a pure illustration of commerce. If I wanted to illustrate the
difference between sharing and commerce and where it gets ambiguous, this
would be an excellent example of something that is commerce, not sharing, with
no ambiguity.

------
maus42
Otherwise, article makes also a good point about services like Uber, that they
are not really about sharing anything.

A "sharing economy" version of Uber would be more akin to a car-pooling
service.

~~~
kedean
I mean in theory, that's what Uber is supposed to be. Drivers share space in
their car while on the way to places, and make some spare change. In practice,
drivers pick it up as a part time job and just drive around looking for
pickups.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
I don't see any evidence that Uber is intended to work that way. Drivers don't
get to filter riders to only get riders who are going somewhere near to where
the driver wants to go. They have to take whoever is nearby, and can only
reject a small percentage of requests before they are kicked out of Uber.

------
pinkrooftop
This is perhaps an application for blockchain technology, keeping track of
"ride credits" that drivers earn and can only spend on rides from other
drivers. It's not a Taxi model, it'd be a sharing model.

I'm surprised Uber is not running a tier like this, because they could
advertise completely free rides (just give a few rides first) and charge a
small admin fee

~~~
sewercake
Under this 'definition' of sharing, the only requirement seems to be for the
goods transferred to be in a 'closed' system. If someone were ever to create a
service that traded 'ride credits' with 'food credits', would it no longer be
a sharing model? Couldn't we frame the entire world economy, based off of
currency as a 'sharing model'?

While I do think sharing models require some kind of 'inclusiveness' to make
them viable, I think we must take into account the distribution of
goods/resources, and the power relationships that evolve from providing these
services. The only way (or at least the only way I can think of off the top of
my head) to keep these in check is to allow everyone participating in the
system to have a say in how the system operates. Something akin to a co-
operative rather than a shareholder driven corporation.

