

Is Technology Fostering a Race to the Bottom? - RockyMcNuts
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/us/02iht-currents02.html

======
jonny_eh
In other words, does it make the economy more efficient? I think so.

This kind of reminds me of articles from the 70s + 80s wondering if computers
will steal jobs. Sure, but they also made jobs. Services like airbnb might
take money away from hotels, but then give it to enterprising people that have
extra space to rent. Overall, I can't imagine how that's not a good thing.

~~~
AznHisoka
Why is that technology hasn't decreased the amount of hours we've worked in a
week then?

~~~
tokenadult
_Why is that technology hasn't decreased the amount of hours we've worked in a
week then?_

We (working people in the United States, which at a wild guess both you and I
are) have far more stuff, better health and longer lifespans, more flexibility
in work schedules, and much more expensive tastes in leisure than "we" had
back in the 1960s. Genuine personal wealth in the United States has increased
greatly in the last few decades, despite government figures understating that
increase in wealth, and we have every prospect of continuing to increase
personal wealth, gaining more utility in whatever we value most, as the
decades roll on.

See Matt Ridley's writings for the long version of this argument.

<http://www.rationaloptimist.com/>

As for why people aren't content to live an early 1960s lifestyle with fewer
hours of work per week (which is perfectly possible to do in the United
States), most people gauge their wealth on a relative rather than absolute
basis, and so compare themselves to their neighbors. As "everyone" they know
enjoys more of today's wealth, they work hard enough to keep up, subject to
the utility trade-offs they consider important. So most people still work
full-time hours at most occupations, even though part-time employment at
today's rate of compensation allows a lifestyle that was considered quite
adequate within my memory.

~~~
mark-r
That's half the answer. In reality much of the efficiency gain due to
technology is going to the employer rather than the employee. Even if you were
content with a 1960's lifestyle, it would take more hours to support than the
technology gains would suggest.

------
fidotron
This seems to be a poorly titled piece, when the real insight is simply that
government regulation has stifled innovation. If you compete because you've
sidestepped some of that regulation then it's not really surprising that some
of the things you liked have also gone as well.

Basically governments need to step back a bit, before they're completely swept
aside.

------
varelse
These seem to be make-work for lawyers in the making, which IMO supports the
idea that too much regulation stifles innovation...

That said, what keeps me from turning libertarian is that most of these
regulations were extremely well-intended and addressed genuine societal
issues. I just wish there were a middle ground here and there doesn't seem to
be one.

------
robobenjie
I have gradually increased my airbnb rates while maintaining a constant level
of occupancy from $35 to $90 over two years, so at least from where I'm
standing it doesn't seem like a race to the bottom.

------
seiji
Summary: new startups enable mildly illegal markets to operate at a large
scale making you feel less illegal because, hey, like, everybody is doing it.

There's a good chance renting your place and car violates your homeowner's
insurance, lease agreement, and/or car insurance.

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
Or perhaps better phrased: YOU are the next business externality.

The name of the game now is how businesses can pay you a pittance and get you
to take loads of risk. I need only speak of the lady who's car was involved in
a fatal accident. It was her car, driven by someone who paid her for the time.
Who's at fault?

~~~
crusso
For that case in particular, you're talking about a new business model that
uses an insurance and liability model that might not be suited for it quite
yet.

That case hasn't been decided and the only article I saw on it just was
warning about possible problems.

------
DanielBMarkham
This article is silly. It looks to me like what happens when a writer meets a
situation he is unable to comprehend yet wants to say something really
profound about it. Really poor execution on the structure of the piece.

What he _should_ have done, instead of quoting the blogger who was worried
over the collapse of western civilization or one of the startup founders, is
interview people on both sides of the economic transaction. Are sellers happy
with their experience? How about buyers? This would have given the reader the
ability to at least anecdotally walk in the shoes of those involved. That
would be a nice newspaper story. Take me to the scene of where something
unique and interesting is happening.

Or, if he wanted to make some over-arching societal point, he should have
written an opinion piece. Gave us more statistics. As it is presented it is
not much of a newspaper story _or_ an opinion piece, neither bird nor foul.
Meh.

