
Stop calling it the Sharing Economy – That isn’t what it is - drcursor
http://olivierblanchard.net/stop-calling-it-the-sharing-economy-that-isnt-what-it-is
======
eveningcoffee
"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.

------
ucaetano
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.

~~~
nhaehnle
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.

~~~
ucaetano
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?

\- Uber: labor

\- TaskRabbit: labor

\- AirBnB: return on asset

~~~
kedean
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.

~~~
ucaetano
We can disagree on definitions then.

~~~
earleybird
Your desire to have a word mean something different does not make that
alternate meaning correct.

~~~
ucaetano
I'm just looking up in the dictionary:

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...

~~~
earleybird
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'.

~~~
ucaetano
Once again you're narrowing the definition of sharing to fit your argument
and, as I said, we're arguing definitions.

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.

------
Patient0
NB: I was confused until I realised that this is not the same Olivier
Blanchard who is chief economist of the IMF.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Blanchard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Blanchard)

~~~
sebastianbk
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.

------
rdlecler1
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.

~~~
redblacktree
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.

------
marincounty
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?

------
marcelsalathe
Sharing: "use, occupy, or enjoy (something) jointly with another or others."
Economy: "offering value for money"

There 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...](https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/networks-and-the-nature-of-
the-firm-28790b6afdcc)

------
ArkyBeagle
"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".

------
reagency
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"?

~~~
aaroninsf
There's an incomplete history at
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharing_economy](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.

------
fwn
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.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
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".

------
pluckytree
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.

------
personlurking
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.

