
The sharing economy was always a scam - mathattack
https://onezero.medium.com/the-sharing-economy-was-always-a-scam-68a9b36f3e4b
======
jeffbax
Articles like this ignore the impact on individuals. For every group that is
trying to full time Uber/Lyft or turn an AirBNB into a hotel, there's also
tons of people who are doing in the spare time to make some extra or work the
better allocation of resources into something beneficial for them.

See threads like:
[https://twitter.com/RantyAmyCurtis/status/110272136190510694...](https://twitter.com/RantyAmyCurtis/status/1102721361905106945)

That's what sharing is about, more optimal allocation/usage. It's not an end-
all solution to everything, it's a supplement. There will be people who make
their entire go at it, and there will be everything in between.

The importance is that you let people decide whether to participate in it or
not. They're the ones with which the decision of whether it is a scam or not
ultimately matters.

Trying to paint the entire phenomenon as either a total failure or the end-all
panacea is dumb. It's a much welcome addition to the broader economy by
millions of people.

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
There's a lot that I agree with in your post and in that thread, but this in
particular I take issue with:

> One poinI have no idea what orifice @AOC pulled the$3.37 number from, but
> it’s wrong at best or intentionally deceptive at worst. I never made less
> than $10/hour and usually made $15-$45 an hour. And this was BEFORE Uber
> allowed tipping via the app.

This woman is clearly not taking her expenses into account when calculating
her income, and there lies the rub - in one way Uber is taking advantage of
people's poor ability to do math. If you are a short/part-time driver, the
increased depreciation and maintenance costs are probably not that visible to
you, but for folks who drive more regularly they absolutely need to be
factored in to your income calculations.

A good treatment of the topic: [https://www.ridester.com/uber-lyft-driver-
costs-and-expenses...](https://www.ridester.com/uber-lyft-driver-costs-and-
expenses/)

~~~
neonate
> _taking advantage of people 's poor ability to do math_

Are you sure you're not being patronizing there? i.e. underestimating people's
ability to choose what works for them? I talk to most Uber/Lyft drivers I ride
with, every one of them has said they're happy with it, and most have given
specific reasons why.

~~~
benj111
I don't think its patronising, some (many?) people just aren't good at maths.

I know a couple of intelligent people that have a real blind spot when it
comes to dealing with figures. So this isn't a 'stupid people' thing.

Have you never had a conversation with someone about their new car/phone. They
say it's cheap because it only costs them X per month. You ask them what the
total cost is, and they have no idea? Because I seem to have that kind of
conversation with a wide variety of people.

It's not about choosing what works for them, its about making sure that choice
is informed. If you're earning $10/hr great, if you spend $5 of that on other
costs, you should really be deciding if $5/hr is worth it.

~~~
neonate
Sure, but why assume that Uber and Lyft drivers all fall into that category?
That's what seems patronizing to me. They'd have to be dumb to take that gig
for very long if it wasn't economic for them, and many of the ones I've talked
to have stuck with it for a long time now. To me it seems disrespectful to
assume that they don't know their own interests, and it fits with a meme of
poorer people being dumber, which I dislike.

~~~
benj111
Personally I don't read the parents comment as referring to _all_ Uber
drivers, but that's just me.

"it fits with a meme of poorer people being dumber "

I agree that that's the meme, the parent doesn't actually refer to Uber
driver's wealth, rich or poor.

I'm guessing theres an unspoken assumption that Uber drivers are poorer,
because it isn't that well paid? People don't seem to be giving up careers to
do it.

~~~
xkcd-sucks
Also the meme might be "poor people are forced into exploitative situations".
Nobody would assume that a fast food clerk, for example, is dumb enough to
consider the job good.

------
nimbius
Speaking as a professional engine mechanic for a chain of Midwest shops, you
have no idea how big a ripoff uber and lyft are until you're in the shop.

The rates you make do not cover fleet style usage of your personal vehicle.
Cabbies love the crown Vic because its intercooler let's it idle for hours on
end with no worries. And they love the Prius because the idle uses no fuel.
But your car? Get ready for more oil changes and brake jobs, and a lot more
air filter and steering fluid changes as you go around the blocks. The worst
I'd charged shop rate was for a Toyota Camry that had $2500 in service because
the uber guy was trying to make it last between paychecks that weren't being
paid by uber. A month later in august he lost the transmission at 65000 miles
because he never idled in neutral.

~~~
sandeeps_
Does one need to idle in neural even on automatic gear cars?

~~~
thinkingkong
He was probably slipping the clutch.

~~~
wyqydsyq
I think you'll find it's been years if not decades since there was a Camry
available with a manual transmission

~~~
redwall_hp
And that would just wear a bearing/spring system or the clutch, which are all
repairs that are far cheaper than the cost of an automatic transmission
replacement.

~~~
kortilla
But idling an automatic shouldn’t be a problem. It’s a fluid turbine.

------
em3rgent0rdr
The claim was never that "‘Sharing’ was supposed to save us" nor any of the
other allegations in the article. In fact there never was any unified claims.

Of course the individual companies made claims about how their platform would
save you a bit of time and money and friction. And _that_ has largely been
true. Millions of people each saves a little time and money, and that in
aggregate has benefited us tremendously.

The sharing economy never promised the moon.

~~~
door5
Who is "us"? Maybe upper middle class consumers, but not the workers at these
companies.

~~~
geezerjay
If those providing services through platforms such as Uber or airbnb didn't
benefitted from them then they'd be doing something else instead.

Furthermore, of detractors actually cared about "the workers" then they'd be
worried about how they have no better options instead of attacking the best
options they have.

And no, banning Uber or airbnb does not make the workers' lives any better. It
just an option off the table, and to some it's the best option they have.

~~~
door5
There are choices other than unemployment and shitty gig jobs -- stable, well-
paying employment with benefits. Whether these jobs exist or not isn't because
of some abstract economic theory: they have to be fought for and won through
political struggle (ie unions & strikes). The gig economy disempowers workers
and makes solidarity among workers more difficult, because workers may not
have a single employer, and are easily replaceable.

I'm not saying we should ban these companies, I'm saying their workers should
be paid much more than they currently are.

~~~
geezerjay
> There are choices other than unemployment and shitty gig jobs -- stable,
> well-paying employment with benefits.

There really isn't. Everyone looks after their best interests, and those
working for companies such as Uber are already choosing the best option that's
available to them.

Zero people have passed on well-paying jobs with benefits to pursue a career
delivering food through Uber eats.

Making vacuous statements regarding the myriad of better options the gig
economy workers forego to pursue the siren song of delivering pizzas makes as
much sense as depicting winning the lottery as a valid alternative to working
a day job, and it's an insult to those who want to make a living but have
limited options.

People choose to deliver pizzas for a living because it's the best option
available to them, and complaining that they should instead just get a stable
well-paying job with benefits makes as much sense as complaining that starving
people should eat cake instead.

~~~
door5
you seem to think that jobs just exist, and pay a certain wage, and that wage
is fixed and this is the law of the universe.

political struggle (higher minimum wage, stronger regulations, unions, etc)
drives wages up.

------
benwr
The title seems totally unsupported by the article to me. A less misleading
one might be "The 'sharing economy' has evolved into a collection of large,
unregulated, rental businesses"

~~~
geezerjay
The sharing economy was always fron day 1 about rentals. That's the central
premise.

What's deviating from the original concept is that barriers to entry are
restricting supply to the point that providing a service becomes too
profitable and actually pays off to provide it full time.

Consider Uber. The principle behind ride sharing is quite simple: if you're
already driving somewhere you can help someone out by sharing your ride with
someone who wants to go where you're going. Cars are already clogging the
roads while operating at 1/5 of their capacity. So, why not give someone a
ride and be rewarded for your efford? Except that regulation bars individuals
from doing just thay, and thus so-called rideshare companies are actually taxi
companies.

~~~
jaclaz
>The sharing economy was always fron day 1 about rentals. That's the central
premise.

If I may, the central premise is about being middle-man in a (renting)
transaction, shaving off a fee from it for the service of establishing a
contact between the two parties and - optionally - provide ancillary services
(again at a cost for either party involved in the transaction).

~~~
geezerjay
You've just defined a business transaction. Being paid for providing a service
is not the central premise, and completely misses the whole point.

The central premise of sharing economy is that people have access to
resources, whether they are goods or services, that are underused or even
wasted, resulting in an unnecessarily high level of economic inefficiency.
Thus if a system is set to encourage those who have the resources to make them
available to potential clients for a fee then everyone involved wins. A key
concept is to set a centealized service which handles the hard part of a
business such as transactions, business models, and disputes.

~~~
jaclaz
Well, that is exactly what the "businesses" revolving around it are doing.

Offering in your words a "centralized service which handles the hard part of a
business such as transactions, business models, and disputes" cutting a fee
from the value of the transaction.

The point of disagreement between our opinions only revolves around that
service(s) being the "hard part" of the business and about the actual amount
of the fees involved for these services.

Anyway a line needs to be drawn between an actual "sharing car" approach, as
an example we have here blablacar where someone _already_ has to go from A to
B and offers a ride to recover some costs and something like Uber and Lyft,
here the driver is going from A to B _only_ because the customer(s) needs to
go from A to B.

------
KorematsuFred
Sharing economy has existed well before technology and will outlast Uber and
others. When you ask friends to drop you at airport that is sharing. When your
aunt babyseats for you that is sharing economy. Potluck is sharing economy.

Economic efficiency through sharing is a great thing for society, it is just
that it is hard to get it right at scale but nevertheless we are trying and we
will test success sooner or later in some areas.

~~~
quickthrower2
Doing favours for friends is very tax efficient. You basically pay no tax when
you give or receive a favour. And let's face it, even though sometimes you
might pay a friend to babysit or whatever it is cash in hand and no tax.

But the sharing economy requires you to pay from your after tax salary to
someone else, who then pays tax on that before they get their pay. On top of
that the rent seeker (uber, etc.) has to take their slice. So it's a low paid
marginal business once you are being paid.

~~~
KorematsuFred
Yeah absolutely. That is why I do not know how to make it scale. In India
often we let the uber driver cancel the ride after sitting in the taxi and pay
him in cash thus he makes lot more money.

I think a networked society is colliding with a hierarchical government and
the result is confusion.

------
rv-de
I'm currently traveling through the UK.

I went from Hamburg to London via Antwerp by blablacar.

I so far stayed at two places through couchsurfing.

and I'm now heading towards my third Airbnb place.

sharing economy is certainly not a scam.

------
Animats
Well, duh. Wasn't that obvious around the time Uber started?

~~~
mdsharpe
Indeed...

“There was a moment of novelty but then a realization that these were the same
things. Just much cheaper and unregulated.”

Imo this has been obvious all along.

------
matchagaucho
Maybe _" sharing"_ is not the correct term. The value proposition has evolved
into a _Subscription Economy_ with _Asset-Light_ lifestyles.

------
jellicle
>Sharing economy

Back in the day we called it sharecropping and we knew it was bad.

------
CM30
I wouldn't say it was a scam. I mean, at the end of the day, these 'sharing
economy' services are basically platforms with a middleman taking a cut, and
were originally meant for people to use as a hobby more than anything else.
You might occasionally drive for Uber for a bit of spare cash, or lease out a
room on Airbnb because you weren't using it right now.

In that scenario, it's fine. It doesn't provide a living wage, but really, it
wasn't meant to replace your full time income.

But the thing is, where a market and platform exists, that's where you see a
creeping level of 'professionalism' among participants, and eventually, the
people doing it for fun do getting crowded out by people doing it for a
living.

Yet the model doesn't work for that. What's sustainable for legions of people
doing things in their spare time/using their spare resources is not
sustainable as a full time replacement for hotels or taxis or what not. The
problem is that the gig economy is just that; about gigs, not full time work.

And to some degree, you can see this trend everywhere. YouTube was at one
point meant as a place to post amateur videos; now nearly everyone sees it as
a full time job. Medium was a place for amateur writers, now it's see as a
market for selling articles. Even game mods, an area which used to be 100%
free now has a growing percentage of devs trying to treat it as a full time
career.

Hence the problems with the sharing economy (and arguably platforms as a
whole) are really two fold:

1\. What works as a hobby/extra way to make money on the side doesn't really
scale well to a full time career, but more and more people seem to expect the
latter. It's like trying to use a paper round (or a ton of them) to pay the
mortgage.

2\. The existing markets/businesses these platforms target become unprofitable
due to the huge increase in competition and lower number of regulations.

But that's not really a scam. It's just technology and society unlocking a lot
more supply in these areas than there was before, and the existing businesses
in the market suffering because of it. You don't even a platform for that, the
internet has basically destroyed journalism as a viable career in much the
same way as Uber has taxis.

On another note, the article also seems to conflate two different things;
platform/gig economy services and subscription services. Something like Amazon
Prime Video isn't that. It's another example of how companies seem to be
trying to kill off private property with the endless subscription, and a whole
'nother kettle of fish in itself.

------
nitwit005
In a shocking, totally unexpected twist, company owners and marketing
professionals exaggerated the value of their products.

Most of these sharing startups have just been flops. They promised to "disrupt
X", and then no one used them, or they were too expensive, and they vanished.

------
crankylinuxuser
Indeed it is. I've posted and talked about this along with posting Richard D
Wolff's video "Uber is an old scam"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGwZcR0q6VE&t=10s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGwZcR0q6VE&t=10s)

We've seen this before, at the beginning of a new industry. And once
capitalism sets in, everyone is dragged down to a race to the bottom... Along
with safety and human treatment.

And then once the abuses are rampant, people demand change in the way of
regulation. And it works. Until prices then rise, and people are angry about
the high prices of thing (Taxis).

And then, an upstart doing "app hailing" starts this all over again, with no
quality, no assurances, no regulation, and sub-minimum wage payments, with no
work protections.

Soon enough, the laws will finally roll in again as they did when Taxis were
first made.

~~~
jetrink
> Until prices then rise

Which they didn't do entirely through the invisible hand. In many areas, taxi
regulation was also used limit competition (e.g. medallion systems,
unnecessarily difficult licensing exams). In addition to higher prices it
permitted lower quality service. If you want to prevent destructive wildfires,
you need to do forest management to reduce the fuel that builds up. The taxi
industry was a forest full of dry, dead wood ready to burn.

~~~
door5
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/02/nyregion/taxi-drivers-
sui...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/02/nyregion/taxi-drivers-suicide-
nyc.html)

It's easy to be cavalier if you ignore the effect on Taxi workers. Ride
sharing replaced a stable, unionized, middle class career with low-paying,
low-benefit gig jobs. It ruined people's lives and destroyed a stable field of
work. This wasn't a technological innovation -- it was a legal one, where they
figured out a way to evade regulations to undercut the current system and
drive down wages.

~~~
orangecat
_It ruined people 's lives and destroyed a stable field of work._

Telephone operators and travel agents used to have stable careers.

 _This wasn 't a technological innovation_

If the technology is so insignificant, why didn't taxi companies develop ride-
hailing apps? Either it's actually complex, or they decided they had no need
to improve service because of their oligopoly.

~~~
tomc1985

      Telephone operators and travel agents used to have stable careers.
    

So you are for the indiscriminate ruining of lives because of technological
innovation? Why can't any of these innovators work with encumbents to ensure
happiness for all and not just enriching themselves?

~~~
akiselev
Why can't any of these incumbents work with innovators to ensure happiness for
all and not just enriching themselves?

I don't know if you've ever been to a medallion auction but they went for over
a million dollars _each_ in Manhattan before Uber came along. Most of the
medallions were bought up by holding companies that then leased them out to
drivers who paid up front and had to hope they made enough money that day to
cover the fee. In San Francisco, I remember a driver told me that his up front
fee was $100-200 per 8 hour shift depending on the season - that's over
$100-200k per year ROI and SF's medallions were a fraction of the price of
NYC.

I seriously doubt many lives were ruined by the fall in value of taxi
medallions. Very few are owned by actual drivers and that's where _all_ the
money is.

------
razorbladeknife
People forget that sharing economy always existed in some form

You ask your friend to drop you off at the work or your sister to babysit your
son, it's all sharing.

I can argue such kind of sharing (without cash) puts other people at
disadvantages who don't have friends or family maybe due to some disability.

Now even those people can hail a ride on Uber.

What's wrong with it? I don't need to maintain a list of friends which worsens
my anexeity/depression, I simply pay and I am happy.

I can see why people who have social circle to maintain such favours will not
like this because now a lonely soul can get same level of service from others
around him.

------
neokantian
If you do not like the sharing economy, then do not participate in it. "Other
people should not be doing this, and should not be doing that, ..." is one
bridge too far. For heaven's sake, who the hell are you, to tell other people
what to do?

~~~
MereInterest
Yeah, how dare we insist that people be paid a living wage! And health
insurance is only for employees, not employees-in-everything-but-name!

~~~
neokantian
I am free to make the deals that I want, regardless of what they include or
don't include. Why would I need you to protect me from myself? Why do you want
to micromanage other people's lives? Is your own life not interesting enough
already?

~~~
yjftsjthsd-h
Because your life impacts mine.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19335217](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19335217)

~~~
antidesitter
Virtually everything you do impacts people around you. So can you be more
specific?

