Slashdot Mirror


Welcome To the 'Sharing Economy'

An anonymous reader writes "Thomas Friedman writes in the NY Times about the economy that's grown around Airbnb, a company built on helping people rent out their unused rooms to other users. He writes, 'Airbnb has also spawned its own ecosystem — ordinary people who will now come clean your home, coordinate key exchanges, cook dinner for you and your guests, photograph rooms for rent, and through the ride-sharing business Lyft, turn their cars into taxis to drive you around. "It used to be that corporations and brands had all the trust," added [CEO Brian Chesky], but now a total stranger, "can be trusted like a company and provide the services of a company. And once you unlock that idea, it is so much bigger than homes. ... There is a whole generation of people that don't want everything mass produced. They want things that are unique and personal."' Friedman refers to this as the 'sharing economy,' but a 'trust economy' seems more apt. He points this out himself: 'Afterward, guests and hosts rate each other online, so there is a huge incentive to deliver a good experience because a series of bad reputational reviews and you're done. Airbnb also automatically provides $1 million in insurance against damage or theft to nearly all of its hosts (some countries have restrictions) and only rarely gets claims. This framework of trust has unlocked huge value from unused bedrooms.'"

37 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. Collaborative economy by sschneebeli · · Score: 2

    Garden sharing is another great thing. I wish something like this existed here. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/sep/02/garden-sharing-growing-vegetables. And here is a TEDx talk about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya6zndBObHY

  2. If you're going to read that, read this as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:If you're going to read that, read this as well by JanneM · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So... I'm very far from what you'd call an unrepentent capitalist (by US standards I probably count as communist-light). But the thrust of his argument seems to be (correct me if I get it wrong):

      * Consumers are much better informed and able to find the best combination of price and value than before;

      * That hurts providers that are neither able to offer lower prices or better value. Or, in other words, those providers that previously managed to stay afloat only because their customers were poorly informed.

      And from a consumer point of view, I have a hard time seeing what is immoral about that.

      If I today have the choice of a chain coffee house with so-so cofee but good prices and generous laptop policies on one hand, and a gourmet shop run by an enthusiast with fifteen kinds of blow-your-mind taste sensation coffees on the other; why would I go to the old coffee shop in between where neither the coffee, service or price is anything special?

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    2. Re:If you're going to read that, read this as well by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 2

      When it comes to things like groupon, yes. Racing prices to the bottom is bad for any sort of market or enterprise. Well, not to the bottom - in this case, past the bottom, in the hopes of converting into regular customers people who are very keen on pursuing advantageous offers, which is a hard proposal. However, when he gets to comparing things like airbnb to being locusts, that's where he makes the very weird mistake of thinking we shouldn't get rid of things we don't need anymore because that would be change. Yes, airbnb, home production and local, smaller trading economies can impact negatively lots of companies that can't compete on cost because of their overhead. However, if they do, that's because those costs are demonstrably unneeded, at least in their current levels, and we have transitioned accordingly, to a more efficient and diversified market (or non-market). Economic growth isn't infinitely sustainable anyway. It will either halt or plummet eventually and there are still people clamoring for us to do everything we can to make more money flow around faster, for no real benefit.

  3. Commercial activities on domestic levels by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Insightful
    And with all these people offering professional services, how many have qualifications or insurance? Say you use someone who offers lifts (to the airport, as an example). What happens if they have a collision - their insurance won't cover them for commercial use (terms and conditions may be different in your country, where ever that is). What happens if the person who's committed to cooking for your guests gives them all food poisoning?

    Trust is nice, and touchy-feely and new-world 'n' all. Though indemnity is better - but it costs.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Commercial activities on domestic levels by Coward+Anonymous · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At some point you have to stop living in fear.
      Stuff can go wrong - that's life. The correct thing to do is to go on with life, not find someone to blame so you can sue them. Somewhere this simple concept has been lost on a great too many.

    2. Re:Commercial activities on domestic levels by petes_PoV · · Score: 2

      Doing business in good faith makes it plausible to have specialization and all of the associated benefits

      Absolutely right. And if everyone who offered these services was honest, capable and fair then there would be no problem. However what *always* starts out as a small, local initiative to "help" starts to attract the hucksters, criminal element and incompetents just out for a buck.

      So the guy who offers a Lyft - or some other local version for unofficial rides or car-shares ... when the operation is new he/she will probably be motivated as much by community spirit (and putting professional, licensed taxis out of business by undercutting them) as by any money that comes in. However that transforms into people who need the money and are less likely to have well maintained vehicles, possibly have a string of driving convictions and maybe a gun under the seat. How could you, as a customer, tell the good from the potentially bad? And would you let your teenage daughter take or give lifts with complete strangers?

      Same with the strangers offering catering services. Will they be restaurant trained, or will they use the same cutting board for raw meat as for finger-snacks? If you ask for kosher, can you be *sure* that's what you'll get? Is that fish fresh, or have they been trying to offload it onto a customer for the last week?

      In short, while trust is a good attribute, it's also invisible. You can't tell whether the trust you place in someone you don't know is being returned in care, safety and getting what you've asked for. Sadly when trust fails, regulation is the only alternative.

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    3. Re:Commercial activities on domestic levels by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      In our current system, we are placing trust in a system of profession. In the 'sharing economy', trust is placed in the individual. If you don't feel like being social (you're an introvert for example), than the sharing economy concept is not for you.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  4. Re:Light on Sharing Economy, heavy on website adve by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

    Anyone care to link to a real article with a little more breadth?

    Depth? Thomas Friedman?

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  5. Re:lasting awesomeness? by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Trust relies on people being trustworthy. If people as a whole were trustworthy, corporations wouldn't exist.
    It's the same reason why communes work only on a very small scale.
    At some scale, diverging views of "fairnes" set in and people will stop cooperating without reserve.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  6. What !???!!?? by BlindRobin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone actually reads Thomas Friedman as not satire? I thought the NYT just put him in for comic relief.

    1. Re:What !???!!?? by coldsalmon · · Score: 2

      Friedman is the reason I stopped reading the NYT. His articles improve if you add the words "It seems like..." to the beginnig of every sentence, and the words "but if you think about it for 5 seconds, you'll realize that things are much more complicated than that" to the end of every sentence. For example: "It seems like ordinary people can now be micro-entrepreneurs, but if you think about it for 5 seconds, you'll realize that things are much more complicated than that."

    2. Re:What !???!!?? by doom · · Score: 2

      coldsalmon wrote:

      Friedman is the reason I stopped reading the NYT. His articles improve if you add the words "It seems like..." to the beginnig of every sentence, and the words "but if you think about it for 5 seconds, you'll realize that things are much more complicated than that" to the end of every sentence. For example: "It seems like ordinary people can now be micro-entrepreneurs, but if you think about it for 5 seconds, you'll realize that things are much more complicated than that."

      That sounds like a good system, but unfortunately I'd have to read Thomas Friedman to test it, and I'd rather make do with the endless blog posts making fun of him.

      If Thomas Friedman endorses "The Sharing Economy", that's a good sign that the concept is vapid and useless, if not outright perniscious.

      (How do you deal with David Brooks? Append the phrase "--but then, I'm a well-known moron."?)

  7. Re:Sadly by jemmyw · · Score: 2

    Maybe it'll encourage governments to develop saner tax rules.

    I encountered something similar with Timebank in NZ - I cannot give my time if I'd be doing anything related to my job. You can see the point of view of the taxman here (it'd be equivalent to cash in hand), but it is insane.

  8. this is not sharing. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Funny

    early on, we teach children to share. sharing does not mean, "yeah, you can have the ball but it's going to cost you" which is _exactly_ what this is. this is renting. it's even been made this into a business and they call these "sharing" places, hotels and motels.

    sharing is communism. your children are communists.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:this is not sharing. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      And when it's involuntary and only beneficial to a select few it's ... what do we call our system today? I know it ain't capitalism anymore.

      Aristocracy

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:this is not sharing. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Plutocracy seems more apt. But since it's becoming more and more impossible to break the barriers between rich and poor and being rich is more and more dependent on whether you're born in the "right" family, the actual difference is minimal.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:this is not sharing. by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      Nope, that;s capitalism all right. Benefits in a capitalist system accrue to the minority who own the capital.

      You are incorrect sir. The benefits accrue to everyone involved. You are misinterpreting growing capital base as a benefit. Benefits are goods and services, not currency.

      A simple example is the washing machine.

      216 years ago (1797) the common person had to wash their own clothes using a device called a washboard, and it literally took hours of hard manual labor to get clothing clean. At that same time, people with large amounts of capital did not have to wash their own clothes, instead they paid others to do it for them.

      155 years ago (1858) the first rotary washing machine was invented and patented.

      139 years ago (1874) the first in-home washing machine was invented and patented.

      115 years ago (1908) the first electric powered fully automatic washing machine was invented and patented.

      Fast forward to today, and basically nobody in the United States performs hours of manual labor in order to have clean clothes. Even at its most expensive where a person pays $1.25 per load of laundry, thats only a trade-off of minutes of even minimum wage labor.

      The benefits of capitalism were not felt by the rich man, men that haven't had to spend hours scrubbing their own clothes for over 200 years, but instead the benefits are felt by everyone such that no man at all now has to spend hours scrubbing their clothes.

      Money is a means of trading labor. Our poor get more value for their labor today than they have ever gotten in the past and that my friend is the proof that refutes the notion that our poor are getting poorer, as well as proof that the concentration of capital is actually good, for it was men seeking large concentrations of capital that brought us things like the washing machine, the telephone, heating and air conditioning, automobiles, widespread food availability, the computer, textiles, cures for diseases, and so on and on.

      The real benefits are the ever increasing supply of goods and services that continually become more and more affordable, never the piles of capital that only put men on the cutting edge. The march forward continues, and everyone benefits.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  9. Unreported employment by lorinc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn't this like unreported employment, where workers have no rights and the state gets nothing (for maintaining the infrastructures used). I know /. is US-centric and my little European country seems communist to most of you (I'm from France). But seriously unreported employment is a bad idea, although it might look better than unenployment. Firstly, it's a downhill to slavery, like the world was before the introduction of labour laws. And secondly, it's not sharing at all because there is no collectivity in such shemes. It's everyone is on its own without any place for a collective structure, which is obviously not the way humankind has eveloved for the last couple of thousands of years.

    These deregulated systems are utopias that only work if people are equally smart and potent, which will definitely never be the case.

    1. Re:Unreported employment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would hardly describe the system as "employment". That's like saying I'm employed by Ebay because I occasionally use it to sell things I don't need.

    2. Re:Unreported employment by Kjella · · Score: 2

      I can't speak for the US but at least here in Norway the distinction between personal activity (that doesn't have to pay taxes) and commercial activity comes down to scope and profitability, not organization. Everything from professional poker players to product pushing bloggers and prostitutes have had their activity deemed taxable with demands of back payment and penalty taxes. If you rent out your house once a year while you're away on summer vacation it'll fail the scope requirement, if you're just trying to make your own hobby tax deductible as a business expense you'll be denied, but if you turn a profit over time it's taxable income.

      As for having no rights, well you're also the boss of your own individual business. Employee rights are there to protect workers from the boss, they don't work very well when you are the boss. Either way what you do or don't do will come straight out of your own paycheck, that's just how it is running your own business.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  10. Re:lasting awesomeness? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Nope. Not gonna last. How do you tax kindness? If I let my hairdresser use my car for her groceries in exchange for a haircut, no money changes hands and no taxes are paid.

    That's not gonna last long.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Re:lasting awesomeness? by philip.paradis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The emergence of the corporation had virtually nothing to do with the trustworthiness of people. Your understanding of both the utility of the corporation and of human nature is fundamentally flawed.

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
  12. not if you own the property. by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you own the property, it's usually not illegal. Mind you, a lot of cities are now in process or have already banned airbnb and similar services. They don't want residential areas become tourist infested, or they want to be able to tax the hell out of people making money with their properties.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  13. Taxing and regulation by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A lot of these kind of services are successful because people tend to stay under the radar of tax collecting agencies. Once the gubbament starts figuring out how to tax all this, most of these sort of initiatives die because it's no longer economically viable to a lot of the people offering services. The side effect is that often, because people have to make it their official business, they will need to get mandatory permits, licenses, diploma's and insurance as well. These and taxing often kill informal "small businesses" and kill the economy. We need a side economy, or a "liberal enough" legislation to allow initiatives like these to foster. Unfortunately, with the current fear and economic crisis, it's going to be hard to keep that from happening.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:Taxing and regulation by Mr.+White · · Score: 2

      That's not necessarily true. A lot of these services are successful because they can charge less and still profit because they don't have the overhead of a full time business. Renting a room or two in your house carries no downside potential. If the rooms stay empty all month, it's no different from before you signed up on AirBNB. In contrast, a hotel has substantial salary costs to cover each month. If they stay empty a whole month, they're in debt and have to make that up next month somehow.

  14. Re:Thomas Friedman by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wish I had mod points to mod you up. Thomas Friedman will say something is bad one day and that it is good the next with the only difference being that on the "bad" day it was done by someone he politically opposes and on the "good" day it was done by someone he politically supports.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  15. Re:lasting awesomeness? by ozydingo · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't it be nice if we made our administrative system work around daily life, rather than the other way around?

  16. Re:lasting awesomeness? by gedw99 · · Score: 2

    bit coin is the same too. Te government has yet to shut it down. The banks are starting to try by disallowing exchanges of bit coin to real money n the exchanges. But in france a large bank has issues a visa cad that is linked to your bit coin account. So its hard to say which way it will all go.

  17. "Exchanging keys" by antifoidulus · · Score: 2

    Come on Friedmann, key parties aren't new, they've been around since the 70s!

  18. Re: lasting awesomeness? by alen · · Score: 2

    Yes it was

    A lot of the small businesses at the time were scam artists and had crappy products. Corporations made a somewhat better product with consistent quality

  19. Re:lasting awesomeness? by Cenan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The state has no use for money if you think about it a bit longer. The reason the state has to take money as payment for tax, is to pay wages to other people performing work for the state. You could cut out the money middleman and take labor as payment directly.

    Instead of paying a set percentage of your wages as tax, you could be required to clock a certain amount of hours in your field of expertise for the community. Of course, that would mean that the rich fat cats get off their arse and work (since fleecing people isn't a workable skill in that system), so in that sense it is a doomed idea. It illustrates an alternative nonetheless, and requires a change of mindset about how we work together.

    --
    ... whatever ...
  20. Re:lasting awesomeness? by lxs · · Score: 2

    Instead of paying a set percentage of your wages as tax, you could be required to clock a certain amount of hours in your field of expertise for the community.

    Yeah. That's going to get roads built and maintained. This money thing may seem evil if you don't have a lot of it, but there is a reason that it has lasted for millennia. It's a damn good system compared to a barter economy, and paying taxes beats feudal serfdom any day of the week. But hey, some modern humans like living in the past to the point of taking nutrition tips from people that had an average lifespan of 30 miserable years so schemes like this will pop up and quickly fall apart for years to come.

  21. Lyft is an unlicensed taxi by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    and they change taxi like rates any ways.

    insurance / liability is a big one do you want be in an accident be in your car, in an lyft car, a pedestrian, and so one. So while you are in the hospital with billes racking up as the all of insurances are fighting over who has liability?

    Some of the same stuff can come up with pizza drivers who auto insurance likely does not cover pizza delivery and you can be in a place where the drivers insurance says we don't cover that and your own insurance says why should we pay when you are not at fault.

  22. Re:lasting awesomeness? by bitt3n · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's the same reason why communes work only on a very small scale.

    This is something people misunderstand about Stalin. He's often portrayed as a murderous megalomaniac, but in reality he was just trying to keep the population small enough for communism to function properly.

    It's kind of like when you shoot deer out of a helicopter for the good of the ecosystem.

  23. Re: lasting awesomeness? by davester666 · · Score: 2

    But that's not why corporations came about. Individuals could certainly produce better product with consistent quality if they chose to.

    Corporations are about:
    -pooling a lot of capital together to do something
    -minimize personal liability for doing it

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  24. Re:lasting awesomeness? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Well, government has considered it unwieldy for a time now to manipulate, handle and store chickens and sows. Numbers on accounts are a lot handier.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.