Slashdot Mirror


The Sharing Economy Fights Back Against Regulators

An anonymous reader writes in with a story about the advocacy group "Peers". The group says their goal is to “mainstream, protect, and grow the sharing economy.” "The growth of the 'sharing economy,' a loosely defined term generally referring to the internet-enabled peer-to-peer exchanges of goods, has brought with it a shift in the way we think about consumption. Its rise has been fast, and loud. What started with a few enterprising individuals willing to let complete strangers sleep in their homes and use their possessions has now developed into a formidable economic force that threatens to upend several different industries. Along the way, it has posed some major legal challenges. The companies that are pushing it forward have continually undermined local ordinances, consumer safeguards, and protectionist regulations alike. As a result, governments around the country are trying to reign them in. That’s where Silicon Valley’s newest advocacy group comes in."

33 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. Rein, not reign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    You rein them in, you don't reign them in. They're horses, not kings.

  2. Re:Reminds me of Food Trucks by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The food trucks park in public, they have to adhere to normal regulations and are a far better method for many downtown areas. Why use up valuable real estate for a restaurant people will only be in for a few hours a day? Ride sharing seems fine to me, cars have to be inspected for a reason.

    If you really believe that about most people you are a sad husk of a man.

  3. Race to the Bottom by Gr8Apes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The "Sharing Economy" is a race to the bottom. The people engaged are selling time and use of the only things they have left (houses, cars, and their personal time) for money to people still working because they cannot find a job that pays enough. It's people hanging onto a shard of what they used to have while renting out the rest. This can only implode, and the faster it grows, the bigger the implosion will be.

    The predictions of the 40s and 50s about the future are coming true - robotics will do most menial labor, people will have more free time, except that free time is not evenly divided up among the population. There's the group working 80-120 hour weeks, and the unemployed or sub 20 hours per week minimum wage slave. That will continue until there are not enough consumers to support the people working, and then more layoffs ensue, until we're back in the serfdom and squalor of a good middle ages city with a wealthy elite and beggars and almost no one else in between.

    OK, maybe that's a little extreme and apocalyptic view of the future, but where we're going is somewhere between now and there unless some major things change. Automation will remove more manual labor and service type jobs going forward, and there really won't be anything replacing it.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    1. Re:Race to the Bottom by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 5, Insightful

      wait... so efficiently exchanging resources will lead to destruction? What school of economics is that from?

    2. Re:Race to the Bottom by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nothing is being created. Did you even read TFA's (I'll wait for the roar of laughter to die down) on what these supposed sharing economy traits are? I did, and several other stories about the phenomenon besides that were stated earlier. In each case of "success" it's people making money off what they already own. It's the rich person living in a row house splitting the levels into apartments and renting them out and living in the basement with the proceeds of the rent. Or the person with a car working as a taxi driver for the day to make his car and gas payments while trying to have a real job. It's not a positive statement.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    3. Re:Race to the Bottom by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      I've been predicting this for a long time. A lot of armchair economists are. Yet curiously, no professional economists ever mention the scenario.

      I'm not much inclined to trust the economist profession. Their recent track record has been terrible, and there seems to be nothing even approaching concensus on some very fundamental policy issues.

      The obvious way it could be averted naturally would be for reduced cost to lead to increased consumption - that's how we avoided that outcome from the industrial revolution: Simply by rising standards of living to the point where luxuries became taken for granted. Hot and cold running water, exotic foods, daily bathing, an endless parade of toys and appliances, and the rise of disposeable goods. But still, there must be some limit to how far this policy can go - we're already at the point where people throw out clothes for a tiny hole because buying new is cheaper than the time needed to sew it up. Plus the environmental impact would be terrible.

    4. Re:Race to the Bottom by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 2

      WTF does that have anything to do with this conversation?

    5. Re:Race to the Bottom by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 2

      What do you mean nothing was created? I have something you need something I give you what you need for an agreed upon price.The thing I have was produced and the need for it gives it value. That is all that is necessary and like C0lo said, it is what the entire service industry and Banking industry is based on.

    6. Re:Race to the Bottom by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      I can let you crash at my place and build up rep and then crash at someone else's house. I may even "make a LOT of money" this way by being able to crash at seven or eight people's houses.

      Or I can exchange an hour of my time to get "money" which I use give to someone to stay at their hotel for a night. In some way- -the money I give them is supposed to circulate around the economy and get back to me.

      So at the root, a large part of the current economy is really indirect, camouflaged barter. We are exchanging an hour of work at accounting for two hours of work mowing lawns.

      There is a good meme for this. It's the sudden realization guy, "Wow- I really trade hours of my life for things- not money".

      The automation could be a *good* thing if we share the wealth. There will always be rare things which everyone can't have but a basic level of prosperity could be shared by everyone and then only the rare things take extra money.

      There's a kernel of a true idea in what you are saying- but I think you are also missing something about the concept of money and hours of your life.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  4. Not so fast by caffeine_high · · Score: 4, Informative

    This has been going on for at least 60 years. HomeLink and Intervac have been around since 1953, using printed books at arrange person to person swaps long before the internet.

    --
    The smarter home exchange, http://switchhomes.net
  5. Re:Reminds me of Food Trucks by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Oh my god, people are doing things I wouldn't do! I demand men in uniforms be sent to make them stop, through the use of physical violence if necessary! I'm just not prepared to live in a world where everyone isn't forced to be exactly like me.

  6. Re:Reminds me of Food Trucks by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They swoop in, scoop up money and split, leaving existing local businesses struggling in the aftermath.

    Ugh. We must have read different stories on food trucks. You're either jealous or wearing pink glasses. Neither is good for objectivity.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  7. Sharing economy = can't tax them by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's the major problem, eh? Can't tax it, can't regulate it. As government gets larger and larger, it needs more and more money to sustain itself. It seeks out new forms of revenue from wherever it finds weakness. Renting out your spare bedroom in New York City causes a lot of losses. No bed tax (in NYC it's something like 20%, or used to be when I worked in hotels), no income tax for the housekeeping staff, no sales tax from the gift shop, etc.

    Let's not even get into room owners picking and choosing clients. I've seen them proudly say that they check Facebook and such beforehand, only allow professionals and other clean people, etc. Yeah, what they really mean is "no Negroes". When the "sharing economy" is beyond the reach of government regulation, problems like this that society thought solved re-appear with disturbing frequency.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Sharing economy = can't tax them by Laxori666 · · Score: 2

      Let's not even get into room owners picking and choosing clients. I've seen them proudly say that they check Facebook and such beforehand, only allow professionals and other clean people, etc. Yeah, what they really mean is "no Negroes". When the "sharing economy" is beyond the reach of government regulation, problems like this that society thought solved re-appear with disturbing frequency.

      Please. Racism isn't a solved problem. There is still racism today, and government regulation actually ends up prolonging it via racist programs such as affirmative action, which literally forces people to treat others differently based on what race they are.

    2. Re:Sharing economy = can't tax them by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      Yeah, what they really mean is "no Negroes".

      How fortunate we are to have a long distance and temporal mind reader on SlashDot.

    3. Re:Sharing economy = can't tax them by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      That would be great for my AirBnB efforts. I encourage all of you racists to refuse service to negros, so they will come pay me for a room instead.

      I'm white. No black man has ever stolen from me. But white people? Let's see, let's see, what color are like 98% of politicians and bankers? Hmmmm....

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:Sharing economy = can't tax them by alen · · Score: 2

      too bad there are these things called records that can be subpoenaed. like people not paying taxes on ebay sales 10 years ago until the states started asking for these records and sharing the information with each other

    5. Re:Sharing economy = can't tax them by Laxori666 · · Score: 2

      Oh I gotcha. I don't see why this is an issue, though. In fact I would say it is progress.

      If I think somebody is suspicious then I don't want to be forced to rent my room to them. If I think people look suspicious because of their skin color then I will lose out on their business. Now, let's say we live in a racist society where a good amount of people don't like people of a certain skin color and thus don't rent rooms to them. What this means is that people who aren't racist will be able to charge them more because there is less supply for them. Is this a bad thing? No, this is actually great, because now there's economic incentive to not be a racist - if you're not a racist, you will get more money for serving people who are unfairly discriminated against.

      The net result is that racists will be less successful at business and eventually be replaced by non-racist business owners. Thus the problem solves itself, without institutionalizing racism as does government regulation.

      The only problem with this is if you think it's appalling for people to be able to choose whom they serve and at what price, which to me rather seems like a very basic freedom that should not be restricted.

    6. Re:Sharing economy = can't tax them by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My government keeps adding to its list. I'm not sure it's a coincidence that this also happens to expand its power and reach.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  8. now developed into a formidable economic force by Nutria · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hyperbole, thy name is Forbes.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  9. Re:Reminds me of Food Trucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    [Food trucks] pay no rent or utilities

    Well, of course not. After all, land owners never charge anyone to set up businesses on their property. And as everyone knows, food trucks all have Mr. Fusions to power their cooking equipment, and are staffed by magical elves who can create water out of thin air.

    Or you're an idiot. One of those.

  10. Re:Reminds me of Food Trucks by neminem · · Score: 4, Informative

    I wouldn't say "predatory", and I would even agree that food trucks and permanent-location restaurants generally fulfill different niches, but I would argue against your statement that people don't "go to a food truck to get a quality meal". At least around here, these days people generally go to a food truck to get generally-overpriced hipsterish fusion silliness, the same sort of food they'd get from, for instance, a gastropub minus the booze. Food is often (though admittedly not always) indeed quite fantastic, just almost always also overpriced. Totally different from the pre-2000s roach coach type food truck concept.

  11. Cost/Benefit by Livius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Regulation does have its value. Civilization is better off when food, buildings, etc. are safe, and freeloaders are not cheating. There are risks associated with the unregulated enterprises. Still, even simple things like barter and sales of second-hand merchandise are important contributions to quality of life.

    But do the benefits outweigh the costs? That question doesn't get asked enough.

    Of course, sometimes 'economy' is just a euphemism for 'bank accounts of the already ultra-rich', which is what some economists seem to think.

  12. Re:Reminds me of Food Trucks by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

    Others of us have, and decided we will resist such temptations, large and small, and speak out against abuses. We call ourselves christians, Buddhists, secular humanists, jedi, whatever. Basically, people who have decided to not be dicks.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  13. Sharing not good for a debt-based economy by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For better and most often worse the U.S. economy requires continuous economic growth in order to support it's debt-based structure. A $1.00 of debt today requires $1.03 of consumption next year otherwise the debt interest can't be serviced. This is why the Federal Reserve is so hell bent on preventing deflation, even going so far to say that a moderate amount of inflation is a "good thing". This fact is most critical for the U.S. Government itself since it is the largest issuer of debt in the economy. Sharing and frugality are incongruent with such a system so we'll see much more pushback if the sharing trend picks up steam.

    1. Re:Sharing not good for a debt-based economy by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      even going so far to say that a moderate amount of inflation is a "good thing".

      Unless you believe that stuffing money into pickle jars and burying them in the yard produces wealth, a moderate amount of inflation is a good thing. It motivates investment over hording.

    2. Re:Sharing not good for a debt-based economy by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Money is supposed to represent a store of value earned by an economy's participants. Forcing those participants to spend or invest it under threat of confiscation by inflation is not only immoral but also ultimately counterproductive because it interferes with market forces and leads to malinvestment and unstable market prices.

    3. Re: Sharing not good for a debt-based economy by alen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is no such thing as a sharing economy. People renting out their assets and selling services as they have done for thousands of years

      Only difference is that tech is allowing individuals to cheaply advertise their wares. Unlike in the last hundred years where you had to pay a lot of money to newspapers and other media.

      Otherwise this so called sharing economy is just some marketing speak for stupid kids who eat this togetherness nonsense up. We had this small business and individual economy 100 years ago and corporations took over because they offer a consistent quality experience.

  14. It's easy to be cheaper by Hentes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's easy to be cheaper than the established players when you're not paying taxes.

  15. Re:Reminds me of Food Trucks by yurtinus · · Score: 3, Informative

    Where do you live that food trucks might not be registered and inspected? They are licensed with the city they operate in just like any other food-service business.

    --
    +1 Disagree
  16. Bad Brother Is Offended by b4upoo · · Score: 2

    Excessive consumption means big money for businesses. You can bet they will fight any changes in society tooth and nail. And they will not play nice. To them sharing is just another pinko-commie-socialist activity with evil advocates.

  17. Re:Reminds me of Food Trucks by yurtinus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe you live in a weird place... maybe you just don't know how food trucks work. In my town (in wild west Nevada) food trucks fall under the same guidelines as restaurants. In fact, the majority of food preparation must be done in an inspected and licensed commercial kitchen - not in the truck itself. The trucks and kitchens are both inspected by the health department - and contrary to what seems to be popular slashdot belief, it is really quite easy to track down a food truck if it's known to be out of compliance. They're bit, and slow, and have logos and adverts printed on the side. They're registered as food service businesses just like a restaurant paying all the same taxes. On top of all that, they have additional regulations on where they can park. So sure, you can open a restaurant next door to an existing one, but you can't park your food truck in front of the bar next door to an existing restaurant (at least, not in my city).

    I wouldn't go so far as to say they are a "far better method" than a regular restaurant, but they serve a niche and are far from the robber barons you guys are trying to portray them as.

    --
    +1 Disagree
  18. Re:Reminds me of Food Trucks by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Others of us have, and decided we will resist such temptations, large and small, and speak out against abuses. We call ourselves christians, Buddhists, secular humanists, jedi, whatever. Basically, people who have decided to not be dicks.

    I prefer the term "ethical" as it covers the specific individuals that act that way, without including the unethical asshats that also happen to use the other terms for themselves.

    --
    Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)