Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeffbax | Hacker News Reader

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...

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.

View on HN

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...

It was a study that was retracted: https://qz.com/1222744/mits-uber-study-couldnt-possibly-have...

She probably never heard about the retraction, it got a lot less press than the original study

AOC's tweet about Uber was posted a year ago. Before the study was retracted.

Sounds like a good opportunity to retract the tweet too, then

> 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.

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.

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.

This is why Uber (no idea about Lyft) faces huge employee turnover. That one is in the stats. About 96% quit after a few months. (Less than half a year.) People get smarter once they get hit with a fat payment (repair for example, a crash, uninsured liability) and cannot keep up on the meager pay. They net a loss and often a big one.

Yes, the company is taking advantage of this. Welcome to capitalism. A sucker is born every second.

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.

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.

None of what you said implies they have ever done any sort of calculation of their maintenance costs and profitability.

They could have reasons (or just stated reasons) beyond considering raw profitability.

reading that post from that woman literally triggered me. mom of 3 shouldn't be spending most of her time in nurse school and then driving for uber WHAT THE HELL?

Well, if you were better at math, you wouldn't give your free time to post content on HN, would you ?

As soon as you talk about future costs, different people have different believes and different bets, because they have different risk profiles

Edit : why is my comment flagged?

I think you make a good point, but got flagged for snark. It's not a totally bad thing that people try to enforce politeness here.

I understand, I read my comment again a few hours later and it could be misinterpreted. Or maybe the parent edited the original message (can't remember)

I wanted to point the fact that the argument "exploiting people who are bad at math" is not a strong argument, given we are all exploited at some point because we aren't "math machine". Miscalculation can happen to anyone who is human.

Allowing people to participate in activities is useful, but that assumes that they are well-informed and rational. People also willingly participate in multi-level marketing; that doesn’t mean it’s good for them and society to do so.

MLMs makes participants scam other people, so IMO they should be burned to the ground.

As for "sharing economy" & drugs and - banning them outright may not be a good idea, but it sure would be best if working for Uber came with Surgeon's General warning.

So if I don't scam people, do MLMs whip me or something? How do they 'make' me?

You do not get contracts, referrals, benefits, other cult business.

And people will also abuse drugs if decriminalized; it doesn't mean prohibition of even such inherently dangerous activities is making things better

There’s a middle ground, and it’s called regulation. Of course, the ridesharing companies will holler and cry uncle about even the most basic regulations (see: Austin and fingerprinting.)

New York recently made moves to, among other things, establish a floor wage for rideshare drivers similar to how there is a minimum wage for tipped workers.

How about letting people opt out?

Ban things that we have good reasons to believe are harmful for people (or sign them up by default for things we believe are beneficial for them), but allow people to opt out by submitting some document that basically says "I know what I am doing is likely bad for me but I accept the risks"?

This way you both protect people from their own irrationality and maximize liberty.

What is the value of informed consent from an irrational or desperate person?

The vast majority of people do not read lengthy forms; GDPR updated notification requirements to reflect that. Restricting irrational behavior to limit damage to society is not new; that’s why we regulate things like usurious payday loans.

One person being irrational is not dangerous, but many people being irrational is. The Great Depression started from the fallout of everyday people mortgaging their house and their car because the stock market was advertised as guranteed returns.

I think that twitter story is an example of the financially precarious position many workers are in. It only supports the idea that our economy is fundamentally unfair to working people. How is it acceptable that a mother of three going to nursing school has to support herself and her family through contributions from friends and family, multiple part time jobs, and driving for Uber? Going to school and raising a family is a full time commitment in itself.

Incoming Unpopular opinion.

I had a somewhat similar discussion, and it turns out many people from different origins and Culture think differently. And hence why politics are complicated. In America that would be considered as hard working American. Some are proud ( until the hard cold market reality got in to their end I suppose ) and they don't even think there is anything wrong with it. In Europe, that would be considered as Market and Companies taking unfair advantage over its citizen on labours. And should be condemned as evil and greed. Then this often leads to discussion of US with little regulation, and comparatively EU with many regulations.

The hardest problem to solve are problem that many don't seen it as a problem. In the case most Uber drivers in US don't seems to be having an issues with Uber.

I agree. If Uber drivers view themselves as individuals acting rationally to maximize their material conditions in an environment they can't alter, then why would they have issues with Uber? If driving for Uber wasn't a net positive over not driving for Uber, they wouldn't be Uber drivers. But they can and should alter the economic environment they exist in, through politics and labor organizing. The median cut Uber takes from drivers is 40%. This is before accounting for vehicle fuel, insurance, and maintenance. Presumably some percentage of the cut is necessary to develop and maintain the application infrastructure, but clearly not that much. I imagine most Americans would be furious if the government instituted a 40% flat tax on their income, but within the individualist mindset it is seen as inevitable and they accept it.

You can choose to not participate in Uber's system.

You can not choose to not pay tax. Well, you can choose that but you will go to jail and be potentially sodomised.

I think the metaphor about taxes was more distracting than illuminating of my point.

The main point was that we shouldn't be celebrating that a mother of 3, going to school, and working multiple part time jobs is able to supplement their income by driving for Uber but instead be asking why is their income so low in the first place that they have to spend their nights and weekends driving in order to afford groceries. This was all in that original linked tweet. I'm sure they would rather be resting, interacting with their children, or studying for school. We can take a step back and recognize that this is a globally suboptimal outcome. At some point the "freedom to earn supplemental income" promised by the gig economy becomes "an obligation to overwork oneself in order to afford groceries." How can this person "choose to not participate in Uber's system", when they've calculated that being an Uber driver is the only way for them to afford groceries for their family?

It is not a globally suboptimal outcome. She chose to have 3 children without a strong financial foundation. This is why she has no money.

Groceries don't fall from the sky. Somebody has to make them. So the option here is to either take from people to give to people who choose to irresponsibly have children, or don't.

If you chose the latter, then the optimal reproductive strategy would be to breed as much as possible and have other people take care of your children. That is not a 'globally optimal outcome'

exactly. I had the same thoughts... and she thinks that is okay or even she thinks this is great for her.

It is acceptable because the woman chose to be a mother of three. She chose to do it without financial stability.

If you jump into a river, other people should not be liable to bail you out if the water is faster than you thought (or never thought).

What about those of us who do not wish to take in any of this and still pay the consequences?

In Madrid rent is up a staggering 17% YoY, mostly due to AirBnB. That affects anyone looking for an apartment and I’m sure if renters were to pick between having AirBnB available for their travels - which is eye-wateringly expensive anyway! - or cheaper rent, they will invariably pick the latter.

Madrid, like Barcelona, has rising rent prices but blaiming them on AirBnB like some politicians have is very disingenuous.

AirBnB and similar players have a small percentage of the rent stock. They can only shift prices on the margin.

If you want the real culprits, Spain has a broken rental law that increases risks both for renters and lenders, and both cities have strict construction limiting codes (i.e. almost fixed supply).

This 100%. In addition, if you want to look into new factors, the huge amounts of foreign investments that came into Madrid have been dedicated to normal rentals, or to hoarding empty flats; not to short term rentals.

Foreign or national, the fact is that Spain suffered a housing bubble and it’s burst, but all of the legal and political conditions that gave rise to the bubble are still there.

Add the negative interest rates of the BCE, and you have found a nice way to make a killing...

Technology is… disruptive. Not to be cliche. I don't think that "mostly due to AirBnB" is likely fair.

AirBNB is around at the same time that the economies of scale has strongly tilted in favor of cities, who have restricted housing supply for years. In other words, clustering of specialties. Tech in SF, finance in NYC/London etc where the runaway effect is like businesses clustering b/c of talent, and talent flooding to the place, and the cycle continues.

They make an easy scapegoat for politicians other bad policies because timing goes along, but the rent is likely due to broader population crunch that other cities (including Boston where I live) are facing.

That is not to say we don't need to ever craft policy, maybe some kind of restriction on rental terms makes sense. Boston just made it tougher to do short term rentals -- but at the end of the day the real problem is that Boston restricted housing supply for years with bad zoning and burdensome regulation. Now a new technology hit that democratized what people can do with their property, and it's causing some friction, but I don't think it's fair to point all the blame there.

For instance, in Boston AirBNB is < 3% of stock last I checked… which probably has an impact when supply is so constrained but it should have never gotten to this point to begin with.

We need to fix supply problems, not ban a new technology that clearly resonates with consumers around the globe.

Some party will always be at loss and market will decide which one.

Just stop traveling to Madrid after all not everyone is entitled to invade life of locals and make their place crowded.

You are not entitled to live in a particular city at a particular price.

If a property owner can make 17% more, why should they make 17% less so YOU are more convenieced?

Well, it's not hard to imagine a future in which a majority of labor is "just in time" and people all have 6 different part-time gigs going concurrently, taking whichever job notification pops up next on their phone.

Optimal for profit margins for a single company, but at what cost to society as a whole?

what about a quality of those services? a full time driver drives much better than someone who does 4 different gigs part time

this would only work for unskilled workers.

although being a doctor, you only work when there are patients. so that's JIT too i guess.

> That's what sharing is about, more optimal allocation/usage. It's not an end-all solution to everything, it's a supplement.

Do you think that drives down the wages of the people who need to do it as their main source of income?

Well, that's what basic economic theory would predict, so I'd argue you'd need to have a pretty robust and demonstrated reason to conclude that it wouldn't. You've first got the general increasing in the supply of labour, but then you've got a secondary effect considering the lowering of barriers to people who consider car ownership a sunk cost and not connected directly and solely to using the vehicle for income-production introducing a very low marginal rate for some of that supply...

The problem is, in its current state, it creates monopolies which undercut the non-gig versions of those jobs, eventually blotting them out. And then the people doing them are left doing the same thing, generally for less pay, with little stability and no benefits (thank you, American health care system).

I tend to favor the perspective that the problem isn't tech but venture capitalists, and more directly the government that refuses to (or is too slow to) regulate all of this. It's the same old tricks people have been trying for 200 years of industry; anticompetitiveness, taking advantage of desperate labor, etc. The difference is that right now:

1) The markets can move (and even be created from scratch) so fast as to evade regulatory updates

2) They can dress it all up in flowery utopian language

That's a dangerous combination.

I have nearly everyone in that Twitter thread blocked and labeled as political propaganda trolls. I suggest you be more critical of your information sources.

All those individuals are doing is picking up jobs without job protections. Further, they are taking on a lot of costs that taxi services would do in the past, that further erode the actual money they are making.

It’s not a sharing economy. It’s a temp economy. And highly underpaid and unprotected temp economy.

If anyone is interested further, this is a great EconTalk on sharing: http://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-sharing-transactio...

TL,DR: Why do we all buy an electric drill to put up 4 screws in 30 seconds? Sharing/renting can be much more productive than everyone buying things themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com