Hacker News Reader

Comment by zajd | Hacker News Reader

I find it odd that AirBnB is consitently pointed at as a resounding success when, alongside Uber/Lyft/TaskRabbit/the now shutdown maid service, it simply relies on literally breaking the law and hoping that you'll make enough money to change the laws. Granted, AirBnB doesn't have the same "fuck the worker" mindset as the others, but I still feel like the "sharing econony" is far from an established sure thing. Then again, if you own stock in AirBnB I doubt it matters at this point.

View on HN

Wasn't that historically how laws have changed?

More particularly, the people want this. Because the people like it. The economy is rough for everyone outside Silicon Valley right now and they love the fact that with some hustling they can make a good side income. Any company that helps people make money will be loved by people and when the people pressure the government, that's a very powerful thing.

Remember, Al Capone was loved by the people because he funneled a lot of his money into helping the poor and funding soup kitchens and things like that. That made it much much harder for the government to take him out.

But unlike Al Capone, who was considered a gangster and a crook even by the people who loved him, the sharing economy is seen as morally good. People think they should be able to rent out their apartment whenever they want. They think they should be able to give people rides and so on. These companies are doing nothing wrong in the eye of the people, they only laws they are breaking are bureaucratic laws. Which are the kind of laws people break all the time anyway.

Not saying those laws don't exist for a reason, because they do. But they've been in effect for so long that the reason has fallen out of the public conscience and people don't understand why these "outdated" laws shouldn't be broken.

At the end of the day, taxis don't drive around London with a bale of hay in their trunk like they're supposed to.

I may have trailed off there, my point is that in the eye of the masses, these companies are doing the right thing. And that's powerful.

Yes, some laws are silly. Worker protections though? I don't think there's much to cheer about when the reason many of these sharing companies are so profitable is because they basically eliminate using employees for their "unskilled"(read: job markets with an excess of employable people) labor.

Also I would dispute that people(edit: this is basically impossible to prove, it'd be nice to see some data) see the sharing economy as "morally good". I certainly don't. Not because I don't think people should be allowed to share, but because I don't think corporations should be able to 1099 what are obviously employees in order to cut costs.

edit. I guess I'm getting downvoted because worker protections actually are considered a bad thing here? smh

I agree with you, and I think companies are abusing the word "sharing." If I lend my neighbor a tool, that's sharing. If I bring cookies in to work and put them in the break room for everybody, that's sharing.

If I visit a website, order something and pay for it, then it's not sharing - it's ordering a product or service. I don't care who actually owns the car or the room.

Which worker protections? AirBnB has no unskilled labor, and Uber is replacing an industry where the workers were already contractors with no benefits - in fact, an industry where workers had to rent medallions to work.

Which companies are eliminating employees?

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/10/5785928/the-democratization-of-...

I specifically mentioned AirBnB is not one of the companies screwing their employees in the name of profits, but Uber/TaskRabbit/etc most certainly are.

As far as "well, it's better than what existed" w/r/t Uber, It's still illegal.

http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-and-lyft-employee-lawsui...

As far as "well, it's better than what existed" w/r/t Uber, It's still illegal.

... in California. In any case, I was disagreeing with the claim that they are "eliminate using employees". Not using employees was already the status quo, so Uber couldn't eliminate it if they wanted to.

I guess that depends if you consider Uber some kind of brand new business type or just a lower class limo service combined with a taxi dispatch. Because there are plenty of drivers out there that do receive benefits, even if Taxi drivers aren't one of them.

Regarding worker protection: Lets take the case of a simple roadside flea market. The property owner sets up a situation where workers can sell goods at a table, and connect with customers. But the people running the individual tables may sit there all day and only make a few bucks. So is it the venue owner's responsibility to make sure that everyone that he rents a table to is getting minimum wage? I think that is what Uber et al. are arguing, is that their duties end at connecting individual sellers with individual buyers.

That's one of the side effects of strong worker protection laws -- if applied too far, then they have the effect of causing some work to just not exist, even if there are people that really want to do that work. Of course, the flip side of this is that it can prevent a tragedy of the commons situation, in which workers desperate for income will get into a competitive race to the bottom.

I'm aware what they are arguing, the fact of the matter is they are wrong. Decisions like this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-and-lyft-employee-lawsui...

But as for your analogy, what's the big difference? Uber controls too much of the process to really classify them as "connecting individual sellers and buyers". They are the seller.

> the people

A certain subset of the people want this. Others (such as those in areas where rent and property prices have been driven up by AirBNB) don't.

> These companies are doing nothing wrong in the eye of the people

I've only rented an AirBNB place once, and when I did one of the neighbours gave me a blast about how having new people going in and out of the AirBNB rented apartment was disturbing his peace and the security of his own apartment. I can understand his viewpoint, and I doubt he's alone in it.

I'm not saying that AirBNB is right or wrong, and I get where you're coming from - I just think you're oversimplifying the complexities of public opinion on the matter.

> But they've been in effect for so long that the reason has fallen out of the public conscience and people don't understand why these "outdated" laws shouldn't be broken.

Sometimes that's the case and sometimes it isn't, and, as others have noted, it is not at all clear that "the people" want the sharing economy. The question is whether the law should be changed by breaking it first. I'm not saying it's always morally wrong, but I sometimes find it amusing to see VCs, accelerators etc. be somehow nonchalant about their companies breaking those laws while at the same time being completely livid and unforgiving if you dare to break their own. I don't mind general irreverence towards any kind of law in general, but discounting state/city laws while taking your own rules extremely seriously seems to express a certain disrespect towards the population at large, as if saying "their laws don't matter but ours do because unlike theirs, our rules are logical because they're made by smart people; theirs are stupid or irrelevant relics".

I think the "social impact" in the above quote is more interesting than the "financial impact." It's not just their most successful business, it's the business that is most reshaping the world—doing the most controversial things, affecting laws and regulations wherever it goes, etc.

This will be even more pertinent to startups in the new "hot" industry of wetware/biotech.

It's one thing to break up a dumb taxi/hotel cartel by allocating capital more efficiently through iphone apps and good customer service (albeit illegally).

It's another thing to perform rigorous scientific testing an analysis of drugs, treatments, hardware, etc. that will be interfacing with fathers, mothers, children; human beings who could die as a result of the fail fast, break things SV startup mentality.

This. I'd be very worried about the "regulations are for other people" mentality that pervades some firms - that's not something I want in my biotech.

"hoping that you'll make enough money to change the laws"

I think what you mean to say perhaps was "raise enough money to change the laws by hiring lawyers and political operatives that know how to work the system".

Some laws should be broken.

I'm sure you have your own list of exceptions.

Airbnb has the "fuck the neighbors" mindset. Interesting way to think of the inherent evilness of different companies. Google and Facebook have the "fuck user privacy" mindset. Microsoft has a "fuck competitors up" mindset. This is fun.

I think the analogy breaks down when you consider what sharing economy companies do is explicitly illegal, especially in the places they operate. Granted, there's been differing levels of enforcement from various agencies, but Hillary has been mentioning addressing it from the federal level. Point being, there are probably changes/regulations coming to the current free for all that is the sharing economy.

I recently went travelling and used it. An old woman opened the door to the apartment building for me when the lock was giving me trouble, then was then confused then concerned that she didn't recognize me.

I used it once before, in Barcelona, staying in the flat of a wonderful couple who we got along well with and it was like visiting relatives.

This time, it felt like we were saving a buck, and the owner making a buck, by scaring old ladies. I guess it's back to hotels and hostels.

I too have had some mixed experiences. A B&B in Rome, where the host had elegantly decorated our room, provided fresh flowers each day all whilst respecting our privacy.

Contrasted with a flat in residential block where one of the neighbours started shouting loudly at my girlfriend, I do not speak French (she is fluent) and didn't have any idea if things where about to get violent.

It turns out the previous guests had been making lots of noise late at night, being tourists we where of course staying up much later than we would normally. It's embarrassing having someone complain about your sex noises.

Another time we simply couldn't find or contact the host. Airbnb did not help in this matter at all. Contrasted to a friends experience on NYE when a booking.com room turned out to not be available, he ended up in the Shangri La hotel. It's clear AirBnB doesn't help you when things go wrong. As such I'd never use them for an important visit, or a visit during an event.

What's the difference between AirBNB and being good enough friends with people to stay at their place for a night or two - or even a week? The exchange of money? I occasionally give my own family money if I inconvenience them for several days.

It is illegal for me to pull to the side of a free-way and pick up a stranger who's car broke down/ran out of gas to give them a ride to the nearest gas station/place they were trying to get to.

I find it absolutely absurd that it is illegal to help someone. Moreso on the merits of "helping strangers is bad, but it's legal if they are friends or family".

I have a very loose definition of "friend". So where do I draw the line between legal ridesharing (giving a friend a ride to the airport for $20) and illegal ridesharing (giving a stranger a ride to the airport for $20)?

Legitimate curiosity - so if someone would like to clarify why one is OK but the other is bad, I'd love to hear it.

You must have a very loose definition of help, too, if you consider renting your property for profit as act of help as opposed to a self serving act with the aim being lining ones pockets.

My definition agrees with the dictionary definition, which I don't consider very loose. You can still help someone without being altruistic.

Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter, so I recognize I tread a fine line here, unlike the aforementioned, I do not see a reason to differentiate between the following two actions:

a) I let someone stay the night in my house and they offered me $60 as a thank you in return for the hospitality, I initially decline but they continue to insist so I take the $60.

b) I charged for someone to stay the night in my house and they agreed to pay $60 to stay at my house instead of an alternative place (and/or sleeping in their car/on the street)

I guess as a couchsurfer I have a different moral perspective about the act of sleeping in someone's house, offering money, accepting money, and bargaining.

A reply to this comment was deleted, comparing that A helps all people and B helps people "willing to pay". My response to that is below:

You're still helping someone in either scenario. The pool of people you are willing or able to help is smaller in B than A, but you are still helping someone. Again - helping someone else does not need to be a selfless, altruistic act.

"Instead of spending $80 at a hotel, you can spend $60 at my place and you can join me for dinner."

By saving you $20, I have helped you. You saved $60 and had a place to sleep. Your alternatives were:

  1. Sleep in car for free
  2. Find someone willing to help you for cheaper and/or free
  3. Sleep at a more expensive place

By giving you a superior option to 1 and 3 and you failing to find 2, I am still helping you. Would I be more altruistic if I let you stay for free? Sure. But to say I'm not helping you when I'm saving you $20 is stretching the definition of "help" to include altruistic behavior.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com