AnCaps
ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS
Bitch-Slapping Statists For Fun & Profit Based On The Non-Aggression Principle
 
HomePortalGalleryRegisterLog in

 

 Not so caring: the lie of the sharing economy

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
RR Phantom

RR Phantom

Location : Wasted Space
Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary

Not so caring: the lie of the sharing economy  Vide
PostSubject: Not so caring: the lie of the sharing economy    Not so caring: the lie of the sharing economy  Icon_minitimeTue Apr 12, 2016 3:37 am

My Uber driver last Friday night told me he had just quit his job as a restaurant manager to drive full-time. "Really?" I said. "Can you make enough?" The answer was yes: sort of, so far.

I paid about $14 for my ride "share" – in a clean new car, blissfully free of both radio power ballads and racist commentary from the driver. A cab usually costs me $18 with the rest thrown in. No brainer for me. But for him? Uber would take 20 per cent, and as an independent contractor – Uber's definition of its drivers – he does not get holiday leave or sick pay or superannuation and has to pay for his car's upkeep, registration and insurance, as well as his own taxes.

Not so caring: the lie of the sharing economy  1460424007725

   A question yet to be addressed is whether the march of technology, under the guise of making our lives easier, freer, more connected, is actually beginning to wipe out secure livelihoods for the masses, and concentrating wealth in a new tech elite.

He did it, my driver said, because he lost all his overtime at the restaurant, and it didn't add up any more.
Illustration: Simon Letch

Illustration: Simon Letch

Uber arrived in 2009 at the vanguard of the sharing economy: a peer-to-peer revolution, Silicon Valley's hip, networked solution to distributing underused resources more efficiently. You could share your car while you weren't using it, or rent out the spare room to supplement your mortgage, or pay to borrow a power tool from someone in your suburb. TED talks on "collaborative consumption" proliferated. It was a tech-utopian answer to having too much stuff – don't buy it, share it! It was clever, efficient and cut out the middle man.

But doubts about what has been ushered in by the sharing economy are piling up. A range of thinkers are beginning to point out that there's just a bunch of new middle men. They might be spruiking people-to-people exchange, but in reality they are under-regulated global giants who don't pay tax here, undercutting jobs and conditions in a host of industries and communities.

Canadian writer and researcher Tom Slee's new book What's Yours is Mine takes aim at what is "supposedly the vanguard of a rethinking of capitalism": Lyft, Airbnb, Airtasker, Taskrabbit, Uber. He points out this new wave of tech companies "is funded and steered by very old-school venture capitalists", and "extends harsh, free-market practices into previously protected areas of our lives".
Uber is not what you might think it is, says author Douglas Rushkoff.

Uber is not what you might think it is, says author Douglas Rushkoff. Photo: iStock

Now New York academic and author Douglas Rushkoff's forthcoming book Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus makes a related argument. He argues today's tech titans might market themselves in a friendlier way, but they are doing the same thing Wall Street has always done best: extracting value for their investors.

Rushkoff argues there's nothing "disruptive" about a start-up that finds a better way to monopolise a market then returns most of its vast growth to a few rich investors.

Last week, I asked him for his view of Uber.

"Today, a company can artificially disrupt an industry by using cash to make up for the inefficiencies of the business plan. If Uber has a big enough war chest, it can disrupt the taxi business by taking a loss on rides for several years. It does that to drive everyone else out of business and establish its monopoly. Is that disruption? Sure. It's not a creative sort, because it does not have a sustainable marketplace on the other end. It's just destructive destruction. Like what Amazon did to the book industry.

"So Uber can establish a monopoly in a taxi market without worrying about the long-term health of that market. It's OK if the drivers can't make a living, or the traffic patterns won't work, or the roads break down, or people with special needs can't get transportation. It's OK because Uber doesn't need the taxi market to stay viable; it simply needs a monopoly in order to leverage over to something else, like logistics, drone delivery, or robotic driving.

"Most of Uber's drivers can't make a living as an Uber driver. While taxi drivers and limo drivers could recoup enough money to keep themselves and their families alive, Uber drivers are not paid enough to do that. The platform keeps the money." And then lists on the stock exchange, making its founders unimaginably rich.

But aren't unemployed people now able to drive for Uber, or rent out the spare room to earn money? Yes, he says, but not in a sustainable way. The money, once the platform has taken its cut, is rarely enough to live on.  

"It's not some new form of evil or anything. It's just simple, extractive economics – but now it's occurring on a bigger scale and at a faster rate," Rushkoff said.

This is what disruption looks like, and the winners and losers are only beginning to emerge.  It could spark a fundamental restructuring of the social contract.

Our new(ish) Prime Minister began his so-far, so-exciting term lecturing voters that "disruption driven by technology … is our friend", introducing the term to the political mainstream in the determinedly sunny way a mother might present the new baby to her firstborn. Is it, though? - you can almost hear the older sibling think. Or is it the end of life as I know it?

A question yet to be addressed is whether the march of technology, under the guise of making our lives easier, freer, more connected, is actually beginning to wipe out secure livelihoods for the masses, and concentrating wealth in a new tech elite. It would not need to be this way, Rushkoff argues. His answer is to shift the digital economy away from extractive models to distributive ones. The cycle couriers could own the takeaway food despatch platform, say.

If you are wondering how much luck Professor Rushkoff is having in making this case in a country that thinks a healthcare safety net is a socialist abomination, I was too.

"Well, it takes more than a few minutes to completely unwind from the economic rule set we've been using for the past 500 years," he said.  

"I'm all for disruption. Let's disrupt Facebook's monopoly of social networks, or Google's monopoly on search. Let's disrupt Uber's extractive monopoly platform with a driver-owned app that does the same thing."

That really would be a sharing economy.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/not-so-caring-the-lie-of-the-sharing-economy-20160408-go1lx7.html#ixzz45azZseE2
Back to top Go down
 

Not so caring: the lie of the sharing economy

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 :: Anarcho-Capitalist Categorical Imperatives :: AnCaps In Science, Technology & Environment-