[P2P-F] Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: Other News - The Sharing Economy Needs a Public Option

Fri Apr 10 00:58:04 CEST 2015

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Orsan Senalp <orsan1234 at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 3:21 AM
Subject: [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: Other News - The Sharing Economy Needs a
Public Option
To: "<networkedlabour at lists.contrast.org>" <
networkedlabour at lists.contrast.org>

Begin forwarded message:

*From:* english at other-news.info
*Date:* 8 Apr 2015 21:55:41 GMT+2
*To:* "english" <english at other-news.info>
*Subject:* *Other News - The Sharing Economy Needs a Public Option*

[image: []]

*The Sharing Economy Needs a Public Option*

*Dean Baker**

So-called "sharing economy" companies such as Uber, Airbnb and Task Rabbit
are posing policy headaches for governments around the world. Their
argument that they should be exempt from existing regulations because their
services are ordered over the web does not make much sense, but it provides
an adequate fig leaf for politicians seeking campaign contributions from
these highly capitalized newcomers.

For those who have missed the hype, "sharing economy" refers to a wide
variety of companies that use the web to connect consumers and providers.
While there is not reliable data on its size, in part because it is not
well-defined, Airbnb now boasts far more room listings than Hilton or
Marriott, and Uber has quickly grown to be the largest taxi service in the
world.

Part of the response to the innovations associated with these sharing
economy companies should be to modernize regulations. It is reasonable to
regulate taxi services in ways that ensure that cars are safe and drivers
are competent and responsible. It is also reasonable to regulate rented
rooms to ensure they are not fire traps. Similarly, both should be
regulated in ways that ensure access to the handicapped and prevents
discrimination. In addition, employees in these companies should be covered
by workers compensation and protected by minimum wage and overtime rules.

These efforts will require a rewriting of existing regulations, many of
which were put in place to protect the existing companies in the industry
rather than serve a legitimate public purpose. This sort of modernization
is clearly a doable task from a technical standpoint, although sharing
economy companies will undoubtedly use their money to try to block the
imposition of rules that put them on an equal footing with their
old-fashioned competitors.

In addition to a level-the-playing-field approach, we can also treat the
sharing economy companies to some new competition: a public option. The
idea is that governments can set up public sites that would provide the
same services as the sharing economy companies. The difference would be
that the public sites would cut out the middle man. They would be set up to
benefit customers and service providers with the government only charging
the fees necessary to cover costs.

For example, a taxi service could allow for drivers to register in the same
way as they do for Uber and Lyft. Customers could use an app to order their
services just as they do with Uber and Lyft. The difference would be that
the public service would likely take out a lower share of the fare than its
for-profit competitors. If its design was effective, only drivers who felt
like being ripped off would work for Uber and Lyft.

In addition, a public service could directly apply standards to providers
as a condition of participating. Cab drivers would have to meet licensing
standards and their cars would have to pass inspection. And they would have
to arrange insurance for both car and driver. A public version of Airbnb
could require that potential renters had their rooms inspected for fire
safety and also provide copies of leases or condo agreements to ensure that
these were not being violated by renting out rooms or whole units.

A non-profit in England (with the unfortunate name Beyond Jobs [
http://beyondjobs.com/]) has established an open-source program for many of
these purposes. This system may not be fully up to the job, but it should
provide a basis from which to work.

In addition to cutting out the middle man and ensuring that necessary
standards are met, a public service could provide other important benefits.
Most notably it could ensure that customer reviews are the property of the
service provider. As it stands now, the reviews are typically the property
of the company.

This means if an Uber driver has established himself as a safe and reliable
driver, he can't use his recommendations with another service. The same
would be the case with someone renting out a room or apartment through
Airbnb. This issue is perhaps most important with labor-service providers
such as Task Rabbit. If a worker has established herself as a reliable
electrician, plumber or child-care provider, she should be able to carry
this record with her. While Task Rabbit and comparable services may not
allow such transfers, a public system could assure workers of transferable
recommendations.

Another great feature to the public option route is that it can be
implemented at the local level. There is no need to worry about an
intransigent Congress or even hostile state legislators. Any city with a
substantial progressive base should be able to take the initiative to set
up its own public-sharing economy system. Such systems can also be linked
between cities, which could be especially helpful in the case of competing
with Airbnb.

Naturally, there will be problems in setting up such systems, as is always
the case in establishing something new. But there is no reason that a
public system cannot be at least as efficient as the private networks now
operating. After all, the administrative costs of the public Social
Security system are less than one tenth as high as the costs of private
retirement accounts.

Rather than trying to squash sharing economy companies, which would almost
certainly not be possible in any case, a far better strategy for
progressives is to take advantage of the innovations they offer and
restructure them in ways that ensure the public and service providers both
benefit. This can be done, if we are prepared to try some new tactics.

** Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
in Washington, DC. He has a blog, "Beat the Press [*
*http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/],"** where he
discusses the media's coverage of economic issues. Source: *
*http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-sharing-economy-needs-a-public-option**.
(Publicado por Al Jazeera : *
*http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/3/the-sharing-economy-needs-a...)**
.
América Latina en movimiento –ALAI*

[image: []]

_______________________________________________
<br/>
English mailing list
English at other-news.info
<br/>
<br/>
To unsubscribe, send an email to: ENGLISH-leave at other-news.info

_______________________________________________
NetworkedLabour mailing list
NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour

-- 
Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates:
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20150410/70c414d7/attachment.htm 