I don't always have a lot of time for Toronto Star columnist Heather Mallick, and I've said as much in this blog a few times -- to the point where Ms Mallick has blocked me from following her on Twitter! However, when she can stay clear of the hyper-paranoid form of feminism that's become her trademark, she has a lot of important things to say. Take, for example, today's column on the so-called "sharing economy" -- Uber, Airbnb and their ilk. Ms Mallick doesn't like this, and neither do I.
Let's start with the name, "sharing economy", which seems to have been deliberately chosen to conceal what's really going on and to make it as innocuous-sounding as possible. Here's a promise (albeit an empty one, since you're never likely to meet me): if I offer to share something of mine with you, I won't ask you for payment. If I expect to be paid I'm not sharing any more -- I'm selling, and at that point I become a small business. And that's what all the Uber drivers and Airbnb landlords are.
Ms Mallick has correctly discerned that Uber et al are facilitating transactions between two groups of individuals in the economy. These aren't her terms, but let's dub them "moneygrubbers" and "cheapskates". (Hey, I didn't say I was neutral about this). The moneygrubbers want to raise a little extra cash from something they already own, whether it's the family car or the extra bedroom in the attic. The cheapskates want to pay less for something than they already do, and damn the consequences. Technology allows companies like Uber or Airbnb to bring these groups together, and of course to scoop a little cash out of each transaction too, while leaving all of the risks with the actual buyer and seller.
Ms Mallick worries that these trends are part of a general deterioration in the overall quality of life. I'm not sure about that: to take Toronto as an example, I'm sure any survey would find Uber users are far more content with their rides than those who take taxis, although that probably says more about the Toronto taxi industry than it does about anything else.
What Ms Mallick is missing, or at least not making explicit, is that these "sharing" services establish themselves by circumventing or simply ignoring existing regulations. Once established, they respond to any criticism by pointing to their popularity and demanding that the regulatory regime be amended to their benefit.
Cities all across North America have had their taxi regulations in effect rewritten by Uber's lawyers. The amendments are never in favour of consumers. In Toronto. for example, a long-standing requirement that drivers offering rides must be able to communicate in English went by the wayside, as did a requirement to fit vehicles with winter tires in the cold months. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the citizenry are better off thanks to these changes? Now Airbnb states that it is "begging" city regulators to come up with a new set of rules for its business: I'm betting that its lawyers just happen to have a draft of such rules ready to go, just in case anyone asks.
It would be naive to suggest that none of the businesses that these companies are disintermediating was in need of a shake-up. Toronto's taxi industry has been a shabby joke for decades. However, the consequence of the arrival of Uber is that cabbies who have been trying to live within the rules for years are being put out of business by an army of unregulated interlopers, to nobody's long-term benefit. Meanwhile, over at Airbnb there's mounting evidence that "investors" are buying properties in Toronto with the explicit aim of setting up unregulated hotels, and reducing the supply of affordable rental accommodation as they do so.
It's unlikely in the extreme that Heather Mallick will ever read this, but anyway, well said!
No comments:
Post a Comment