Criticism and controversies
La Harvard Business Review sostiene que "economía compartida" es un nombre inapropiado, y que la palabra correcta para esta actividad es economía de acceso. Los autores dicen: "Cuando" compartir "está mediado por el mercado, cuando una empresa es un intermediario entre consumidores que no se conocen entre sí, ya no se comparte en absoluto. Más bien, los consumidores están pagando para acceder a los bienes o servicios de otra persona ".[18] El artículo continúa demostrando que las compañías (como Uber) que entienden esto y cuyo marketing resalta los beneficios financieros para los participantes, tienen éxito, mientras que las compañías (como Lyft) cuyo marketing resalta los beneficios sociales del servicio tienen menos éxito.
La noción de "economía compartida" a menudo ha sido considerada como un oxímoron y un nombre inapropiado para los intercambios comerciales reales.[102] Arnould y Rose[103] propusieron reemplazar el concepto engañoso de "compartir" por el de mutualidad "Mutualismo (teoría económica)") o mutualización. Por lo tanto, se puede hacer una distinción entre la mutualización gratuita, como el intercambio genuino y la mutualización con fines de lucro, como Uber, Airbnb o Taskrabbit.[4][104][105] Para Ritzer,[106] esta tendencia actual hacia un mayor aporte de los consumidores en los intercambios comerciales se refiere a la noción de prosunción, que, como tal, no es nueva. La mutualización de recursos es, por ejemplo, bien conocida en negocios interempresariales (B2B) como maquinaria pesada en agricultura y silvicultura, así como en negocios (B2C) como lavanderías de autoservicio. Sin embargo, tres impulsores principales permiten la mutualización de recursos de consumidor a consumidor (C2C) para una amplia variedad de nuevos bienes y servicios, así como nuevas industrias. Primero, el comportamiento del cliente para muchos bienes y servicios cambia de propiedad a compartir. En segundo lugar, las redes sociales en línea y los mercados electrónicos vinculan más fácilmente a los consumidores. Y en tercer lugar, los dispositivos móviles y los servicios electrónicos hacen que el uso de bienes y servicios compartidos sea más conveniente (por ejemplo, una aplicación de teléfono inteligente en lugar de una clave física).[107].
Andrew Leonard escribe que "la economía del intercambio ... [no es] la "economía del regalo" de Internet tal como se concibió originalmente, una utopía en la que todos nos beneficiamos de nuestras contribuciones voluntarias. Es algo muy diferente: la implacable cooptación de la economía del regalo por el capitalismo de mercado. La economía del intercambio, tal como la practica Silicon Valley, es una traición a la economía del regalo. El potlatch ha sido aplastado y reemplazado por un centro comercial digital".[108][109][110][111].
El Instituto Graham de Internet de Oxford ha argumentado que las partes clave de la economía compartida imponen un nuevo equilibrio de poder a los trabajadores.[112] Al reunir a trabajadores en países de bajos y altos ingresos, las plataformas de economía colaborativa que no están limitadas geográficamente pueden generar una "carrera hacia el fondo" para los trabajadores.
Relationship with job loss
New York magazine "New York (magazine)") wrote that the sharing economy has been successful in large part because the real economy has been struggling. Specifically, in the magazine's opinion, the sharing economy is successful because of a depressed job market, in which "many people are trying to fill the gaps in their income by creatively monetizing their stuff and their work", and in many cases, people join the sharing economy because they have recently lost a full-time job, including some cases where the pricing structure of the sharing economy may have made their previous jobs less profitable (for example, full-time taxi drivers who may have switched to Lyft or Uber). The magazine writes that "In almost all cases, what compels people to open their homes and cars to strangers is money, not trust." Tools that help people trust in the kindness of strangers could be pushing hesitant participants in the sharing economy over the threshold of adoption. But what brings them to the threshold in the first place is a damaged economy and harmful public policy that has forced millions of people to seek odd jobs to support themselves."[113][114][115].
According to CBS News, there is also "Uber's bold plan to replace human drivers"[116] Once companies like Uber replace human drivers with self-driving cars, further job losses will occur as even independent driving will be replaced by automation.
However, Carl Benedikt Frey found that while the introduction of Uber had not led to job losses, it had caused a reduction in the income of incumbent taxi drivers of almost 10 percent.[117].
The Huffington Post wrote that some people believe that the recent recession led to the expansion of the sharing economy because people could easily become employed through the services these companies offer. However, this concept only hides the fact that such employment is just a new face for contractual work and temporary employment that does not provide the necessary guarantees for modern life. When companies use contract employment, the "advantage to a company of using non-regular workers is obvious: it can reduce labor costs dramatically, often by 30 percent, since it is not responsible for the worker's health, social security, unemployment or injury benefits, paid sick or vacation leave, and more. Workers are subcontractors, who are prohibited from forming unions, have no grievance procedure, and can be fired without notice."[95].
Bypassing the labor protection law
The Xconomy website writes about the debate over the status of workers within the sharing economy, whether they should be treated as contract workers or employees of companies. This problem seems to be the most relevant among sharing economy companies like Uber. The reason this has become such an important issue is that the two types of workers are treated very differently. Contract workers are not guaranteed any benefits and pay may be below average. However, if they are employees, they are given access to benefits and pay is generally higher. The state of California is trying to go after Uber and make them pay a fine to compensate workers fairly. The California Public Utilities Commission was working on a case that "addresses the same underlying issue seen in the contract worker controversy: whether new ways of operating in the sharing economy model should be subject to the same regulations that govern traditional businesses."[118] Like Uber, Instacart also had to face similar lawsuits. In 2015, a lawsuit was filed against Instacart alleging that the company incorrectly classified a person who buys and delivers groceries as an independent contractor.[119] Instacart eventually had to make all of those people part-time employees and had to provide benefits such as health insurance. This led to Instacart having thousands of employees overnight.[119].
On the other hand, a 2015 paper by economists at George Mason University argued that many of the regulations circumvented by sharing economy businesses are exclusive privileges pressured by interest groups.[120] Workers and entrepreneurs who are not connected to the interest groups engaging in this rent-seeking behavior are, therefore, restricted from entering the market. For example, taxi unions that lobby a city government to restrict the number of taxis allowed on the road prevent greater numbers of drivers from entering the market.
The same research finds that, while sharing economy workers lack the protections that exist in the traditional economy,[2] many of them cannot find work in the traditional economy.[120] In this sense, they are taking advantage of opportunities that the traditional regulatory framework has not been able to provide them. As the sharing economy grows, governments at all levels are reevaluating how to adjust their regulatory schemes to accommodate these workers.
Carl Benedikt Frey's research found that the "sharing economy" has had substantial negative impacts on workers' wages.[121].
Benefits not accrued evenly
Andrew Leonard,[122][123][124] Evgeny Morozov,[125] Bernard Marszalek,[126] Dean Baker[127][128] and Andrew Keen[129] criticized the for-profit sector of the sharing economy, writing that sharing economy companies "extract" profits from their given sector by reducing the existing costs of doing business, avoiding taxes, regulations and insurance. Similarly, in the context of online freelance marketplaces, there have been concerns that the sharing economy could result in a "race to the bottom" in terms or wages and benefits: as millions of new workers from low-income countries come online.[130][131].
Susie Cagle wrote that the benefits that big sharing economy players might be reaping are not trickling down, and that the sharing economy "does not build trust" because, in building new connections, it often "replicates old patterns of privileged access for some, and denial for others." William Alden wrote that "the so-called sharing economy is supposed to offer a new kind of capitalism, in which ordinary people, enabled by efficient online platforms, can turn their assets into ATMs." But the reality is that these markets also tend to attract a class of wealthy professional traders, who outnumber amateurs, just like the rest of the economy."[133].
The local economic benefit of the sharing economy is offset by its current form, which is that big tech companies make a huge amount of profit in many cases. For example, Uber takes a commission of[134] up to 30% of its drivers' gross income,[135] leaving many drivers on a subminimum wage.[136] This is reminiscent of a maximum rentier state "that derives all or a substantial portion of its national income from renting indigenous resources to external clients."
Heist
A sharing service, called Sharing E Umbrella, was started in 11 cities in China in 2017. It lost almost all of the 300,000 umbrellas placed for sharing within the first few weeks.[147].
Justifications
The disintermediation and informal nature of community-based platforms like Uber and Airbnb (of the sharing economy) can exacerbate old problems and generate new challenges. Such platforms may be ethically and morally questionable and therefore constitute controversial consumption schemes. One study[11] used the classic neutralization theory of Sykes and Matza (1957), from the field of criminology, to identify how supporters and users of community-based platforms justify the existence of controversial consumer systems, such as community-based platforms.[11] Interestingly, to justify these platforms, both providers and users tend to rely heavily on neutralization techniques, such as appealing to greater loyalty (e.g., good for society, free competition and fairness), condemnation of those who oppose it (e.g. taxi drivers in the case of Uber, hotel chains in the case of Airbnb), denial of victims (i.e. taxi drivers and hotel employees are not victims), denial of responsibility (i.e. Uber and Airbnb are not to blame, the State is), and the invocation of normality (i.e. will these platforms become the norm anyway, or is it the norm in other cities or countries). Additionally, these techniques are used in conjunction with non-neutralization techniques to defend controversial collaboration services like Uber.[11].