Technology StocksPeer-to-Peer, Gig and On-Demand Economies

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: TimF who wrote (580)9/14/2017 10:09:19 PM
From: Glenn Petersen
1 Recommendation   of 664
A Lawson victory has the potential to hobble a new business model that has created hundreds of thousands of mew jobs. Regulators will pile on.

The contractors took those gigs voluntarily. Regulators should let market forces determine the appropriate compensation. If it insufficient, workers will seek other employment and the companies will have to adjust their compensation packages.

If Lawson's quest for additional pay and benefits succeeds, others will surely follow, and the "gig economy" companies could be facing additional hundreds of millions in expenses. If he fails, this new breed of employers will be able to take a tougher stand on their employment rules and will be less likely to budge in the face of worker legal claims.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Glenn Petersen9/14/2017 10:15:14 PM
   of 664
Japan's Softbank wants to invest $10 billion in Uber, but only if it gets a big discount

Alexei Oreskovic
Business Insider
September 14, 2017

Softbank chairman Masayoshi Son Koki Nagahama/Getty Images

Softbank is in talks with Uber about a massive $10 billion investment in the company, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday.

The deal could give Japan's Softbank as much as a 22% stake in the ride-hailing company if it is able to carry out the full investment, which would entail purchasing shares directly from the company as well as from existing shareholders looking to cash out, the report said.

Uber was last valued at $69 billion. But according to the WSJ report, Softbank is trying to convince shareholder to agree to an auction process that would price Uber shares at a discount and value the company at $50 billion.

Softbank declined to comment to Business Insider. Uber did not immediately return requests for comment.

The talks come as Uber seeks to move past nearly a year of controversy and scandals that culminated in cofounder Travis Kalanick stepping down from the CEO job in June. Last month Uber hired Expedia CEO Dara Khosrowshahi to fill the CEO slot vacated by Kalanick.

The tumultuous management changes have been accompanied by bitter infighting among different factions of company insiders and investors. Benchmark Capital, one of Uber's largest investors, sued Kalanick in August, alleging that the Uber cofounder fraudulently obtain control of three company board seats. The lawsuit provoked a bizarre declaration of war from another high-profile Uber investor, who vowed to strike back at the "unholy alliance" of "sanctimonious hypocrites."

A deal with Softbank would mark Khosrowshahi's first major action since taking the reins. Negotiations began before Khosrowshahi was hired and could conclude as early as next week the WSJ reported citing an anonymous source.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Glenn Petersen9/21/2017 11:15:16 PM
1 Recommendation   of 664
How the Sharing Economy Liberates Us

by Paz Gómez
American Institute for Economic Research
Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Saving and generating additional revenue are now easier due to technological progress and a wave of innovation. A new business model has achieved a competitive advantage around the world and is growing by leaps and bounds. The sharing economy challenges the contemporary social order and destabilizes traditional businesses.

These initiatives cater to the new needs of individuals, and their swift rise testifies to the obsolescence of the traditional economic models of our societies.

Merely a century ago, we dispatched with the sky as a limit when in 1903 a plane built by the Wright brothers flew successfully. The first manned spacecraft, in 1961, demonstrated that there are no limits to human creation and exploration. No social structure is fixed; knowledge is constantly evolving; and no man-made system is perfect.

The conventional approach to commerce, which fences off and excludes personal assets, leaves resources idle and impedes allocative efficiency. The sharing or peer-to-peer economy arises from what a group of researchers at the Wroclaw University of Economics (WUE) describe as the principle of sustainable consumption: meeting the needs of consumers without ownership transfer via "resource sharing."

The WUE team identify other benefits associated with the sharing economy, such as greater socialization and better information for feedback on quality. Peer-to-peer businesses decentralize and democratize the economy, serving those of limited means and staving off irresponsible use of resources. Some advocates of these enterprises suggest that they are "alternatives to capitalism," since their narrow perception assumes vertical corporate structures — in contrast to the new horizontal structures with more efficient and dispersed use of resources.

Free-market capitalism, however, consists of guaranteeing individual rights. As Thomas DiLorenzo writes in How Capitalism Saved America, these include "private property, division of labor, social cooperation, freedom of contract, and voluntary exchange," and capitalism rejects "excessive public regulation and taxes." The sharing economy requires that individuals be free to make their own decisions about voluntary transactions with their physical or intellectual belongings.

Therefore, these new business models affirm rather than challenge the free market or its results. They push back against both inefficient business practices and the overdose of regulation and government intervention. We can say overdose because the top-down paradigm that prevails, both in the United States and elsewhere, imposes financial, economic, and institutional barriers that hinder entrepreneurship, favor monopolies, and disrupt the free flow and distribution of resources.

The collaborative economy has emerged as an option to avoid and often evade these regulations by utilizing the communications technology that we have at our fingertips in the 21st century. In other words, innovative business models allow resource allocation to respond to the spontaneity of the human mind, which craves freedom and personal and economic well-being.

The best evidence of the sharing economy's threat to the status quo is the desperation of governments to prohibit and regulate these new forms of exchange. We have seen this with Uber, Cabify, Airbnb, bitcoin, and many others. Collaborative businesses erode privileges and favor meritocracy, since a platform's success depends on the breadth of the market and the level of trust and value that the users maintain.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: FUBHO9/22/2017 10:20:16 AM
   of 664




Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: FUBHO who wrote (584)9/22/2017 5:20:29 PM
From: Glenn Petersen
   of 664
London's Uber Ban Is a Big Brexit Mistake

Why would tech companies want to invest in the U.K. and subject themselves to such a slap in the face?

by Tyler Cowen
Bloomberg View
September 22, 2017

How much to Heathrow?
Photographer: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Prime Minister Theresa May made a big speech Friday on Brexit negotiations, but the bigger news coming out of London may have been that the transit authority, Transport for London, decided not to renew the license of Uber Technologies Inc. to operate inside city limits. The decision is a clear statement that the future of both London and the U.K. are less bright than we might have thought even a few days ago.

Banning Uber shows that a post-Brexit nation won’t be the libertarian paradise that many Brexit advocates have been predicting or at least clamoring for. The notion was that European Union regulation was horribly restrictive, and British business would blossom under a reign of newfound freedom, if only it could be left to its own devices. Although that was never very plausible to begin with, it was a common argument from Brexit supporters such as MP Daniel Hannan. It’s now hard to raise that point with any credibility.

The new Britain appears to be a nationalistic, job-protecting, quasi-mercantilist entity, as evidenced by the desire to preserve the work and pay of London’s traditional cabbies. That’s hardly the right signal to send to a world considering new trade deals or possibly foreign investment in the U.K. Uber, of course, is an American company, and it did sink capital into setting up in London -- and its reputational capital is on the line in what is still Europe’s most economically important city. This kind of slap in the face won’t exactly encourage other market entrants, including in the dynamic tech sector that London so desperately seeking.

A striking feature of this decision is the use of an outright ban rather than a gentler negotiation. Whether or not you agree with them, there are plausible criticisms of Uber. You might think the drivers need stronger security checks, the company needs to be removed from congested areas, it should pay more for local infrastructure, its drivers face subpar labor standards, and so on. Those worries, to the extent they are true, would suggest some mix of higher regulations and taxes for Uber. Yet the announcement of a pending ban is sending a broader signal to London and indeed British business that due regulatory process might be weak moving forward. It’s enough to make one long for the arduous, multistage regulatory decision processes of the EU.

The good news is that the announcement did seem to leave open the possibility of revision through the appeals process. The London transit authority cited Uber’s approach to crime reporting and medical certification, as well as a lack of transparency to regulators as reasons for the ban. That suggests a revamped Uber might stand a chance. In the meantime, the service is up and running.

But is the best way to deal with business regulation to take dramatic moves that grab headlines and fill my Twitter feed? Or does this tend to politicize and polarize opinion on what should be more narrowly technocratic issues?

The Uber ban might seem like a kind of populist measure, but from the consumer side it is likely to harm wealthy Londoners the least, or perhaps even benefit them. I’ve taken many cab rides and Uber rides in London, and in general I find the cabs to be pretty expensive. But they offer better service. You can find one right away, the drivers have a remarkable and indeed fabled knowledge of London roads, they are on the whole good drivers, and the vehicles are large and comfortable. I prefer to take London cabs over London Uber, even when Uber might be cheaper.

Over time, let’s say Uber would continue to encroach upon the cab business. It then becomes harder to hail cabs, as arguably is already the case. Uber fares might be lower, but the average quality of the ride would be lower too. That’s a better deal for poorer people, and an inferior deal for the well-off. Wealthy people are just fine with paying more and getting the better service. So in essence the Uber ban is locking in a system that harms poorer Londoners the most. Keep in mind the London Tube is not 24/7, and cabs are often more reluctant to pick up customers from dicier neighborhoods.

Of course, London cabbies are better off from the ban, and there are anecdotal reports of them celebrating in the streets. That’s sooner a sign of bad public policy than a beneficial act for London users and riders, numbering about 2.5 million for Uber. Although cabbies are likely to see higher incomes, an estimated 40,000 people are driving for Uber in London. They will have a harder time making ends meet.

Unfortunately, the U.K. is in a position where it can’t afford too many more mistakes. It just made one.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Tyler Cowen at

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Stacey Shick at

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (585)9/22/2017 5:26:14 PM
   of 664
I'm confused why that writer is equating the London ban with nationwide policies.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: FUBHO9/23/2017 9:44:22 PM
   of 664
Khan could be in breach of equality rules as UBER fights ban...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: FUBHO9/27/2017 3:46:32 PM
1 Recommendation   of 664
IT’S A SHAKEDOWN: More evidence that the London Uber ban is about politics and demanding concessions, not safety. You can read my take here if you haven’t seen it already.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Glenn Petersen9/28/2017 10:37:08 PM
   of 664
Ikea has bought TaskRabbit

The Swedish home goods giant is looking for some digital help from the contract labor marketplace.

by Kara Swisher and Theodore Schleifer
Sep 28, 2017, 11:35am EDT

The heads of TaskRabbit and Ikea Group: Stacy Brown-Philpot (left) and Jesper Brodin Ikea

Swedish home goods giant Ikea Group has bought TaskRabbit, according to sources close to the situation.

The price of the deal could not be determined, but the contract labor marketplace company has raised about $50 million since it was founded nine years ago. Sources added that TaskRabbit will become an independent subsidiary within Ikea and that CEO Stacy Brown-Philpot and its staff would remain.

Sources also noted that Ikea would add capital to the company, although that amount could not be determined. TaskRabbit, which is now profitable, will also be able to strike other partnerships, such as one it already has with Amazon.

TaskRabbit is one of the best-known startups in the so-called “gig” economy that links freelance workers with jobs, from handymen to movers to assistants. It has about 60 employees, but over 60,000 independent workers use its platform.

The purchase of TaskRabbit was fueled by Ikea’s need to further bolster its digital customer service capabilities to better compete with rivals likes Amazon, which has stepped up its home goods and installation offerings. The purchase is Ikea’s first step into the on-demand platform space.

TaskRabbit had already struck a pilot partnership with Ikea around furniture assembly in the United Kingdom and also had marketed its workers’ ability to put together Ikea items in the U.S. and elsewhere.

But a purchase of TaskRabbit will get Ikea even more deeply into the tech space, although it has not been without some tech innovation of late. The company — which has sales of more the $36 billion annually and 183,000 workers — recently announced an initiative to shift its 389 stores worldwide to electric car transportation and infrastructure.

And this week, it released a nifty augmented reality app for the Apple iPhone, called “Ikea Place.” Using the phone’s camera, a customer can scan a room and then place Ikea furniture virtually to see how it looks (see below). It has gotten positive reviews.

The cool new augmented reality app from Ikea helps you decorate virtually Ikea Previous acquisitions by Ikea have ranged in price from $20 million to $90 million, according to PitchBook data.

The TaskRabbit acquisition, which was finally completed this week, comes six months after Brown-Philpot said that the company had been responding to sales interest from strategic buyers.

“It’s opportunistic,” said Brown-Philpot in an interview with Recode, but declined to provide more details about the process. Sources said over the last several months there was other buyer interest, including from Yelp, Google and IAC.

The deal came together as the San Francisco-based company was in the process of raising another round of funding; TaskRabbit used Bank of America Merrill Lynch as advisers.

TaskRabbit’s investors include venture firms like Shasta Ventures, Lightspeed Venture Partners and Founders Fund. Sources said the company did another small financing last year from an international investor.

That was all to continue its expansion of cities in the U.S. to 40 from its current 24 locations. In a Recode Decode podcast last September, Brown-Philpot said TaskRabbit was cash flow positive in its cities, and close to reaching profitability overall.

Brown-Philpot, a former Google exec and a board member at HP Inc., took over the top job at TaskRabbit from founder Leah Busque in mid-2016. Busque, as Recode reported earlier this week, has recently joined the seed-focused Fuel Capital as a venture partner. Busque founded TaskRabbit, originally called Run My Errand, in 2008.

For those who do not know the massive retailer — or have never spent hours assembling one of its Kallax shelves using those tiny little L-shaped hex tools — the Ikea Group is led by Jesper Brodin. The longtime company veteran had previously run its Swedish unit and replaced Peter Agnefjall, who led the company for only four years.

TaskRabbit and Ikea declined to comment.

Update: Ikea and TaskRabbit have confirmed the deal to Recode.

“In a fast-changing retail environment, we continuously strive to develop new and improved products and services to make our customers’ lives a little bit easier. Entering the on-demand, sharing economy enables us to support that,” Ikea chief Jesper Brodin said in a statement. “We will be able to learn from TaskRabbit’s digital expertise, while also providing Ikea customers additional ways to access flexible and affordable service solutions to meet the needs of today’s customer.”

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: TimF9/30/2017 10:41:43 PM
   of 664
Why You Can't Always Trust a 5 Star AirBnB
Why AirBnb's review process is pressuring guests to give positive reviews.
by Charity-Joy Acchiardo

Originally published at

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.