Vote Uber? Clinton v Bush on the sharing economy
- Summary:
- Digital disruption for good or for bad? Uber et al become an election issue in the US as focus shifts to the sharing economy and its implications.
In previous US elections, outsourcing and offshoring have been divisive political issues. This time around, is Uber set to be the same?
Certainly Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and Rand Paul have laid the foundations for the sharing economy and its implications on US society for that to be the case.
In the week in which Uber faced the prospect of a $7.3 million fine and suspension in California, Democrat presidential candidate front runner Clinton didn't specifically name the cab firm, but pledged to crack down on what she called the “gig economy”.
Clinton said:
This ‘on demand’ or so-called ‘gig economy’ is creating exciting opportunities and unleashing innovation, but it’s also raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future.
If you work hard, you ought to be paid fairly…I'll crack down on bosses who exploit employees by mis-classifying them as contractors or even steal their wages.
That was enough to set Republican prospective candidate Rand Paul off on Twitter:
Meanwhile rival Republican candidate Jeb Bush used a visit to a sharing economy start-up called Thumbtack to lay into Clinton’s comments, after pointedly arriving at the San Francisco company in an Uber car.
Bush commented:
There’s going to be a big tension between companies that are disrupting the old order, and if they’ve done something wrong, they should pay a fine. But it’s a pretty vital service. I learn a lot when I go on these shared car services. I meet people that are customizing their lives in a way that should be time for celebration.
My personal belief is the interaction of all of us together in a fair and just society with as few rules as possible - not more rules but fewer rules - will create more prosperity, more innovation, more benefits than the command-and-control old approach of hierarchal regulations and large government trying to solve our problems for us.
Bush backed up his comments with a posting attributed to him on LinkedIn:
These kinds of companies cause mental dissonance for people who think they can plan the future of the economy from Washington D.C. -- people like Hillary Clinton. She gave a speech recently where she rejected some of the core elements of the shared economy. She sees these emerging companies as a threat to the established order.
Big government liberals fundamentally can’t embrace digital innovation because it threatens the way they govern. They see car-sharing services as a threat to the local government taxi cab cartels. They see food trucks and Airbnb as a threat to urban planning and the tax and fee racket that they’ve imposed on brick and mortar restaurants and hotels.
Unfortunately for Bush, his support for Uber didn’t win over one crucial voter - his Uber driver Munir reckons that he will be voting for Clinton.
My take
While Clinton’s comments attracted a fair degree of criticism - a General Motors attitude in an Uber economy? - they have laid down a challenge for all contenders in the US election race of whichever political complexion. With over a year to go until the election, the debates around the sharing economy model and Uber in particular are only going to intensify. Taking a position is going to be unavoidable.
For what it’s worth, it strikes me that both Clinton and Bush have valid points to make. Bush is correct in supporting digital disruption and standing firm against attempts by the established order to resist it. Clinton is correct in raising concerns about potential worker exploitation by some sharing economy firms and wanting a debate on how to afford protection against that.
This won’t be the last time Uber becomes a political hot potato in the run up to the election.