Uber is much in the news recently, for mostly the wrong reasons. One of its senior executives threatened to investigate journalists who wrote negative things about the taxi service platform. An Uber passenger was allegedly attacked by a driver. And an Uber-affiliated driver ran over a pedestrian in San Francisco. And the company’s CEO has been accused of fostering a frat boy culture.微信应用于Uber最近更有了很多媒体的注目，但引起注目的可不是什么好事。该公司一位高管近日威胁称之为，要对一位给Uber写出负面新闻的记者展开调查。另外据信，一位用Uber微信的乘客被司机打伤。

在旧金山，一位在Uber上获取服务的司机碾压了行人。而且，Uber的CEO因为据传培育了一种“兄弟会文化”而不受人诟病。

Without downplaying the seriousness of these events, I believe the fundamental issues posed by Uber have less to do with the company’s specifics and more to do with a business model that works by offloading responsibilities, something that many other platform companies—businesses that make money by making connections rather than providing a real product or service—do as well. I am not sure people fully appreciate the many problems inherent in this type of business.我有意淡化这些问题的严重性，不过我指出，Uber带给的这些基本性问题，与该公司一些明确的经营手法并没多大关系，而主要是由于它使用了一种自身不承担责任的商业模式。除了Uber之外，其他很多做到平台的公司——也就是通过扮演着中介的角色赚，而不是自身获取某种产品或服务——也有某种程度的问题。我不告诉人们是不是充份意识到了这种模式的许多内生性问题。

This summer, I used Airbnb to rent a house in Claremont, Calif. The booking fee was $79—more than 10% of the rental cost. Did the house have a king-sized bed, I inquired of the owner? She would put one in time for our rental, she assured me by e-mail.今年夏天，我用租房应用于Airbnb在加州克莱尔蒙特出租了一套房子。预约费用是79美元——多达了租金的10%。我回答房东，房子里有大床吗？她在电子邮件里恢复说道，等到我们住进的时候，她就不会敲一张大床进来。

Four weeks before the reservation date, I tried to reach her. No response. Airbnb provided only modest help, with a long lag between e-mailing them and getting any reply. In the end, no king-sized bed, so we stayed at the Sheraton in Pomona as hotels in Claremont were fully booked by that time. Airbnb did, with some prodding, refund our entire booking fee, but they didn’t have to. As the company’s terms of service clearly state, this is an online platform and “Airbnb is not an owner or operator of properties.”在住进日之前四个星期的时候，我企图再度联系房东，但是没获得任何恢复。Anrbnb只是获取了十分受限的协助，从我联系他们到接到恢复之间于隔年了很长时间。

最后，那间房子里没大床，我们不得已住进了波莫纳的喜来登酒店（Sheraton in Pomona），因为克莱蒙特的旅店当时都早已订满了。经过一番劝说，Airbnb的确归还了我们所有的预约费用，不过只不过他们不用这样做到。正如该公司的服务协议指明的那样，这只是一个在线平台，“Airbnb并不是房产的拥有者或运营者。”What a great business model. Airbnb collects money for providing a matching service on a highly scalable IT platform but faces none of the normal operating costs entailed in providing accommodations. The company is not responsible for maintenance and repairs, cleaning (or cleanliness, an issue that has caused a colleague of mine in Berkeley to stop using them)—or anything, really.多好的一个业务模式啊！通过在一个具备高度可扩展性的IT平台上获取一种接入服务，Airbnb就能力挽狂澜大笔收益，它也需要忍受与任何常规住宿服务涉及的运营成本。

Airbnb不必负责管理房子的修理和洗手工作（或者整洁程度，这个原因让我在伯克利的一个同事仍然用于Airbnb），只不过它什么都不必做到。Making a business out of not being responsible做到一门不必承担责任的做生意Of course, Airbnb is not alone in perfecting a business model in which companies take fees for doing nothing other than facilitating transactions. As it makes abundantly clear in its terms of service, Uber does not function as a transportation carrier nor does it provide logistics services. Passengers and drivers, and maybe even pedestrians in the way of Uber cars, are pretty much on their own.当然，Airbnb并不是唯一一家通过赚到中介费赚钱的公司。

Uber在其服务协议中也十分确切地阐述，Uber既不是运输商，也不获取物流服务。所以无论是乘客也好，司机也好，甚至推开了车辆的行人也好，出有了问题仅靠他们自己解决问题。

Similarly, eBay is not a retailer. As it explains in its user agreement, eBay does not “guarantee the existence, quality, safety, or legality of items advertised.” I bet the retailers who get stuck with toys with lead in them or with inventory they can’t sell wish they had thought of such a clever out.与之类似于，易趣(eBay)也不是一家零售商。就像它在用户协议中阐述的那样，易趣并不“确保所展出商品的不存在、质量、安全性或合法性。

”我敢说，那些因为销售含铅玩具而推倒了霉的零售商，或是那些有大量存货卖不出去的零售商，认同期望他们当初也能想起一个如此绝妙的做生意。The list of companies that build platforms but eschew responsibility for the quality or even availability of goods or services grows daily, and why not? Margins can be enormous if you don’t have to deliver anything other than a website.现如今，通过建构中介平台来赚的企业更加多，因为这样能回避为产品和服务的质量甚至可用性承担风险，所以何乐而不为呢？如果你除了网站之外什么都不必做到，利润当然是十分相当可观的。

Give these companies credit for learning from experience. Remember Webvan, the startup run by a former Accenture executive that ran through $1 billion in an effort to build a business delivering groceries to homes? Webvan hired employees to drive trucks that the company purchased to haul products from its own distribution centers operated by extraordinarily complex software. Dumb business plan. Today, companies such as Instacart use contractors, not employees, to buy products at existing grocery stores and deliver it to people. Much less investment and risk.要说这些公司还是教给了不少经验的。知道大家否还忘记Webvan，这是一家前埃森哲公司（Accenture）高管创立的企业，这家公司扔了10亿美元重金，企图获取日常生活用品送货上门服务。

Webvan雇用了很多人驾驶员该公司自己出售的货车，然后利用非常复杂的管理软件，让司机从该公司自己的配送中心提货。现在显然，这个商业计划还感叹傻到家。如今像Instacart等公司用于的都是承包商，而不是自家的员工，从现成的食杂店里出售产品，然后交赠送给消费者。

这种运营模式的投资和风险都大得多。Amazon could follow suit and raise its profit margins significantly. Why should it have warehouses or warehouse employees? It, too, could turn itself entirely into a transaction facilitator and simply take a cut for bringing buyers and sellers together—never needing to house a book or anything else it sells.亚马逊也几乎可以跟个风，明显提升自己的利润水平。

它为什么要做自己的仓库并且雇那么多工作人员呢？它几乎也可以把自己改建成一个中介，通过讲解交易来提成——几乎不必须储存书籍或其他商品。No responsibility, greater profits无责任，大利润So, what’s wrong with this? Nothing, if you don’t mind a sort of Wild West business ecosystem. The nice thing about big companies with substantive physical businesses is that you can collect taxes from them, regulate them, enforce employment laws, and do all the other things that go out the window in the “new economy.”那么，这种业务模式有什么不该的地方？只不过没任何问题，只要你不在乎它有如“狂野西部”的商业生态系统。对于那些享有大型实体业务的企业来说，最妙的一点是你能向他们征收并且监管他们，拒绝他们遵从劳动法，做到所有其他你在“新的经济时代”渐渐无法做到的事情。

For example, while Airbnb posts requirements for its “hosts” to adhere to disability and anti-discrimination laws on its website, enforcement is obviously much tougher than it would be in dealing with a hotel chain. Many cities and counties that have passed hotel and occupancy taxes aren’t going to collect from Airbnb, which has finally agreed to collect taxes only in a handful of cities and leaves it to the individual “hosts” to comply with tax regulations.比如，尽管Airbnb在网站上明文拒绝“房东们”必需要遵从残疾人法和鼓吹种族歧视法，但相比于一家连锁酒店，让他们继续执行这些法律的可玩性要小得多。很多早已通过旅馆税和闲置税的城市和县都会向Airbnb征税这些税，该公司最后只表示同意在极少数城市开立税款，而遵守税法的义务则几乎在个体“房东”一方。

There are regulations that govern how long people, particularly in transportation, can work. These regulations seek to protect drivers and others from accidents. Good luck enforcing those rules on thousands of independent contractors. And say goodbye to unemployment insurance and employer contributions to Social Security—because most of the people working for these companies are independent contractors, not employees.有些法律规定了人们的工作时间（尤其是交通业）。这些法规目的维护驾驶员及他人免遭遭到交通事故。

忘政府需要敦促个体承包商遵从这些法规。另外，不要确信这些公司交纳失业保险和社保金，因为大多数为这些公司工作的人都是独立国家承包商，而不是雇员。The other nice thing about real businesses providing real products and services is that if there are problems, there is an entity that can offer remedies. The old Webvan would be responsible if it delivered rotten produce or bad meat from its warehouses, but not the new delivery services. Retailers like Nordstrom guarantee their products’ quality, not eBay. Limousine companies have established liability for hiring and supervising their drivers, and paying when things go wrong. Not Uber, although that remains to be seen as cases wind through court. Hotels carry liability insurance and have the financial wherewithal to protect guests who are assaulted by their workers or otherwise harmed by building safety problems. Not Airbnb, which certainly has plenty of financial resources but, as a “non-operator,” has shed any responsibility for what happens to you in your temporary rental.获取实际产品和服务的企业还有一个益处，就是一旦出有了问题，却是不会有一个实体出来采行补救措施。比如，如果Webvan给消费者获取了变质产品或肉类，就得为此负责管理。

诺德斯特龙（Norstrom）等零售商不会给产品质量获取质保，但易趣会。有一些租车公司在雇用和管理驾驶员方面早已创建了较好的信用，一旦出有了问题也不愿赔钱。而Uber就会这样做到——不过如果打起官司，不会是什么结果还很差说道。

酒店一般都递了责任保险，也有适当的财务手段，一旦住客受到员工羞辱、损害或其它安全性问题，酒店不会出面赔偿损失。Airbnb则会这样，虽然该公司有大量经济资源，但是作为一家“非运营商”，不管你在短租期内出有了什么问题，它早就把任何责任推给得一干二净。

Offloading responsibility, including the responsibility for liability insurance, compliance with government regulations, and payroll taxes, saves costs, lots of costs. This gives new economy companies an inherent, and maybe even unfair, advantage over the competition.这样推卸责任，还包括推卸责任保险、遵从政府法规和交纳工资税等责任，的确不会节省大量的成本。这使得这些所谓“新的经济”公司以求取得天生的、也许也是不公平的竞争优势。

Company attempts to shed responsibility for their employees—and costs—is an old story. Many years ago, some employers decided that having actual employees was a pain. There were the payroll taxes, the expense and time of hiring, legal exposure to wrongful discharge and discrimination suits if you fired people; all in all, too much trouble. So, employers offloaded employees and their work to temporary help agencies and contracting organizations, which is one reason that “nonstandard employment” has grown so rapidly and there are even associations representing the interests of the many companies operating in this industry.企业推给对员工的责任，缩减成本，早就是老生常谈。很多年前，就有雇员实在雇用员工是件头痛的事。既要交纳工资税，又要花上时间去聘用，如果你油炸了人家的鱿鱼，还要小心人家以失当解雇或是种族歧视为由把你告上法庭。

所以有不少企业裁掉了不少员工，把他们的工作转交临时性反对机构和承包商来已完成，这也就是所谓“非正规雇用”发展得如此之慢的原因之一。现在市场上甚至经常出现了一些协会，代表的正是这个行业中许多公司的利益。The IRS and state employment services feared that they were going to lose out on unemployment and payroll taxes from independent contractors. So, they developed a checklist to ascertain whether “nonemployees” doing work for some company actually were or were not employees, and they conducted audits to ensure employees were treated as such.美国国税局和各州低收入服务部门担忧，他们将无法掌控个体承包商的失业率和工资税情况。

所以他们制订了一份表格，以证实为某些公司工作的“非雇员”到底是不是雇员，然后展开审核以保证雇员取得合理待遇。The jig may soon be up好日子将要身下Cities and states are beginning to try to impose some oversight on at least some of the new economy companies, although such efforts are often met with derision and characterized as stifling innovation. I am not sure that avoiding responsibility and legal liability is really as “innovative” as is sometimes claimed. Bypassing zoning regulations on where hotels can be located and negating licensing requirements related to who can pick up passengers poses risks that, if you believe the terms of service agreements, truly should make the buyer beware.美国各州和各大城市早已开始对最少某些新的经济公司实行监管，尽管此类希望常常不会受到人们的取笑，并且背上了助长创意的罪名。我不告诉推卸责任和法律义务否知道归属于“创意”。回避目的监管旅馆方位的区划法规，对谁有资格驾车载客的规定不管不顾，必定不会带给一些风险，被服务一方知道应当警觉这些风险，如果你坚信服务协议的话。

For those people who worry about income inequality, there is another reason to think twice about these new business models. In a careful analysis of 53 countries from 1960 to 2006, University of Michigan business school professor Gerald F. Davis and a colleague found that the higher proportion of employees who worked in large companies, the lower the level of income inequality. This makes sense because internal labor markets and the greater social contact among employees reduces variation in wages much more so than in market-like arrangements.对于那些担忧收益失衡的人，还有一个理由让他们新的检视这些新的商业模式。密歇根大学（University of Michigan）商学院教授杰拉德oFo戴维斯和他的同事对53个国家在1960-2006年之间的数据展开了仔细分析。

他们找到，人们在大公司里工作的比例越高，收益失衡的水平就就越较低。这一找到是有道理的，因为内部劳动力市场以及雇员之间更加紧密的社会交往，比市场决定更加更容易增加员工的收益差异。Call me old-fashioned, but I actually like a company whose “terms of service” entails providing the product or service I am purchasing rather than stating all the things it is not responsible for. I prefer to buy from a company that stands behind its products, with management that cares enough about its customers to provide oversight of its employee workforce and quality assurance for its services.你可以说道我“老套”，但我的确更喜欢一家公司的“服务协议”里列明它到底获取哪种产品和服务，而不是说道它对任何事都不负责管理。

我讨厌流连的公司，是那种有自己的产品、有严苛的管理、关心它的顾客、对员工获取监管、为服务获取质量确保的公司。

本文来源：beat·365唯一官方网站-www.0898fdc.net