Subscriptions = Assets owned by private corporations only

5 points by mayankk 8 years ago | 4 comments

In today’s age home loans hang like an axe waiting to fall on our neck the day we are unable to service them.

There’s going to be a future generation which not have access to ownership at all. Everything they use will be subscription based. Only large private corporations will own assets.

Time has proven over and over again how a private corporation can begin to flex their power to extract the last pound of flesh from a customer.

I am beginning to feel that there almost needs to be a moral debate and long term evaluation of the subscription economy. It needs significantly more regulation that the asset selling industry needed.

A subscription economy can leave a person in a lurch the day s/he is out of a job. At least with asset ownership one had a few things one could completely rely on like music in the house, a car to drive to search for a job.

I truly dread the day when everything turns subscription only.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/26/bmw-and-lexus-look-to-car-subscriptions/amp/

lucozade 8 years ago |

Asset ownership, actual ownership, is very inefficient. It's not obvious to me why a subscription is inherently worse than an interest bearing loan, hardly a modern invention, which is the traditional means to reduce the inefficiency.

Where there may be an issue is if it increases the efficiency too far. For example, it could make getting a new Lexus every year affordable to more people so more will do it. I can imagine that this will exacerbate excessive consumption rather than reduce it.

Now, in a very real sense this is less elitist than requiring upfront payment so it's not so clear cut, morally speaking.

As to the idea that this is an issue if you lose your job. Sure. If you don't have savings and aren't insuring your payments for your essentials then you could have an issue. But it's not dissimilar to assets, you're just running a more predictable risk.

xstartup 8 years ago |

Ownership is bad because of this mentality "at least this is something which no one can take away from me".

If you look at countries like India, people blindly invest in Home and it has a big reality market.

In many places, the monthly cost of servicing a home >> the monthly rent you would pay for equivalent housing. But still, new houses are continuously being built.

If the general public did not have this mindset, no one would make their own home if you can get the equivalent of rent for the far lower price.

I believe subscription economy is more efficient and results in the more efficient use of natural resources.

dv_dt 8 years ago | |

One has to question if an individual home owner or a corporation can service a home more inexpensively. If you're the least bit handy, or willing to learn a little, I think a home owner is more efficient. Whatever the fundamental cost of servicing a home, a company is going to add profit, and management administrative overhead to it. Also renters don't take care of their property as well as owners - so even if you individually are easy on your rental property, as a renter end up paying the distributed costs of mistreatment at even a low ratio.

Though there are certainly other advantages to renting, I question the fundamental assumption that a subscription is a more efficient use of resources.

mayankk 8 years ago | |

What are your thoughts on a simple usecase I shared above? A person out his/her job. Unable to afford a subscription and in all probability unable to drive up even for an interview. That’s not a spiral I would anyone lands up in.