Her husband sought to build a bridge to the 21st Century, but Hillary Clinton’s economic policy aims to build another one back to the 20th. It will be interesting to see how millennials respond and if other candidates can capitalize on the opening this provides. (The piece includes links to and quotes from related stories in Politico, TechCrunch, and Forbes.) >>>
LINK: MILLENNIAL SHOCK: HILLARY TO ATTACK UBER, AIRBNB, ‘SHARING ECONOMY’ (by JOEL B. POLLAK in Breitbart)
In a speech laying out her economic policy, Hillary Clinton is set to attack companies like Uber and Airbnb in the “sharing economy” or “contractor economy,” arguing that such companies undercut wages. Her proposed alternative is to use government regulations to guide economic activity. Previews of her speech have set off alarm bells in Silicon Valley, and are sure to surprise millennial consumers, whose loyalty to the Democratic Party has has largely been blind, and who have presumed that the party of government shared their love for technology.
What do you think?
Brought to you by:
Business Ethics Highlights 
What if Uber is not an example of the sharing economy after all? If it is merely a highly leveraged holding action until robotic cars can replace precariously employed drivers, how should it be characterized?
http://gawker.com/here-are-the-internal-documents-that-prove-uber-is-a-mo-1704234157
Sounds plausible to me! The company is clearly evolving rapidly. What we call it today says little about what it will be tomorrow.
http://newsroom.uber.com/2015/02/uber-and-cmu-announce-strategic-partnership-and-advanced-technologies-center/
So if the workers are acquiring the means of production at Uber, it’s not for long.
Certainly professional taxi drivers were just a temporary part of the plan.