????亞馬遜也完全可以跟個(gè)風(fēng)，顯著提高自己的利潤水平。它為什么要搞自己的倉庫并且雇那么多工作人員呢？它完全也可以把自己改造成一個(gè)中介，通過介紹買賣來提成——完全不需要儲(chǔ)存書籍或其他商品。

無責(zé)任，大利潤

????那么，這種業(yè)務(wù)模式有什么不對的地方？其實(shí)沒有任何問題，只要你不在乎它猶如“狂野西部”的商業(yè)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)。對于那些擁有大型實(shí)體業(yè)務(wù)的企業(yè)來說，最妙的一點(diǎn)是你能向他們征稅并且監(jiān)管他們，要求他們遵守勞動(dòng)法，做所有其他你在“新經(jīng)濟(jì)時(shí)代”逐漸無法做的事情。

????比如，盡管Airbnb在網(wǎng)站上明文要求“房東們”必須要遵守殘疾人法和反歧視法，但相較于一家連鎖酒店，讓他們執(zhí)行這些法律的難度要大得多。很多已經(jīng)通過旅館稅和占用稅的城市和縣都不會(huì)向Airbnb征收這些稅，該公司最終只同意在極少數(shù)城市代收稅款，而履行稅法的義務(wù)則完全在個(gè)體“房東”一方。

????有些法律規(guī)定了人們的工作時(shí)間（特別是交通業(yè)）。這些法規(guī)旨在保護(hù)駕駛員及他人免于遭受交通事故。但愿政府能夠督促個(gè)體承包商遵守這些法規(guī)。另外，不要指望這些公司繳納失業(yè)保險(xiǎn)和社保金，因?yàn)榇蠖鄶?shù)為這些公司工作的人都是獨(dú)立承包商，而不是雇員。

????提供實(shí)際產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)的企業(yè)還有一個(gè)好處，就是一旦出了問題，畢竟會(huì)有一個(gè)實(shí)體出來采取補(bǔ)救措施。比如，如果Webvan給消費(fèi)者提供了變質(zhì)產(chǎn)品或肉類，就得為此負(fù)責(zé)。諾德斯特龍（Norstrom）等零售商會(huì)給產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量提供質(zhì)保，但易趣不會(huì)。有一些租車公司在雇傭和管理駕駛員方面已經(jīng)建立了良好的信用，一旦出了問題也愿意賠錢。而Uber就不會(huì)這樣做——不過如果打起官司，會(huì)是什么結(jié)果還不好說。酒店一般都交了責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)，也有必要的財(cái)務(wù)手段，一旦住客受到員工侮辱、傷害或其它安全問題，酒店會(huì)出面賠償損失。Airbnb則不會(huì)這樣，雖然該公司有大量經(jīng)濟(jì)資源，但是作為一家“非運(yùn)營商”，不管你在短租期內(nèi)出了什么問題，它早已把任何責(zé)任推卸得一干二凈。

????這樣推卸責(zé)任，包括推卸責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)、遵守政府法規(guī)和繳納工資稅等責(zé)任，的確會(huì)節(jié)省大量的成本。這使得這些所謂“新經(jīng)濟(jì)”公司得以獲得天生的、或許也是不公平的競爭優(yōu)勢。

????企業(yè)推卸對員工的責(zé)任，削減成本，早已是老生常談。很多年前，就有雇主覺得雇傭員工是件頭痛的事。既要繳納工資稅，又要花時(shí)間去招聘，如果你炒了人家的魷魚，還要小心人家以不當(dāng)解聘或是歧視為由把你告上法庭。所以有不少企業(yè)裁掉了不少員工，把他們的工作交給臨時(shí)性支持機(jī)構(gòu)和承包商來完成，這也就是所謂“非正規(guī)雇傭”發(fā)展得如此之快的原因之一。現(xiàn)在市場上甚至出現(xiàn)了一些協(xié)會(huì)，代表的正是這個(gè)行業(yè)中許多公司的利益。

????美國國稅局和各州就業(yè)服務(wù)部門擔(dān)心，他們將無法掌握個(gè)體承包商的失業(yè)率和工資稅情況。所以他們制定了一份清單，以確認(rèn)為某些公司工作的“非雇員”究竟是不是雇員，然后進(jìn)行審計(jì)以確保雇員獲得合理待遇。

????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.

No responsibility, greater profits

????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.”

????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.

????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.

????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.

????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.

????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.

????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.