Three Italian entrepreneurs think they have the answer to finding a parking place on a busy city street, something all of us know is hard to find. They developed an app that allows the person who occupies the space and is about to vacate it to signal that to other motorists who then bid on it. In essence the app allows the holder of a public parking space on a public street to sell it to whoever bids the highest. Not surprisingly some cities are fighting back. A few months ago San Francisco’s city attorney issued a cease and desist order to these apps. His basis was a police code that prohibits the buying, selling or leasing of public street parking spaces. The entrepreneurs’ next targets are Beverly Hills and Santa Monica, although their city councils have voted to ban the exchange of a public parking space for any form of compensation. And in Los Angeles, although the app is not yet available, the city council has preempted it by outlawing it. Obviously in any number of cities parking is a problem that requires solutions. What struck me about these apps was not they were attempting to solve a problem, but how. I find them opportunistic and exploitative. The idea of selling space that does not actually belong to the seller, that in fact belongs to the public, sounds nothing short of chutzpah. But there’s a larger issue here, of the use of technology. These apps remind us that just because something is possible, does not make it constructive, useful or desirable. As I understand their use, such apps do not serve the cause of innovation nor do they advance progress. But they do send us a signal: In a culture where freedom of thought is paramount, the onus falls on us to learn to reject such negative applications of technology.
Danielle Levy
-
Hope After All
I just read about the consolidation of hospitals and medical practices, placing health care in fewer hands. Of course Comcast is set to take over Time Warner Cable, and we hear a lot about Amazon getting too big and throwing its weight around. Housing prices are above what the average earner can afford; it is becoming harder for average workers to qualify for loans or save for a down payment, so many houses that might otherwise be bought by those aspiring to be middle class now go to a variety of entrepreneurs and speculators who can afford them and do with them what they will. In politics money is more and more at the center of campaigns, and that in great part fueled by recent Supreme Court decisions. It seems that in any number of fields, we keep moving into perilous territory, one where only those at the top of the economic ladder can prosper. Here and there, there are signs the trend is being noticed, but too often talk of remedies centers around hot button issues like the 1% or the agenda of the extremes of the political parties mouthing whatever they think will gain attention. Politicians speak of helping the middle class, although helping the middle class may not be possible without addressing the concentration of financial power. Just as I was feeling no one was addressing the problem as a whole, I read an article about capitalism being in crisis and talking about the new buzzword “inclusion.” In the world’s convention centers and auditoriums where bankers and politicians gathers, inclusion refers to what Western industrialized nations seem to be losing, the ability to allow as many as possible to benefit economically as well as participate in political life.
Looks like there’s hope after all.
-
Ova Only
Several tech companies, including Facebook and Apple have instituted a policy of paying for the cost of female workers to freeze their eggs. The idea says the LA Times article—itself quoting a post on NBC News—is to allow female workers to concentrate on their career without fear of having motherhood interfere. At both these companies, men outnumber women 2 to 1, and it is hoped granting women this perk will keep more women on board. Using a rather newly perfected technology as a retaining or recruiting tool, the procedure costs from $5000 to $15,000, should be appropriate, after all these are technology companies. Yet, critics, and I am one of them, point out the ways this policy looks to be unfair to women. Had the policy included men being able to freeze their sperms, I would say what a clever use of technology, but singling out women is bothersome. I’d go as far as saying it’s demeaning because it seems more a value judgment than an option. It says to women you can’t be both parent and career person—while men according to this policy can. It has, however, yielded something positive, the fact that all these issues are now being discussed.