I don't want to pull too far off topic, and I know the US is dramatically different than other place
But after going to Japan and using their train system, it seems like a Utopian paradise ... as far as I, a car-less man, am concerned. I recently invested in an electric bike to commute, because if I took a Lyft to work everyday both ways, it would be 400 bucks a month. And I live close to work.
I long for the day the US invests in its own infastructure like that. I know it's a very large country with lot of rural areas, so it's not like we'd get the same coverage. But yeah, as someone who has lived in quite a few different cities and states, I find the lack of quality public transportation a big problem.
It also doesn't help that most public transportation in the US is often running late, so it's not always practical for commuters if you can't rely on the bus actually coming.
Surge pricing isn't really what I call a scam. If people in an area are requesting more rides than there are cars to take them, then the taxi method is either to take the call and leave you waiting for an indeterminate period of time (which could be hours) or to simply not take the call -- basically fucking you unless you get lucky. At least with surge pricing, you can try to bid up based on your desire to get home and hope that it entices more people onto the road to drive you there.
That's still a shitty system, especially for lower income riders (who, remember, are the majority of taxi riders.) You are arguing that you should be allowed to use your resources to prioritize access to livery services.
You say that like being able to pay people for their services (who are explicitly doing that service in search of profit) is some sort of travesty of justice. And the surge price is the same for everyone, its what gets drivers to come out onto the road, who would not otherwise be there, so that you can actually get a ride. Having a cheap ride that you can't actually get someone to pick you up for isn't that great of an option either.
+1
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited June 2019
I'm not sure that I'm really that broken up about it if VCs want to set their money on fire in order to pay for me to have nice rides.
Given that the consensus is "monopoly can't work in this market" then it's not like they're getting a nefarious advantage... they're dumping all their excess capital into improving my quality of life, which is, like, I'm not complaining?
I'm not sure that I'm really that broken up about it if VCs want to set their money on fire in order to pay for me to have nice rides.
Given that the consensus means "monopoly can't work in this market" then it's not like they're getting a nefarious advantage... they're dumping all their excess capital into improving my quality of life, which is, like, I'm not complaining?
Well, their goal is to pull a Walmart: sell their service at a loss to drive everyone else out, then start charging real money. So, it's good until the existing taxicab companies go out of business, and the city cuts back bus routes because of lack of interest. Then you'll get charged cab rates+ for your choice of unlicensed taxi, with no good alternative.
+4
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I'm not sure that I'm really that broken up about it if VCs want to set their money on fire in order to pay for me to have nice rides.
Given that the consensus means "monopoly can't work in this market" then it's not like they're getting a nefarious advantage... they're dumping all their excess capital into improving my quality of life, which is, like, I'm not complaining?
Well, their goal is to pull a Walmart: sell their service at a loss to drive everyone else out, then start charging real money. So, it's good until the existing taxicab companies go out of business, and the city cuts back bus routes because of lack of interest. Then you'll get charged cab rates+ for your choice of unlicensed taxi, with no good alternative.
Yeah, my understanding was that the most common opinion was that this was their strategy but that also it could never work, because it is too easy for competitors to re-enter the taxi market once they start raising rates
I'm not sure that I'm really that broken up about it if VCs want to set their money on fire in order to pay for me to have nice rides.
Given that the consensus means "monopoly can't work in this market" then it's not like they're getting a nefarious advantage... they're dumping all their excess capital into improving my quality of life, which is, like, I'm not complaining?
Well, their goal is to pull a Walmart: sell their service at a loss to drive everyone else out, then start charging real money. So, it's good until the existing taxicab companies go out of business, and the city cuts back bus routes because of lack of interest. Then you'll get charged cab rates+ for your choice of unlicensed taxi, with no good alternative.
And if your illegal Internet taxi company still can't make a profit and crashes, then you'll have communities with no options left. There's this fantasy that the market will just provide, but a lot of times the existing infrastructure investment was made in a different era, built up over many years, and there's not enough profit to support rebuilding it all from scratch overnight.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Surge pricing isn't really what I call a scam. If people in an area are requesting more rides than there are cars to take them, then the taxi method is either to take the call and leave you waiting for an indeterminate period of time (which could be hours) or to simply not take the call -- basically fucking you unless you get lucky. At least with surge pricing, you can try to bid up based on your desire to get home and hope that it entices more people onto the road to drive you there.
Surge pricing isn't what I'd call a scam either. It's price gouging, a totally different kind of crime.
Surge pricing isn't really what I call a scam. If people in an area are requesting more rides than there are cars to take them, then the taxi method is either to take the call and leave you waiting for an indeterminate period of time (which could be hours) or to simply not take the call -- basically fucking you unless you get lucky. At least with surge pricing, you can try to bid up based on your desire to get home and hope that it entices more people onto the road to drive you there.
That's still a shitty system, especially for lower income riders (who, remember, are the majority of taxi riders.) You are arguing that you should be allowed to use your resources to prioritize access to livery services.
Yes that is how capitalism works. If you want an on demand public transport service you should create that instead of trying to have private corporations provide one through convoluted and inefficient rent seeking.
100% make it a public service. Over here door to door transport for the disabled and some elderly is a service, though by necessity on appointment rather than demand. It is important to have public transport be a viable option for every member of society.
That said obviously price gouging and underpaying employees should be outlawed regardless of it being "how capitalism works". Surely we can agree that "hell yeah it sucks, that's capitalism baby!" isn't really a defense?
+1
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Surge pricing isn't obviously abusive. Markets aren't perfectly moral allocators of resources, but price can at least act as an ~imperfect~ proxy of how badly a person needs a service.
Without surge pricing, peak demand rides are effectively allocated by lottery--some lucky people get picked. With surge pricing, people who are willing to pay more get picked. This does include people for whom the value of money is less, because they have more of it. But it also includes people whose willingness to pay is tracking the fact that it's actually really important for them to get a ride. If your partner is in labor, you'd much rather the company be using surge pricing (you would pay 10,000%, if it came down to it) than to be just taking first-call first-response.
I doubt that Uber can destroy mass transit by itself. As more people switch to using it, quality will degrade and it will lose money much faster. I don't see this system spiralling out of control.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
it's amazing watching people in this thread constantly describe uber as a better experience to cabs while ignoring that uber is a better experience because they're selling you a thing for half of what it costs.
if american airlines started giving me first class tickets for coach prices of course it would be my favorite airline. how is a regional yellow cab service supposed to compete with that?
uber is paying it's quote unquote contractors below minimum wage and still is losing money hand over fist, every time you call a ride.
It's amazing watching people like you describe people refusing to pay more when they say they'd very happily pay more.
only some people can. which is why livery in many places is cost controlled by the government!
it's a brutal industry!
It would appear that many, many more could if one of those industries would bother to update their service model from "Call and maybe we'll show up and not cheat you."
black car services exist. that is the sustainable version of uber where the customer is paying the entirety of the cost of the ride, not pawning it off on investors and the driver. i'd wager it's, on average, 2-3x as expensive as uber is.
Black car services were not advertising and were not offering phone apps. Their failure to tap in to willing markets is on them.
You can keep saying people such as myself wouldn't spend much more for something like that but meanwhile I and others keep saying we would if any service would make itself known.
You can find black car services in the yellow pages and on the internet. They totally advertise, they would hardly be an existing business if they didn't. If you haven't been advertised to, it is perhaps an indication that you are not actually in a willing market.
Like come on man the 3x the price is obviously a major barrier. No way would the vast majority of rides happen if that was the price. Uber wouldn't have happened if they'd just offered the regular black car shit. You don't get that sweet venture capital money by just developing an app that makes an existing process easier.
Edit: Interestingly, after regular Uber was banned in the Netherlands they continued support for UberBlack which is still a popular service. It's usually somewhat cheaper than a regular taxi because Uber is essentially operating as a taxi company with far less overhead. The convenience of the app for both driver and passenger is a plus too though. But I think this only works because of the specific taxi regulations in the Netherlands.
it's amazing watching people in this thread constantly describe uber as a better experience to cabs while ignoring that uber is a better experience because they're selling you a thing for half of what it costs.
if american airlines started giving me first class tickets for coach prices of course it would be my favorite airline. how is a regional yellow cab service supposed to compete with that?
uber is paying it's quote unquote contractors below minimum wage and still is losing money hand over fist, every time you call a ride.
It's amazing watching people like you describe people refusing to pay more when they say they'd very happily pay more.
only some people can. which is why livery in many places is cost controlled by the government!
it's a brutal industry!
It would appear that many, many more could if one of those industries would bother to update their service model from "Call and maybe we'll show up and not cheat you."
black car services exist. that is the sustainable version of uber where the customer is paying the entirety of the cost of the ride, not pawning it off on investors and the driver. i'd wager it's, on average, 2-3x as expensive as uber is.
Black car services were not advertising and were not offering phone apps. Their failure to tap in to willing markets is on them.
You can keep saying people such as myself wouldn't spend much more for something like that but meanwhile I and others keep saying we would if any service would make itself known.
You can find black car services in the yellow pages and on the internet. They totally advertise, they would hardly be an existing business if they didn't. If you haven't been advertised to, it is perhaps an indication that you are not actually in a willing market.
Like come on man the 3x the price is obviously a major barrier. No way would the vast majority of rides happen if that was the price. Uber wouldn't have happened if they'd just offered the regular black car shit. You don't get that sweet venture capital money by just developing an app that makes an existing process easier.
I am not using your grand dad’s yellow pages when looking for a ride from a bar. Meanwhile every taxi service I looked up on the internet from Dallas to Philly gave me vague arrival times followed by “Oh the meter doesn’t work, it was X dollars. Cash only.”
You grossly underestimate how much I and others are willing to pay for a ride that’s actually reliable. And how much that service was being sabotaged by monopolies uninterested in improving their service.
Taxis are actually a pretty low cost to enter profession in the absence of medallion-like regulation frameworks (even with good safety regulations). Cities are already designed with lots of infrastructure to support cars. That's the reason why people don't think an Uber strategy of driving out competitors and then jacking up prices can work in the long-term.
Surge pricing isn't really what I call a scam. If people in an area are requesting more rides than there are cars to take them, then the taxi method is either to take the call and leave you waiting for an indeterminate period of time (which could be hours) or to simply not take the call -- basically fucking you unless you get lucky. At least with surge pricing, you can try to bid up based on your desire to get home and hope that it entices more people onto the road to drive you there.
Surge pricing isn't what I'd call a scam either. It's price gouging, a totally different kind of crime.
Surge pricing isn't really what I call a scam. If people in an area are requesting more rides than there are cars to take them, then the taxi method is either to take the call and leave you waiting for an indeterminate period of time (which could be hours) or to simply not take the call -- basically fucking you unless you get lucky. At least with surge pricing, you can try to bid up based on your desire to get home and hope that it entices more people onto the road to drive you there.
That's still a shitty system, especially for lower income riders (who, remember, are the majority of taxi riders.) You are arguing that you should be allowed to use your resources to prioritize access to livery services.
Yes that is how capitalism works. If you want an on demand public transport service you should create that instead of trying to have private corporations provide one through convoluted and inefficient rent seeking.
100% make it a public service. Over here door to door transport for the disabled and some elderly is a service, though by necessity on appointment rather than demand. It is important to have public transport be a viable option for every member of society.
That said obviously price gouging and underpaying employees should be outlawed regardless of it being "how capitalism works". Surely we can agree that "hell yeah it sucks, that's capitalism baby!" isn't really a defense?
Pricing something more than what you'd like to pay isn't really a crime. Would I like a cheap ride that shows up within minutes on New Year's Eve when all the parties let out? Hell, yeah. Is that something that an unusually large chunk of the rest of the city would also like at that same time? Also yeah. Would it probably be in the city's overall interest to get a higher than average number of drivers-for-hire on the road during New Year's Eve so people don't freeze and/or drive drunk? Also yeah. How do you incentivize more people to work as drivers-for-hire on New Year's Eve -- you pay them. That's what surge pricing is.
If you want the government to make a public service to transport the vulnerable and the disable around, then cool. I'm right with you. But that's not what Uber (and taxis in general, really) exclusively are for. A lot of it is just people wanting to pay someone else to take them somewhere. And there are people who are willing to pay more to get more.
+3
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
You realize you can find that stuff online, right?
Surge pricing isn't obviously abusive. Markets aren't perfectly moral allocators of resources, but price can at least act as an ~imperfect~ proxy of how badly a person needs a service.
Without surge pricing, peak demand rides are effectively allocated by lottery--some lucky people get picked. With surge pricing, people who are willing to pay more get picked. This does include people for whom the value of money is less, because they have more of it. But it also includes people whose willingness to pay is tracking the fact that it's actually really important for them to get a ride. If your partner is in labor, you'd much rather the company be using surge pricing (you would pay 10,000%, if it came down to it) than to be just taking first-call first-response.
I dunno about obviously abuse, do I do remember the kerfuffle when Uber did surge pricing during literal blizzards. The non-obvious abuse there being that it pushed drivers who weren't professionals into going out in dangerous weather.
But yeah since the transport is usually not necessary the surge pricing is not criminal price gouging. And I don't have qualms as such with surge pricing during like the big game or whatever. My point was more that actual price gouging is also how capitalism works, and we don't consider that a defense.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I'm not sure that I'm really that broken up about it if VCs want to set their money on fire in order to pay for me to have nice rides.
Oh sure this is absolutely fine. The problem is that Uber drivers are also paying for your ride and unaware of it. Like any shit sillicon valley company the business model also relies on exploiting workers.
If drivers were paid fairly I would be cheering on the VCs burning their money. But if the drivers were paid fairly Uber wouldn't be as popular and drivers wouldn't work and then VCs would be taking their money elsewhere.
+4
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Surge pricing isn't really what I call a scam. If people in an area are requesting more rides than there are cars to take them, then the taxi method is either to take the call and leave you waiting for an indeterminate period of time (which could be hours) or to simply not take the call -- basically fucking you unless you get lucky. At least with surge pricing, you can try to bid up based on your desire to get home and hope that it entices more people onto the road to drive you there.
Surge pricing isn't what I'd call a scam either. It's price gouging, a totally different kind of crime.
Surge pricing isn't really what I call a scam. If people in an area are requesting more rides than there are cars to take them, then the taxi method is either to take the call and leave you waiting for an indeterminate period of time (which could be hours) or to simply not take the call -- basically fucking you unless you get lucky. At least with surge pricing, you can try to bid up based on your desire to get home and hope that it entices more people onto the road to drive you there.
That's still a shitty system, especially for lower income riders (who, remember, are the majority of taxi riders.) You are arguing that you should be allowed to use your resources to prioritize access to livery services.
Yes that is how capitalism works. If you want an on demand public transport service you should create that instead of trying to have private corporations provide one through convoluted and inefficient rent seeking.
100% make it a public service. Over here door to door transport for the disabled and some elderly is a service, though by necessity on appointment rather than demand. It is important to have public transport be a viable option for every member of society.
That said obviously price gouging and underpaying employees should be outlawed regardless of it being "how capitalism works". Surely we can agree that "hell yeah it sucks, that's capitalism baby!" isn't really a defense?
Pricing something more than what you'd like to pay isn't really a crime. Would I like a cheap ride that shows up within minutes on New Year's Eve when all the parties let out? Hell, yeah. Is that something that an unusually large chunk of the rest of the city would also like at that same time? Also yeah. Would it probably be in the city's overall interest to get a higher than average number of drivers-for-hire on the road during New Year's Eve so people don't freeze and/or drive drunk? Also yeah. How do you incentivize more people to work as drivers-for-hire on New Year's Eve -- you pay them. That's what surge pricing is.
If you want the government to make a public service to transport the vulnerable and the disable around, then cool. I'm right with you. But that's not what Uber (and taxis in general, really) exclusively are for. A lot of it is just people wanting to pay someone else to take them somewhere. And there are people who are willing to pay more to get more.
Price gouging is a literal crime in most of the US though. It usually only applies to essential goods and services (during emergencies), so it would only be for real crime if transport was considered one. Perhaps it isn't, who cares? If it doesn't involve drivers risking their lives or passengers rioting it is whatever. Allow it or not.
Pricing something more than what is reasonable is not always a crime. It can still be morally objectionable though. You're taking advantage of people, using their desperation to make an extra buck. Don't want to freeze? Well then you have to pay extra.
Sure that is how capitalism works. Child labour is also how capitalism works.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I'm not sure that I'm really that broken up about it if VCs want to set their money on fire in order to pay for me to have nice rides.
Oh sure this is absolutely fine. The problem is that Uber drivers are also paying for your ride and unaware of it. Like any shit sillicon valley company the business model also relies on exploiting workers.
If drivers were paid fairly I would be cheering on the VCs burning their money. But if the drivers were paid fairly Uber wouldn't be as popular and drivers wouldn't work and then VCs would be taking their money elsewhere.
This is not clear to me. Even if Uber-driving isn't economical in the long term, it may be an efficient way of temporarily taking capital out of your car--which is pretty hard, otherwise.
I'd want to hear more before I was onboard, anyway.
Surge pricing isn't really what I call a scam. If people in an area are requesting more rides than there are cars to take them, then the taxi method is either to take the call and leave you waiting for an indeterminate period of time (which could be hours) or to simply not take the call -- basically fucking you unless you get lucky. At least with surge pricing, you can try to bid up based on your desire to get home and hope that it entices more people onto the road to drive you there.
Surge pricing isn't what I'd call a scam either. It's price gouging, a totally different kind of crime.
Surge pricing isn't really what I call a scam. If people in an area are requesting more rides than there are cars to take them, then the taxi method is either to take the call and leave you waiting for an indeterminate period of time (which could be hours) or to simply not take the call -- basically fucking you unless you get lucky. At least with surge pricing, you can try to bid up based on your desire to get home and hope that it entices more people onto the road to drive you there.
That's still a shitty system, especially for lower income riders (who, remember, are the majority of taxi riders.) You are arguing that you should be allowed to use your resources to prioritize access to livery services.
Yes that is how capitalism works. If you want an on demand public transport service you should create that instead of trying to have private corporations provide one through convoluted and inefficient rent seeking.
100% make it a public service. Over here door to door transport for the disabled and some elderly is a service, though by necessity on appointment rather than demand. It is important to have public transport be a viable option for every member of society.
That said obviously price gouging and underpaying employees should be outlawed regardless of it being "how capitalism works". Surely we can agree that "hell yeah it sucks, that's capitalism baby!" isn't really a defense?
Pricing something more than what you'd like to pay isn't really a crime. Would I like a cheap ride that shows up within minutes on New Year's Eve when all the parties let out? Hell, yeah. Is that something that an unusually large chunk of the rest of the city would also like at that same time? Also yeah. Would it probably be in the city's overall interest to get a higher than average number of drivers-for-hire on the road during New Year's Eve so people don't freeze and/or drive drunk? Also yeah. How do you incentivize more people to work as drivers-for-hire on New Year's Eve -- you pay them. That's what surge pricing is.
If you want the government to make a public service to transport the vulnerable and the disable around, then cool. I'm right with you. But that's not what Uber (and taxis in general, really) exclusively are for. A lot of it is just people wanting to pay someone else to take them somewhere. And there are people who are willing to pay more to get more.
Price gouging is a literal crime in most of the US though. It usually only applies to essential goods and services (during emergencies), so it would only be for real crime if transport was considered one. Perhaps it isn't, who cares? If it doesn't involve drivers risking their lives or passengers rioting it is whatever. Allow it or not.
Pricing something more than what is reasonable is not always a crime. It can still be morally objectionable though. You're taking advantage of people, using their desperation to make an extra buck. Don't want to freeze? Well then you have to pay extra.
Sure that is how capitalism works. Child labour is also how capitalism works.
Ok, is surge pricing unreasonable for Uber? If there's not enough drivers around to make all the pick ups (in lieu of something like a blizzard, which I doubt was coded into the surge pricing algorithm with intent, as opposed to someone cackling evilly at Uber and raising the prices while watching weather reports), is bidding up the price until supply:demand ratio stabilizes an inherently immoral thing? Its one thing for a taxi driver to pull up to a bleeding person and then decide to jack up the rate to take them to the hospital on the spot, but is it still morally suspect to move prices to meet localized demand and supply?
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I'm not sure that I'm really that broken up about it if VCs want to set their money on fire in order to pay for me to have nice rides.
Oh sure this is absolutely fine. The problem is that Uber drivers are also paying for your ride and unaware of it. Like any shit sillicon valley company the business model also relies on exploiting workers.
If drivers were paid fairly I would be cheering on the VCs burning their money. But if the drivers were paid fairly Uber wouldn't be as popular and drivers wouldn't work and then VCs would be taking their money elsewhere.
This is not clear to me. Even if Uber-driving isn't economical in the long term, it may be an efficient way of temporarily taking capital out of your car--which is pretty hard, otherwise.
I'd want to hear more before I was onboard, anyway.
You can't temporarily take capital out of your car. It's just wear and tear you can either speed up or not, it's just taking the capital.
So you're just taking lower pay and making up for it with your own capital. It is by definition less efficient than doing any other work that pays the same as uber.
+3
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
Surge pricing isn't really what I call a scam. If people in an area are requesting more rides than there are cars to take them, then the taxi method is either to take the call and leave you waiting for an indeterminate period of time (which could be hours) or to simply not take the call -- basically fucking you unless you get lucky. At least with surge pricing, you can try to bid up based on your desire to get home and hope that it entices more people onto the road to drive you there.
Surge pricing isn't what I'd call a scam either. It's price gouging, a totally different kind of crime.
Surge pricing isn't really what I call a scam. If people in an area are requesting more rides than there are cars to take them, then the taxi method is either to take the call and leave you waiting for an indeterminate period of time (which could be hours) or to simply not take the call -- basically fucking you unless you get lucky. At least with surge pricing, you can try to bid up based on your desire to get home and hope that it entices more people onto the road to drive you there.
That's still a shitty system, especially for lower income riders (who, remember, are the majority of taxi riders.) You are arguing that you should be allowed to use your resources to prioritize access to livery services.
Yes that is how capitalism works. If you want an on demand public transport service you should create that instead of trying to have private corporations provide one through convoluted and inefficient rent seeking.
100% make it a public service. Over here door to door transport for the disabled and some elderly is a service, though by necessity on appointment rather than demand. It is important to have public transport be a viable option for every member of society.
That said obviously price gouging and underpaying employees should be outlawed regardless of it being "how capitalism works". Surely we can agree that "hell yeah it sucks, that's capitalism baby!" isn't really a defense?
Pricing something more than what you'd like to pay isn't really a crime. Would I like a cheap ride that shows up within minutes on New Year's Eve when all the parties let out? Hell, yeah. Is that something that an unusually large chunk of the rest of the city would also like at that same time? Also yeah. Would it probably be in the city's overall interest to get a higher than average number of drivers-for-hire on the road during New Year's Eve so people don't freeze and/or drive drunk? Also yeah. How do you incentivize more people to work as drivers-for-hire on New Year's Eve -- you pay them. That's what surge pricing is.
If you want the government to make a public service to transport the vulnerable and the disable around, then cool. I'm right with you. But that's not what Uber (and taxis in general, really) exclusively are for. A lot of it is just people wanting to pay someone else to take them somewhere. And there are people who are willing to pay more to get more.
Price gouging is a literal crime in most of the US though. It usually only applies to essential goods and services (during emergencies), so it would only be for real crime if transport was considered one. Perhaps it isn't, who cares? If it doesn't involve drivers risking their lives or passengers rioting it is whatever. Allow it or not.
Pricing something more than what is reasonable is not always a crime. It can still be morally objectionable though. You're taking advantage of people, using their desperation to make an extra buck. Don't want to freeze? Well then you have to pay extra.
Sure that is how capitalism works. Child labour is also how capitalism works.
Ok, is surge pricing unreasonable for Uber? If there's not enough drivers around to make all the pick ups (in lieu of something like a blizzard, which I doubt was coded into the surge pricing algorithm with intent, as opposed to someone cackling evilly at Uber and raising the prices while watching weather reports), is bidding up the price until supply:demand ratio stabilizes an inherently immoral thing? Its one thing for a taxi driver to pull up to a bleeding person and then decide to jack up the rate to take them to the hospital on the spot, but is it still morally suspect to move prices to meet localized demand and supply?
Do you think it actually takes anywhere near doubling or tripling full fares to attract drivers? If GrubHub or DoorDash don't have enough drivers in my area and need to incentivise people they charge customers $2-3 extra for delivery. On a really busy Saturday night it might be an extra $4-5. It is almost never so busy that food can't be delivered in a reasonable amount of time.
That beer fest I went to? It was around $60 to get there (it was about 40 miles). To come home they wanted $186 and change. Was an extra $126 the only way they could get a driver into the area to take us? Somehow I doubt it. Was an extra $126 reasonable? Not a chance. We walked a mile away and the rate dropped more than 50%. Was over $90 needed to get those drivers to go the extra mile? Really?
It's a hidden cost that is not really that hidden - a single decision support calculator could wash away all these concerns.
"Doing any other work that pays the same as uber" is not a valid argument. It's not like supporting your job with your own capital is completely unique to Uber. Plus, I've yet to see somebody put up a researched quote on how much people make with Uber. Minimum wage? Less? More? How hard would it be to get and do a job that earns as much?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Surge pricing isn't obviously abusive. Markets aren't perfectly moral allocators of resources, but price can at least act as an ~imperfect~ proxy of how badly a person needs a service.
Without surge pricing, peak demand rides are effectively allocated by lottery--some lucky people get picked. With surge pricing, people who are willing to pay more get picked. This does include people for whom the value of money is less, because they have more of it. But it also includes people whose willingness to pay is tracking the fact that it's actually really important for them to get a ride. If your partner is in labor, you'd much rather the company be using surge pricing (you would pay 10,000%, if it came down to it) than to be just taking first-call first-response.
Surge pricing discriminates against the poor and is therefore obviously abusive.
Surge pricing isn't obviously abusive. Markets aren't perfectly moral allocators of resources, but price can at least act as an ~imperfect~ proxy of how badly a person needs a service.
Without surge pricing, peak demand rides are effectively allocated by lottery--some lucky people get picked. With surge pricing, people who are willing to pay more get picked. This does include people for whom the value of money is less, because they have more of it. But it also includes people whose willingness to pay is tracking the fact that it's actually really important for them to get a ride. If your partner is in labor, you'd much rather the company be using surge pricing (you would pay 10,000%, if it came down to it) than to be just taking first-call first-response.
Surge pricing discriminates against the poor and is therefore obviously abusive.
charging any amount of money discriminates (in this sense) against people with less money. this is not a problem with surge pricing, this is a problem with money-mediated exchange.
Surge pricing isn't obviously abusive. Markets aren't perfectly moral allocators of resources, but price can at least act as an ~imperfect~ proxy of how badly a person needs a service.
Without surge pricing, peak demand rides are effectively allocated by lottery--some lucky people get picked. With surge pricing, people who are willing to pay more get picked. This does include people for whom the value of money is less, because they have more of it. But it also includes people whose willingness to pay is tracking the fact that it's actually really important for them to get a ride. If your partner is in labor, you'd much rather the company be using surge pricing (you would pay 10,000%, if it came down to it) than to be just taking first-call first-response.
Surge pricing discriminates against the poor and is therefore obviously abusive.
charging any amount of money discriminates (in this sense) against people with less money. this is not a problem with surge pricing, this is a problem with money-mediated exchange.
Using "how much cash you're willing to part with" as the determining factor to allocate a limited resource is openly discriminatory towards the poor - which is what happens with surge pricing. The point of surge pricing is not to "get more drivers on the road", it's to ameliorate demand to get back to the necessary levels to maintain the performance guarantee - that is, to insure that a car will be available for assignment.
Personally, I think that having to wait because all livery cars are busy is fairer than a system where only the more wealthy get service.
Surge pricing isn't obviously abusive. Markets aren't perfectly moral allocators of resources, but price can at least act as an ~imperfect~ proxy of how badly a person needs a service.
Without surge pricing, peak demand rides are effectively allocated by lottery--some lucky people get picked. With surge pricing, people who are willing to pay more get picked. This does include people for whom the value of money is less, because they have more of it. But it also includes people whose willingness to pay is tracking the fact that it's actually really important for them to get a ride. If your partner is in labor, you'd much rather the company be using surge pricing (you would pay 10,000%, if it came down to it) than to be just taking first-call first-response.
Surge pricing discriminates against the poor and is therefore obviously abusive.
charging any amount of money discriminates (in this sense) against people with less money. this is not a problem with surge pricing, this is a problem with money-mediated exchange.
Using "how much cash you're willing to part with" as the determining factor to allocate a limited resource is openly discriminatory towards the poor - which is what happens with surge pricing. The point of surge pricing is not to "get more drivers on the road", it's to ameliorate demand to get back to the necessary levels to maintain the performance guarantee - that is, to insure that a car will be available for assignment.
Personally, I think that having to wait because all livery cars are busy is fairer than a system where only the more wealthy get service.
1) surge pricing does both of those things, it reduces demand as more potential buyers decide that the price is no longer worth it (a decision which is highly dependent on how wealthy the buyer is) and it increases supply as more drivers decide the increased pay is worth taking the job. cf this study, although due to the direct involvement of uber staff a grain of salt is recommended.
2) any system in which you have to exchange wealth for a service, be that transport or otherwise, is one in which "only the more wealthy get service". a livery car system is not meaningfully more fair, because this already excludes people who cannot afford that fixed price. the fundamental unfairness that you have correctly identified is not one that can be eliminated by changing the price point!
+2
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Note that I am not saying Uber is a saint; they honestly fucked up something beautiful through shitty business practices.
But I don't know if the arguments of "surge price gouging is bad" and "uber charges 2-3x less than the service is worth" and "uber is discriminatory towards the poor" are complimentary like many in here seem to think they are.
Like, this is just a hot mess of wildly different and conflicting things. Uber is discriminatory to the poor but most of the times costs less than a traditional livery service and makes it price and location accessible to underserved areas. Drivers don't get paid enough but paying them more to incentivise them to work is price gouging.
Like, c'mon.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Surge pricing isn't really what I call a scam. If people in an area are requesting more rides than there are cars to take them, then the taxi method is either to take the call and leave you waiting for an indeterminate period of time (which could be hours) or to simply not take the call -- basically fucking you unless you get lucky. At least with surge pricing, you can try to bid up based on your desire to get home and hope that it entices more people onto the road to drive you there.
Surge pricing isn't what I'd call a scam either. It's price gouging, a totally different kind of crime.
Surge pricing isn't really what I call a scam. If people in an area are requesting more rides than there are cars to take them, then the taxi method is either to take the call and leave you waiting for an indeterminate period of time (which could be hours) or to simply not take the call -- basically fucking you unless you get lucky. At least with surge pricing, you can try to bid up based on your desire to get home and hope that it entices more people onto the road to drive you there.
That's still a shitty system, especially for lower income riders (who, remember, are the majority of taxi riders.) You are arguing that you should be allowed to use your resources to prioritize access to livery services.
Yes that is how capitalism works. If you want an on demand public transport service you should create that instead of trying to have private corporations provide one through convoluted and inefficient rent seeking.
100% make it a public service. Over here door to door transport for the disabled and some elderly is a service, though by necessity on appointment rather than demand. It is important to have public transport be a viable option for every member of society.
That said obviously price gouging and underpaying employees should be outlawed regardless of it being "how capitalism works". Surely we can agree that "hell yeah it sucks, that's capitalism baby!" isn't really a defense?
Pricing something more than what you'd like to pay isn't really a crime. Would I like a cheap ride that shows up within minutes on New Year's Eve when all the parties let out? Hell, yeah. Is that something that an unusually large chunk of the rest of the city would also like at that same time? Also yeah. Would it probably be in the city's overall interest to get a higher than average number of drivers-for-hire on the road during New Year's Eve so people don't freeze and/or drive drunk? Also yeah. How do you incentivize more people to work as drivers-for-hire on New Year's Eve -- you pay them. That's what surge pricing is.
If you want the government to make a public service to transport the vulnerable and the disable around, then cool. I'm right with you. But that's not what Uber (and taxis in general, really) exclusively are for. A lot of it is just people wanting to pay someone else to take them somewhere. And there are people who are willing to pay more to get more.
Price gouging is a literal crime in most of the US though. It usually only applies to essential goods and services (during emergencies), so it would only be for real crime if transport was considered one. Perhaps it isn't, who cares? If it doesn't involve drivers risking their lives or passengers rioting it is whatever. Allow it or not.
Pricing something more than what is reasonable is not always a crime. It can still be morally objectionable though. You're taking advantage of people, using their desperation to make an extra buck. Don't want to freeze? Well then you have to pay extra.
Sure that is how capitalism works. Child labour is also how capitalism works.
Ok, is surge pricing unreasonable for Uber? If there's not enough drivers around to make all the pick ups (in lieu of something like a blizzard, which I doubt was coded into the surge pricing algorithm with intent, as opposed to someone cackling evilly at Uber and raising the prices while watching weather reports), is bidding up the price until supply:demand ratio stabilizes an inherently immoral thing? Its one thing for a taxi driver to pull up to a bleeding person and then decide to jack up the rate to take them to the hospital on the spot, but is it still morally suspect to move prices to meet localized demand and supply?
Do you think it actually takes anywhere near doubling or tripling full fares to attract drivers? If GrubHub or DoorDash don't have enough drivers in my area and need to incentivise people they charge customers $2-3 extra for delivery. On a really busy Saturday night it might be an extra $4-5. It is almost never so busy that food can't be delivered in a reasonable amount of time.
That beer fest I went to? It was around $60 to get there (it was about 40 miles). To come home they wanted $186 and change. Was an extra $126 the only way they could get a driver into the area to take us? Somehow I doubt it. Was an extra $126 reasonable? Not a chance. We walked a mile away and the rate dropped more than 50%. Was over $90 needed to get those drivers to go the extra mile? Really?
Yes, I can absolutely believe that. The ability to get new drivers onto the road, especially ones who want to pick up sloppy drunks from a beer festival, is incredibly price inelastic beyond a certain point.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+11
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
Surge pricing isn't really what I call a scam. If people in an area are requesting more rides than there are cars to take them, then the taxi method is either to take the call and leave you waiting for an indeterminate period of time (which could be hours) or to simply not take the call -- basically fucking you unless you get lucky. At least with surge pricing, you can try to bid up based on your desire to get home and hope that it entices more people onto the road to drive you there.
Surge pricing isn't what I'd call a scam either. It's price gouging, a totally different kind of crime.
Surge pricing isn't really what I call a scam. If people in an area are requesting more rides than there are cars to take them, then the taxi method is either to take the call and leave you waiting for an indeterminate period of time (which could be hours) or to simply not take the call -- basically fucking you unless you get lucky. At least with surge pricing, you can try to bid up based on your desire to get home and hope that it entices more people onto the road to drive you there.
That's still a shitty system, especially for lower income riders (who, remember, are the majority of taxi riders.) You are arguing that you should be allowed to use your resources to prioritize access to livery services.
Yes that is how capitalism works. If you want an on demand public transport service you should create that instead of trying to have private corporations provide one through convoluted and inefficient rent seeking.
100% make it a public service. Over here door to door transport for the disabled and some elderly is a service, though by necessity on appointment rather than demand. It is important to have public transport be a viable option for every member of society.
That said obviously price gouging and underpaying employees should be outlawed regardless of it being "how capitalism works". Surely we can agree that "hell yeah it sucks, that's capitalism baby!" isn't really a defense?
Pricing something more than what you'd like to pay isn't really a crime. Would I like a cheap ride that shows up within minutes on New Year's Eve when all the parties let out? Hell, yeah. Is that something that an unusually large chunk of the rest of the city would also like at that same time? Also yeah. Would it probably be in the city's overall interest to get a higher than average number of drivers-for-hire on the road during New Year's Eve so people don't freeze and/or drive drunk? Also yeah. How do you incentivize more people to work as drivers-for-hire on New Year's Eve -- you pay them. That's what surge pricing is.
If you want the government to make a public service to transport the vulnerable and the disable around, then cool. I'm right with you. But that's not what Uber (and taxis in general, really) exclusively are for. A lot of it is just people wanting to pay someone else to take them somewhere. And there are people who are willing to pay more to get more.
Price gouging is a literal crime in most of the US though. It usually only applies to essential goods and services (during emergencies), so it would only be for real crime if transport was considered one. Perhaps it isn't, who cares? If it doesn't involve drivers risking their lives or passengers rioting it is whatever. Allow it or not.
Pricing something more than what is reasonable is not always a crime. It can still be morally objectionable though. You're taking advantage of people, using their desperation to make an extra buck. Don't want to freeze? Well then you have to pay extra.
Sure that is how capitalism works. Child labour is also how capitalism works.
Ok, is surge pricing unreasonable for Uber? If there's not enough drivers around to make all the pick ups (in lieu of something like a blizzard, which I doubt was coded into the surge pricing algorithm with intent, as opposed to someone cackling evilly at Uber and raising the prices while watching weather reports), is bidding up the price until supply:demand ratio stabilizes an inherently immoral thing? Its one thing for a taxi driver to pull up to a bleeding person and then decide to jack up the rate to take them to the hospital on the spot, but is it still morally suspect to move prices to meet localized demand and supply?
Do you think it actually takes anywhere near doubling or tripling full fares to attract drivers? If GrubHub or DoorDash don't have enough drivers in my area and need to incentivise people they charge customers $2-3 extra for delivery. On a really busy Saturday night it might be an extra $4-5. It is almost never so busy that food can't be delivered in a reasonable amount of time.
That beer fest I went to? It was around $60 to get there (it was about 40 miles). To come home they wanted $186 and change. Was an extra $126 the only way they could get a driver into the area to take us? Somehow I doubt it. Was an extra $126 reasonable? Not a chance. We walked a mile away and the rate dropped more than 50%. Was over $90 needed to get those drivers to go the extra mile? Really?
Yes, I can absolutely believe that. The ability to get new drivers onto the road, especially ones who want to pick up sloppy drunks from a beer festival, is incredibly price inelastic beyond a certain point.
We were riding back at 1pm since we mainly went just to get our allotment of bottles of the special festival beer which is only available that day and not purchasable any other way. I suppose there could have been some sloppy drunks already, but that wasn't true of the vast majority of people leaving that early.
It's a hidden cost that is not really that hidden - a single decision support calculator could wash away all these concerns.
"Doing any other work that pays the same as uber" is not a valid argument. It's not like supporting your job with your own capital is completely unique to Uber. Plus, I've yet to see somebody put up a researched quote on how much people make with Uber. Minimum wage? Less? More? How hard would it be to get and do a job that earns as much?
"Uber driver “discretionary compensation”—the income drivers get after deducting Uber fees and vehicle expenses and the mandatory extra Social Security/Medicare taxes that self-employed drivers must pay—averages $10.87 an hour. Discretionary compensation, as developed by our analysis, measures the maximum income available to a driver for consumption by assuming that drivers do not provide themselves the equivalent of the health and retirement benefits or social insurance programs (workers’ compensation or unemployment insurance) that regular employees (“W-2 employees”) receive."
Uber driver compensation—the income drivers get after deducting Uber fees and driver vehicle expenses from passenger fares—averages $11.77 an hour. This average Uber driver hourly compensation is substantially less than the $32.06 average hourly compensation of private-sector workers and less than the $14.99 average hourly compensation of workers in the lowest-paid major occupation (service occupation workers).
Edit: so 10.87 an hour with no benefits whatsoever. Close to the absolute lowest tier of compensation of any type of labor in the US. This is AFTER all surge pricing and bonuses for completion and stuff.
Edit: so 10.87 an hour with no benefits whatsoever. Close to the absolute lowest tier of compensation of any type of labor in the US. This is AFTER all surge pricing and bonuses for completion and stuff.
Thanks for the info. What decisionmaking should occur at this point?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
for one, increased spending in public transit, inner city trains, busses and trams, and increased regulation and/or enforcement on taxis.
Like the earlier mentioned "meter broke, you owe this much", no, no, fuck no, meter brokes, the ride should be free, and no dropping people off because the "meter broke" in the middle of nowhere, because in well kept system, the meter does not fucking brake, ever.
Also mandatory gps tracking for taxis.
Edit: so 10.87 an hour with no benefits whatsoever. Close to the absolute lowest tier of compensation of any type of labor in the US. This is AFTER all surge pricing and bonuses for completion and stuff.
BUT
This analysis ignores tips, as do all the other studies.
That is one hell of a big caveat there. The entire idea of a tipping is stupid and should go die, but until that happens excluding it from your analysis in something like this basically means it is only tentatively connected to reality.
More over it being a 10th-15th percentile job makes sense. What propped up the compensation rate for livery? One, the knowledge of being able to navigate around a given city efficiently. This was always more of a hope than a reality in my experience, but sure its a 'skill'. Smartphone GPS has made this completely obsolete, no matter how well you know traffic in general Waze knows it now. Two, a bunch of monopolies and predatory grifts. The monopolies and the schemes both have been stopped by Uber/lyft.
Its a job that requires minimal skills, minimal physical exertion, that in the case of Uber/Lyft you can work truly "at will" with no required hours or schedule. Why would this be a high paying profession?
Edit: so 10.87 an hour with no benefits whatsoever. Close to the absolute lowest tier of compensation of any type of labor in the US. This is AFTER all surge pricing and bonuses for completion and stuff.
BUT
This analysis ignores tips, as do all the other studies.
That is one hell of a big caveat there. The entire idea of a tipping is stupid and should go die, but until that happens excluding it from your analysis in something like this basically means it is only tentatively connected to reality.
More over it being a 10th-15th percentile job makes sense. What propped up the compensation rate for livery? One, the knowledge of being able to navigate around a given city efficiently. This was always more of a hope than a reality in my experience, but sure its a 'skill'. Smartphone GPS has made this completely obsolete, no matter how well you know traffic in general Waze knows it now. Two, a bunch of monopolies and predatory grifts. The monopolies and the schemes both have been stopped by Uber/lyft.
Its a job that requires minimal skills, minimal physical exertion, that in the case of Uber/Lyft you can work truly "at will" with no required hours or schedule. Why would this be a high paying profession?
Because everyone deserves a wage that allows them to live with dignity. Your argument is the one being dissected in this video:
Edit: so 10.87 an hour with no benefits whatsoever. Close to the absolute lowest tier of compensation of any type of labor in the US. This is AFTER all surge pricing and bonuses for completion and stuff.
BUT
This analysis ignores tips, as do all the other studies.
That is one hell of a big caveat there. The entire idea of a tipping is stupid and should go die, but until that happens excluding it from your analysis in something like this basically means it is only tentatively connected to reality.
More over it being a 10th-15th percentile job makes sense. What propped up the compensation rate for livery? One, the knowledge of being able to navigate around a given city efficiently. This was always more of a hope than a reality in my experience, but sure its a 'skill'. Smartphone GPS has made this completely obsolete, no matter how well you know traffic in general Waze knows it now. Two, a bunch of monopolies and predatory grifts. The monopolies and the schemes both have been stopped by Uber/lyft.
Its a job that requires minimal skills, minimal physical exertion, that in the case of Uber/Lyft you can work truly "at will" with no required hours or schedule. Why would this be a high paying profession?
Because everyone deserves a wage that allows them to live with dignity. Your argument is the one being dissected in this video:
And it is an ugly one at its heart.
Is $11+tips below dignity wages? Thats 140% the minimum wage, plus tips. I'd expect even a mediocre driver would clear the $15 hour people are campaigning for. I mean, if you want to argue minimum wage should be $17 or $20 or w/e, that is a side argument. But fundamentally, what about driving a standard car around a city following Google Maps, would lead you to see it as a job that isn't making near whatever that minimum permissible figure is.
Also, I'm not watching some 20+ minute long youtube video. If you have a point to make, make it yourself.
Edit: so 10.87 an hour with no benefits whatsoever. Close to the absolute lowest tier of compensation of any type of labor in the US. This is AFTER all surge pricing and bonuses for completion and stuff.
BUT
This analysis ignores tips, as do all the other studies.
That is one hell of a big caveat there. The entire idea of a tipping is stupid and should go die, but until that happens excluding it from your analysis in something like this basically means it is only tentatively connected to reality.
More over it being a 10th-15th percentile job makes sense. What propped up the compensation rate for livery? One, the knowledge of being able to navigate around a given city efficiently. This was always more of a hope than a reality in my experience, but sure its a 'skill'. Smartphone GPS has made this completely obsolete, no matter how well you know traffic in general Waze knows it now. Two, a bunch of monopolies and predatory grifts. The monopolies and the schemes both have been stopped by Uber/lyft.
Its a job that requires minimal skills, minimal physical exertion, that in the case of Uber/Lyft you can work truly "at will" with no required hours or schedule. Why would this be a high paying profession?
Because everyone deserves a wage that allows them to live with dignity. Your argument is the one being dissected in this video:
And it is an ugly one at its heart.
Is $11+tips below dignity wages? Thats 140% the minimum wage, plus tips. I'd expect even a mediocre driver would clear the $15 hour people are campaigning for. I mean, if you want to argue minimum wage should be $17 or $20 or w/e, that is a side argument. But fundamentally, what about driving a standard car around a city following Google Maps, would lead you to see it as a job that isn't making near whatever that minimum permissible figure is.
Also, I'm not watching some 20+ minute long youtube video. If you have a point to make, make it yourself.
I think the argument was that suggesting that professional drivers in a fleet working for a major international corporation should be making poverty wages is scummy. That you feel comfortable sharing that you have some mental hierarchy that determines who gets to live a stable life with things like healthcare and a roof over there heads - most likely based on The Thing You Do sitting well above the poverty line - is also extremely distasteful.
Edit: so 10.87 an hour with no benefits whatsoever. Close to the absolute lowest tier of compensation of any type of labor in the US. This is AFTER all surge pricing and bonuses for completion and stuff.
BUT
This analysis ignores tips, as do all the other studies.
That is one hell of a big caveat there. The entire idea of a tipping is stupid and should go die, but until that happens excluding it from your analysis in something like this basically means it is only tentatively connected to reality.
More over it being a 10th-15th percentile job makes sense. What propped up the compensation rate for livery? One, the knowledge of being able to navigate around a given city efficiently. This was always more of a hope than a reality in my experience, but sure its a 'skill'. Smartphone GPS has made this completely obsolete, no matter how well you know traffic in general Waze knows it now. Two, a bunch of monopolies and predatory grifts. The monopolies and the schemes both have been stopped by Uber/lyft.
Its a job that requires minimal skills, minimal physical exertion, that in the case of Uber/Lyft you can work truly "at will" with no required hours or schedule. Why would this be a high paying profession?
Because everyone deserves a wage that allows them to live with dignity. Your argument is the one being dissected in this video:
And it is an ugly one at its heart.
Is $11+tips below dignity wages? Thats 140% the minimum wage, plus tips. I'd expect even a mediocre driver would clear the $15 hour people are campaigning for. I mean, if you want to argue minimum wage should be $17 or $20 or w/e, that is a side argument. But fundamentally, what about driving a standard car around a city following Google Maps, would lead you to see it as a job that isn't making near whatever that minimum permissible figure is.
Also, I'm not watching some 20+ minute long youtube video. If you have a point to make, make it yourself.
I think the argument was that suggesting that professional drivers in a fleet working for a major international corporations should be making poverty wages is scummy. That you feel comfortable sharing that you have some mental hierarchy that determines who gets to live a stable life with things like healthcare and a roof over there heads - most likely based on The Thing You Do sitting well above the poverty line - is also extremely distasteful.
Right - the argument that someone should be forced to struggle in poverty (because the minimum wage is nowhere near being a living wage) is one very much built around a class hierarchy - as Danskin notes in the video, the idea is that the underclass needs to exist, because it's the natural state of the world, and because of that, being at the bottom means that one doesn't merit a fair, living wage.
Posts
But after going to Japan and using their train system, it seems like a Utopian paradise ... as far as I, a car-less man, am concerned. I recently invested in an electric bike to commute, because if I took a Lyft to work everyday both ways, it would be 400 bucks a month. And I live close to work.
I long for the day the US invests in its own infastructure like that. I know it's a very large country with lot of rural areas, so it's not like we'd get the same coverage. But yeah, as someone who has lived in quite a few different cities and states, I find the lack of quality public transportation a big problem.
It also doesn't help that most public transportation in the US is often running late, so it's not always practical for commuters if you can't rely on the bus actually coming.
You say that like being able to pay people for their services (who are explicitly doing that service in search of profit) is some sort of travesty of justice. And the surge price is the same for everyone, its what gets drivers to come out onto the road, who would not otherwise be there, so that you can actually get a ride. Having a cheap ride that you can't actually get someone to pick you up for isn't that great of an option either.
Given that the consensus is "monopoly can't work in this market" then it's not like they're getting a nefarious advantage... they're dumping all their excess capital into improving my quality of life, which is, like, I'm not complaining?
Well, their goal is to pull a Walmart: sell their service at a loss to drive everyone else out, then start charging real money. So, it's good until the existing taxicab companies go out of business, and the city cuts back bus routes because of lack of interest. Then you'll get charged cab rates+ for your choice of unlicensed taxi, with no good alternative.
Yeah, my understanding was that the most common opinion was that this was their strategy but that also it could never work, because it is too easy for competitors to re-enter the taxi market once they start raising rates
And if your illegal Internet taxi company still can't make a profit and crashes, then you'll have communities with no options left. There's this fantasy that the market will just provide, but a lot of times the existing infrastructure investment was made in a different era, built up over many years, and there's not enough profit to support rebuilding it all from scratch overnight.
Surge pricing isn't what I'd call a scam either. It's price gouging, a totally different kind of crime.
100% make it a public service. Over here door to door transport for the disabled and some elderly is a service, though by necessity on appointment rather than demand. It is important to have public transport be a viable option for every member of society.
That said obviously price gouging and underpaying employees should be outlawed regardless of it being "how capitalism works". Surely we can agree that "hell yeah it sucks, that's capitalism baby!" isn't really a defense?
Without surge pricing, peak demand rides are effectively allocated by lottery--some lucky people get picked. With surge pricing, people who are willing to pay more get picked. This does include people for whom the value of money is less, because they have more of it. But it also includes people whose willingness to pay is tracking the fact that it's actually really important for them to get a ride. If your partner is in labor, you'd much rather the company be using surge pricing (you would pay 10,000%, if it came down to it) than to be just taking first-call first-response.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You can find black car services in the yellow pages and on the internet. They totally advertise, they would hardly be an existing business if they didn't. If you haven't been advertised to, it is perhaps an indication that you are not actually in a willing market.
Like come on man the 3x the price is obviously a major barrier. No way would the vast majority of rides happen if that was the price. Uber wouldn't have happened if they'd just offered the regular black car shit. You don't get that sweet venture capital money by just developing an app that makes an existing process easier.
Edit: Interestingly, after regular Uber was banned in the Netherlands they continued support for UberBlack which is still a popular service. It's usually somewhat cheaper than a regular taxi because Uber is essentially operating as a taxi company with far less overhead. The convenience of the app for both driver and passenger is a plus too though. But I think this only works because of the specific taxi regulations in the Netherlands.
I am not using your grand dad’s yellow pages when looking for a ride from a bar. Meanwhile every taxi service I looked up on the internet from Dallas to Philly gave me vague arrival times followed by “Oh the meter doesn’t work, it was X dollars. Cash only.”
You grossly underestimate how much I and others are willing to pay for a ride that’s actually reliable. And how much that service was being sabotaged by monopolies uninterested in improving their service.
Yellow pages
JFC
Pricing something more than what you'd like to pay isn't really a crime. Would I like a cheap ride that shows up within minutes on New Year's Eve when all the parties let out? Hell, yeah. Is that something that an unusually large chunk of the rest of the city would also like at that same time? Also yeah. Would it probably be in the city's overall interest to get a higher than average number of drivers-for-hire on the road during New Year's Eve so people don't freeze and/or drive drunk? Also yeah. How do you incentivize more people to work as drivers-for-hire on New Year's Eve -- you pay them. That's what surge pricing is.
If you want the government to make a public service to transport the vulnerable and the disable around, then cool. I'm right with you. But that's not what Uber (and taxis in general, really) exclusively are for. A lot of it is just people wanting to pay someone else to take them somewhere. And there are people who are willing to pay more to get more.
Now. Not ten years ago.
And honestly not even now. Oahu was horrific last time I took a cab.
I dunno about obviously abuse, do I do remember the kerfuffle when Uber did surge pricing during literal blizzards. The non-obvious abuse there being that it pushed drivers who weren't professionals into going out in dangerous weather.
But yeah since the transport is usually not necessary the surge pricing is not criminal price gouging. And I don't have qualms as such with surge pricing during like the big game or whatever. My point was more that actual price gouging is also how capitalism works, and we don't consider that a defense.
Oh sure this is absolutely fine. The problem is that Uber drivers are also paying for your ride and unaware of it. Like any shit sillicon valley company the business model also relies on exploiting workers.
If drivers were paid fairly I would be cheering on the VCs burning their money. But if the drivers were paid fairly Uber wouldn't be as popular and drivers wouldn't work and then VCs would be taking their money elsewhere.
Price gouging is a literal crime in most of the US though. It usually only applies to essential goods and services (during emergencies), so it would only be for real crime if transport was considered one. Perhaps it isn't, who cares? If it doesn't involve drivers risking their lives or passengers rioting it is whatever. Allow it or not.
Pricing something more than what is reasonable is not always a crime. It can still be morally objectionable though. You're taking advantage of people, using their desperation to make an extra buck. Don't want to freeze? Well then you have to pay extra.
Sure that is how capitalism works. Child labour is also how capitalism works.
This is not clear to me. Even if Uber-driving isn't economical in the long term, it may be an efficient way of temporarily taking capital out of your car--which is pretty hard, otherwise.
I'd want to hear more before I was onboard, anyway.
Ok, is surge pricing unreasonable for Uber? If there's not enough drivers around to make all the pick ups (in lieu of something like a blizzard, which I doubt was coded into the surge pricing algorithm with intent, as opposed to someone cackling evilly at Uber and raising the prices while watching weather reports), is bidding up the price until supply:demand ratio stabilizes an inherently immoral thing? Its one thing for a taxi driver to pull up to a bleeding person and then decide to jack up the rate to take them to the hospital on the spot, but is it still morally suspect to move prices to meet localized demand and supply?
You can't temporarily take capital out of your car. It's just wear and tear you can either speed up or not, it's just taking the capital.
So you're just taking lower pay and making up for it with your own capital. It is by definition less efficient than doing any other work that pays the same as uber.
Do you think it actually takes anywhere near doubling or tripling full fares to attract drivers? If GrubHub or DoorDash don't have enough drivers in my area and need to incentivise people they charge customers $2-3 extra for delivery. On a really busy Saturday night it might be an extra $4-5. It is almost never so busy that food can't be delivered in a reasonable amount of time.
That beer fest I went to? It was around $60 to get there (it was about 40 miles). To come home they wanted $186 and change. Was an extra $126 the only way they could get a driver into the area to take us? Somehow I doubt it. Was an extra $126 reasonable? Not a chance. We walked a mile away and the rate dropped more than 50%. Was over $90 needed to get those drivers to go the extra mile? Really?
"Doing any other work that pays the same as uber" is not a valid argument. It's not like supporting your job with your own capital is completely unique to Uber. Plus, I've yet to see somebody put up a researched quote on how much people make with Uber. Minimum wage? Less? More? How hard would it be to get and do a job that earns as much?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Surge pricing discriminates against the poor and is therefore obviously abusive.
charging any amount of money discriminates (in this sense) against people with less money. this is not a problem with surge pricing, this is a problem with money-mediated exchange.
Using "how much cash you're willing to part with" as the determining factor to allocate a limited resource is openly discriminatory towards the poor - which is what happens with surge pricing. The point of surge pricing is not to "get more drivers on the road", it's to ameliorate demand to get back to the necessary levels to maintain the performance guarantee - that is, to insure that a car will be available for assignment.
Personally, I think that having to wait because all livery cars are busy is fairer than a system where only the more wealthy get service.
1) surge pricing does both of those things, it reduces demand as more potential buyers decide that the price is no longer worth it (a decision which is highly dependent on how wealthy the buyer is) and it increases supply as more drivers decide the increased pay is worth taking the job. cf this study, although due to the direct involvement of uber staff a grain of salt is recommended.
2) any system in which you have to exchange wealth for a service, be that transport or otherwise, is one in which "only the more wealthy get service". a livery car system is not meaningfully more fair, because this already excludes people who cannot afford that fixed price. the fundamental unfairness that you have correctly identified is not one that can be eliminated by changing the price point!
But I don't know if the arguments of "surge price gouging is bad" and "uber charges 2-3x less than the service is worth" and "uber is discriminatory towards the poor" are complimentary like many in here seem to think they are.
Like, this is just a hot mess of wildly different and conflicting things. Uber is discriminatory to the poor but most of the times costs less than a traditional livery service and makes it price and location accessible to underserved areas. Drivers don't get paid enough but paying them more to incentivise them to work is price gouging.
Like, c'mon.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Yes, I can absolutely believe that. The ability to get new drivers onto the road, especially ones who want to pick up sloppy drunks from a beer festival, is incredibly price inelastic beyond a certain point.
We were riding back at 1pm since we mainly went just to get our allotment of bottles of the special festival beer which is only available that day and not purchasable any other way. I suppose there could have been some sloppy drunks already, but that wasn't true of the vast majority of people leaving that early.
https://www.epi.org/publication/uber-and-the-labor-market-uber-drivers-compensation-wages-and-the-scale-of-uber-and-the-gig-economy/
"Uber driver “discretionary compensation”—the income drivers get after deducting Uber fees and vehicle expenses and the mandatory extra Social Security/Medicare taxes that self-employed drivers must pay—averages $10.87 an hour. Discretionary compensation, as developed by our analysis, measures the maximum income available to a driver for consumption by assuming that drivers do not provide themselves the equivalent of the health and retirement benefits or social insurance programs (workers’ compensation or unemployment insurance) that regular employees (“W-2 employees”) receive."
Uber driver compensation—the income drivers get after deducting Uber fees and driver vehicle expenses from passenger fares—averages $11.77 an hour. This average Uber driver hourly compensation is substantially less than the $32.06 average hourly compensation of private-sector workers and less than the $14.99 average hourly compensation of workers in the lowest-paid major occupation (service occupation workers).
Edit: so 10.87 an hour with no benefits whatsoever. Close to the absolute lowest tier of compensation of any type of labor in the US. This is AFTER all surge pricing and bonuses for completion and stuff.
This is why Uber and Lyft have massive churn in their workforce. A lot of their drivers basically either realize that they are working for nothing, or their vehicle breaks down and takes them out of the service (and possibly the job market itself depending on whether they have available public transit).
Basically, Americans in the gig economy are learning why their forebears rebelled against "piece work."
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Like the earlier mentioned "meter broke, you owe this much", no, no, fuck no, meter brokes, the ride should be free, and no dropping people off because the "meter broke" in the middle of nowhere, because in well kept system, the meter does not fucking brake, ever.
Also mandatory gps tracking for taxis.
BUT That is one hell of a big caveat there. The entire idea of a tipping is stupid and should go die, but until that happens excluding it from your analysis in something like this basically means it is only tentatively connected to reality.
More over it being a 10th-15th percentile job makes sense. What propped up the compensation rate for livery? One, the knowledge of being able to navigate around a given city efficiently. This was always more of a hope than a reality in my experience, but sure its a 'skill'. Smartphone GPS has made this completely obsolete, no matter how well you know traffic in general Waze knows it now. Two, a bunch of monopolies and predatory grifts. The monopolies and the schemes both have been stopped by Uber/lyft.
Its a job that requires minimal skills, minimal physical exertion, that in the case of Uber/Lyft you can work truly "at will" with no required hours or schedule. Why would this be a high paying profession?
Because everyone deserves a wage that allows them to live with dignity. Your argument is the one being dissected in this video:
And it is an ugly one at its heart.
Is $11+tips below dignity wages? Thats 140% the minimum wage, plus tips. I'd expect even a mediocre driver would clear the $15 hour people are campaigning for. I mean, if you want to argue minimum wage should be $17 or $20 or w/e, that is a side argument. But fundamentally, what about driving a standard car around a city following Google Maps, would lead you to see it as a job that isn't making near whatever that minimum permissible figure is.
Also, I'm not watching some 20+ minute long youtube video. If you have a point to make, make it yourself.
I think the argument was that suggesting that professional drivers in a fleet working for a major international corporation should be making poverty wages is scummy. That you feel comfortable sharing that you have some mental hierarchy that determines who gets to live a stable life with things like healthcare and a roof over there heads - most likely based on The Thing You Do sitting well above the poverty line - is also extremely distasteful.
Right - the argument that someone should be forced to struggle in poverty (because the minimum wage is nowhere near being a living wage) is one very much built around a class hierarchy - as Danskin notes in the video, the idea is that the underclass needs to exist, because it's the natural state of the world, and because of that, being at the bottom means that one doesn't merit a fair, living wage.