Getting Over Getting Over Uber: Tim O'Reilly Does the Math 385
Susan Crawford yesterday published at Medium a critique of Uber and similar ride-coordinating services, in the form of a kind of paean to the American taxicab.
Though she didn't start out with negative feelings for Uber, Crawford writes, her sentiment has swung away from objections to taxis (such as that they seek unfair protection from competition) to an extravagant defense, though it comes with a long list of "shoulds": "[Cities] should be focusing on making their taxi services better," she writes. "Taxis should be more accessible to everyone. Taxi fares should be low, predictable, and uniform. Taxi geographies should be wide. Taxis should be clean, fuel-efficient, driven by trustworthy, well-trained drivers, and available for frictionless electronic hailing." Even with the flaws that list implies, Crawford's description of how well taxis work now is more positive than I've found to be true: "Their rates are regulated and set; their pricing is transparent and can be double-checked (just look at the meter, which is itself regularly tested); they look like a uniform fleet; they are subject to very strict licensing and safety requirements. With rare exceptions, they don’t employ surge/congestion pricing schemes."
Tim O'Reilly has written a response, calling Crawford's arguments "puzzling and unconvincing." O'Reilly dissects some of the math behind the business of driving others for money, as it applies to both conventional taxi drivers and "gig economy" drivers, as well as some of the qualitative effects of ride-dispatch services; surely some readers will take issue with his figures and examples, but they provide a plausible case for doubting Crawford's rosy picture of taxis and dark view of modern app-dispatched rides. O'Reilly writes: "Regulation is not a good in itself. It is a means of achieving public goods. And so far, it is pretty clear that Uber and Lyft (and in particular, the competition between them) are improving the transportation options in American cities. Regulators should be using the opportunity to revisit the old way of doing things rather than trying to make the new conform to outdated rules that no longer serve their purpose."
Tim O'Reilly has written a response, calling Crawford's arguments "puzzling and unconvincing." O'Reilly dissects some of the math behind the business of driving others for money, as it applies to both conventional taxi drivers and "gig economy" drivers, as well as some of the qualitative effects of ride-dispatch services; surely some readers will take issue with his figures and examples, but they provide a plausible case for doubting Crawford's rosy picture of taxis and dark view of modern app-dispatched rides. O'Reilly writes: "Regulation is not a good in itself. It is a means of achieving public goods. And so far, it is pretty clear that Uber and Lyft (and in particular, the competition between them) are improving the transportation options in American cities. Regulators should be using the opportunity to revisit the old way of doing things rather than trying to make the new conform to outdated rules that no longer serve their purpose."
"I did not start off being anti-Uber." (Score:5, Insightful)
...but then a taxi lobbyist dropped a big bag of Benjamins on my desk, and what's a blogger to do?
Re: "I did not start off being anti-Uber." (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't care about Uber till slashdot started posting stories about it for money. Now I am anti-Uber, anti-slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
This fight is about public values. When it comes to city-wide transport and communications networks, serving everyone at a high basic level fairly—including drivers—is more important than permitting a single company to make enormous profits from a substitute basic private service.
To be honest, I'm not really sure what is trying to say here. Does anyone here get it?
Re:"I did not start off being anti-Uber." (Score:5, Funny)
To be honest, I'm not really sure what is trying to say here. Does anyone here get it?
She is saying that paying a fixed fare for a taxi ride is a fundamental human right, unlike food or medicine, and therefore government management of the market is justified.
Re:"I did not start off being anti-Uber." (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you have evidence to support that claim?
Basically her argument is that taxis are good, and the only problem with them is that they need to be completely different than they are now. No one with an interest in maintaining their credibility would say something so stupid and incoherent of their own free will. Ergo, she is being paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that directly contradict "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Without concrete proof the claim is baseless.
You don't get concrete proof of this sort of thing, unless someone releases the payment receipts from some taxi company or associated marketing group. Reality h
You know who does that already... Uber (Score:4, Insightful)
Taxis should be more accessible to everyone. Taxi fares should be low, predictable, and uniform. Taxi geographies should be wide. Taxis should be clean, fuel-efficient, driven by trustworthy, well-trained drivers, and available for frictionless electronic hailing.
Congratulations, you just described Uber, and now understand why it exists.
The only thing limiting availability of Uber in fact, is governments and taxi cartels you seek to improve... if taxis could be any of those things, why aren't they already since they have had decades longer to do so? If you think the "city" can make the taxis into those things, look around at the barley kept -up infrastructure and crumbling streets and answer the hard question of how they could do that one thing well when so many other things have been done poorly.
If wishes were horses I wouldn't need taxis OR Uber, but they aren't so I do
Re:You know who does that already... Uber (Score:5, Insightful)
Surge pricing is exactly the opposite of low, predictable, and uniform.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a trade-off. While the price might not be known until it is booked what becomes predictable and uniform is the availability of a ride. Like all price controlled good taxi's become impossible to find when you really want them.
Re:You know how much you will pay before you (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're using the literal present tense, nothing.
After Uber have undercut the taxi firms and put them all out of business, the answer should be obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
It already is the case, if you havent noticed. Surge pricing kicks in at a time when taxis are impossible to find. I was leaving a conference, without uber (which was surge pricing), I would have had to take 2 buses to reach the airport, or walked which would have actually been faster than taking the bus. There were no taxis around, they were all taken by the ones that stepped out early.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you do. It will be about the same as you and others paid last week at the same time. Or to save money you can go home before the surge or wait until after the surge. With a taxi, you don't get to choose how much to pay.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Less congested roads and thus less accidents
2) Service for all matter of handicapped people not just able bodied people
3) Service in less profitable areas
4) Salaries that people can live off of
I don't really care about taxi drivers, but we should not give up those things in any part of society for something that is less.
Why stop at that? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You can predict the selling price of something on eBay according to how much it sold for previously. So yes, prices are fairly predictable and uniform when all factors are held constant.
And it's also nice to know that you won't ever overpay for something on eBay. I think that's more important than knowing the exact selling price down to the penny.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm amaized it still works.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad joke! Bad! No biscuit for you....;-)
In the US only (Score:5, Informative)
Now we know that US law are often corporate blowjobs (dealership, taxi medaillion etc..). But Uber is not so great either. What do you think will happen if taxi get deregulated ? Well i will tell you : the most common minimum denominator that's what will happen.
Re: (Score:2)
If taxis are so great in Germany, then Uber should fail massively.
If Uber hasn't failed, then despite your utopian view of taxis, the market believes otherwise and is willing to accept whatever tradeoffs Uber offers in exchange for whatever benefits Uber provides over taxis.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Risk analysis is part of the market dynamic.
You say that taxis have essential regulations necessary for their service, that the regulations reduce the risks associated with the rides.
The market says differently -- the perception that most people have is that Uber rides aren't risky, and for its customers they are willing to forgo the presumed risk amelioration of the regulations in exchange for an Uber ride vs. a taxi. If Uber rides actually turned out to be higher risk than taxis, then people wouldn't tak
Re: (Score:3)
I see a lot of people concerned about what will happen when Uber overturns regulations and kills traditional taxis. Don't be.
Uber is a commodity. They have to grow as fast as possible if they want to remain the top brand. But they're spending tens of millions of dollars of investor money to overturn laws not just for themselves, but for the dozens of competitors waiting in the wings. Once the laws are overturned, it's not like the barrier to entry is that high. I ride Uber 5-10 times per month on business t
This is why you need a free market (Score:2)
What the author doesn't understand is that what she says taxis need to be is not accurate. Everything comes at a price. The beauty of a free market is it will tell you how much people are willing to pay for accessibility, predictability, uniformity, cleanliness, fuel efficiency, trustworthiness, and availability. There is absolutely no way for a monopoly taxi service to know these things. There is no feedback to help them adjust. Even Uber can't know these things. It is a process of discovery that needs to
Re:Strange Arguments (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxi's can't offer guaranteed service at certain locations and times precisely because they do not use the author's dreaded "surge/congestion pricing schemes."
When your professional society conference lets out at the same time that the local sportsball team's game gets over, and everyone is headed downtown to eat, the taxi company runs out of cabs because they're all cheap and everyone takes one. Uber surges the price to match the market demand, more drivers come out, and everyone who wants a ride can get one.
Under the pure cartel taxi system, if you need to get to the hospital because your wife called and she's gone into labor early, too bad! All the cabs are taken because they're so cheap and the demand is so high. Under Uber's system, the price rises to match the demand and you can pay for a ride.
It's no different than when people decry "price gauging" after a natural disaster. Go ahead and keep gas at pre-disaster prices, and 100% of it will sell out. Then, if you MUST have it, say to run your generator to power grandma's oxygen machine, too bad! It was all sold for $2/gal to a bunch of people who panicked and drank it all up even though they really didn't need it. If the gas stations had surged pricing to match demand, they'd be more likely to have some left, and while it would be very expensive, at least it would be available for people who really needed it, instead of being consumed by people who merely panic-purchased because it was still cheap.
Uber's surge pricing system is a virtue of their business model, not a vice.
Re: (Score:3)
I recommend reading the link. It beats my example of hauling generators and gasoline all to heck.
$8/bag for ice might be high. But I'm willing to bet that the yahoos in the story ended up exonerated, might even have ended up forcing the police to pay for arresting them and ruining their 'product' by allowing it to melt.
Why? Simple enough - add their expenses up.
They paid $1.75/bag. They didn't get it for the cents normally charged, they paid retail.
They also didn't produce the ice on site - they rented
Re: (Score:2)
My auto insurance policy renewal & Uber (Score:3)
Last May when my auto insurance policy renewed there were a few pages enclosed. Adding / detracting language from the previous policy. While not stating Uber or Lyft by name it was clear that the insurance company was writing them completely out of the picture.
Re:My auto insurance policy renewal & Uber (Score:4, Insightful)
Last May when my auto insurance policy renewed there were a few pages enclosed. Adding / detracting language from the previous policy. While not stating Uber or Lyft by name it was clear that the insurance company was writing them completely out of the picture.
And this is a good point. While Uber claims to have bazillions to insure payments in case of accidents, much of the liability will be negated when the driver's actual insurance company denies your claim for injury. And as well, your own insurence company will bail out as well.
Uber / Lift is an unregulated taxi service staffed by drivers that have met a non-existent bar for entry.
Myself? I always hire a towncar.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Last May when my auto insurance policy renewed there were a few pages enclosed. Adding / detracting language from the previous policy. While not stating Uber or Lyft by name it was clear that the insurance company was writing them completely out of the picture.
And this is a good point. While Uber claims to have bazillions to insure payments in case of accidents, much of the liability will be negated when the driver's actual insurance company denies your claim for injury. And as well, your own insurence company will bail out as well.
Uber / Lift is an unregulated taxi service staffed by drivers that have met a non-existent bar for entry.
Myself? I always hire a towncar.
Isn't Uber's liability insurance exactly for the situation that you describe? It seems like it would be pretty useless if it were secondary insurance that only covered accidents over and above what is paid out by the driver's insurance.
They even say that it's primary insurance:
http://newsroom.uber.com/2014/... [uber.com]
$1 million of liability coverage per incident. Uber holds a commercial insurance policy with $1 million of coverage per incident. Drivers’ liability to third parties is covered from the moment a driver accepts a trip to its conclusion. This policy is expressly primary to any personal auto coverage (However it will not take precedence over any commercial auto insurance for the vehicle). We have provided a $1 million liability policy since commencing ridesharing in early 2013.
They have their Certificate of Insurance docs online [uber.com] for each state.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at those documents, I just see a generic document saying they have liability insurance. Where does it say it's actually valid in a states? Pulling down several states, they all seem to be the same document.
That's what a certificate of insurance is, a generic document saying that they have insurance. The policy numbers are different for different states, i.e. "CA43610NJ00" for New Jersey, "CA436100CA00" for California.
If Uber were misrepresenting its insurance by posting bogus or misleading COI's, a plaintiff would likely win a liability lawsuit if in an accident that Uber claims is covered by insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with Uber's insurance is that it only covers their driver. In an accident where the other driver is at fault, Uber's insurance won't cover the damage, or injuries to their driver or the passenger. If the other driver is uninsured, you're just hosed, because the Uber driver's own insurance won't cover them while they're driving for money. There have been lawsuits over this, and it's not pretty.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with Uber's insurance is that it only covers their driver. In an accident where the other driver is at fault, Uber's insurance won't cover the damage, or injuries to their driver or the passenger. If the other driver is uninsured, you're just hosed, because the Uber driver's own insurance won't cover them while they're driving for money. There have been lawsuits over this, and it's not pretty.
Interesting. I did not realize that was the case, and that is a big problem. That leads me to ask....what about disability if you are a driver and hit by uninsured?
Re: (Score:2)
Me? If I want a driver then I hire one for a set period of time. It's usually in 4, 8, or 16 hour slots - sometimes with a change in drivers. I typically only hire a car service when I'm at my place in Henderson because I hate Vegas traffic. It's really not that expensive unless you get something stretched. An added bonus is that if I'm going to gamble a bunch then my driver is usually also a security professional. I treat them like humans, invite them in with me, and entertain them as well as myself.
If Ube
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how self insurance works. Insurance companies go after the money that is all. If the driver's insurance bails out then the default will fall back onto Uber, and failing that onto the driver itself.
You don't magically end up with nothing if an insurance company is missing. A friend of mine was recently hit by an unlicensed uninsured person driving a stolen car. His insurance company is covering himself, and they have then taken the other driver to court and his wages are now being garnished to pay
Said it before (Score:4, Interesting)
Uber is a race to the bottom and a sign capitalism is starting to break down...
Re:Said it before (Score:5, Informative)
Personally, I don't think healthcare coverage should be related to employment at all. It really doesn't make sense for them to be tied together, and makes people afraid of quitting a lousy job that they hate.
I never said they were (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why don't we protect _both_ groups of workers? Crazy? I know, right?
Sounds like a complete change from your first post. The reason you don't like Uber (compared to a taxi service) is that Uber doesn't treat its workers well.
Now, you are saying your first post was 100% in error, and that all hire-car services should be regulated to a standard greater than taxis currently face.
Though, I'd question the result when comparing a freelance uber driver who drives 10 hours a week at changing and unpredictable times for extra pocket money. When you require greater regulations to
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a crazy idea: Why don't we protect _both_ groups of workers?
Because employees are not "better protected" than contractors. They are just differently protected. Employees generally receive health, retirement, and vacation benefits. Those are paid for by lowering their pay. Employees also have less control over their working hours and conditions. Plenty of people prefer to work as contractors.
Re: (Score:2)
On a (nearly) unrelated note, the linkage of health insurance to jobs is a lingering side-effect of WW2. During WW2, wage and price controls limited the ability of employers to lure talent to their companies since they couldn't offer higher wages as an incentive. But they COULD offer health insurance
Re: (Score:2)
Friends and colleagues having to quit their jobs because we'd been acquired and they were too afraid of losing medical benefits. I suppose this is supposed to be fixed with Obamacare's clause for pre-existing conditions. Talk about trapping people and making them unhappy.
It's not going to be fixed. I can't afford Obamacare and pay my rent at the same time if I work for myself. The only way I can afford to have health care under this system is if I go to work for someone else, or go out of the country for every major medical because I can't afford to pay cash for major medical care in this country. They fixed health care for the poor, and they took the money straight from the middle class. The rich can already opt out for a pittance. So if I have a big health problem, I'm go
Re:Said it before (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, you think most taxi drivers are employees with full benefits? Not so at all. So are the evil taxi companies just selfishly "externalizing" all their costs?
See, e.g.:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/04/16/new-york-court-guts-a-groundbreaking-health-care-fund-that-would-have-changed-taxi-drivers-lives/ [washingtonpost.com]
I took two Ubers a month ago in Minneapolis. The first driver was a young woman, an undergrad, studying computer science. She drives Uber about 15-20 hours a week to help cover college and living expenses. At 20 hours a week, she would not be eligible for full benefits anywhere.
The second driver was a retired lawyer who drives Uber whenever he feels like it, to keep active and talk to people (we shared some law stories, so I'm quite sure he was telling the truth about being a lawyer--not that *I'm* a lawyer!). He's retired and doesn't drive enough hours--or regularly enough--that any business in the country would consider him an employee.
Small sample size, but pretty interesting.
Uber drivers do not work set hours, have no obligation to Uber (other than completing a drive if they agree to start one), do not give two weeks notice when they quit, can work for the competition any time (simultaneously even!), etc. It baffles me that anyone would consider them employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Also pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, as anecdotes tend to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true at all. In most cities neither of these drivers would be able to become taxi drivers even if they wanted to. They have freedom to do as they choose. That seems to matter a lot to me.
Re: (Score:2)
You found one that doesn't. That's good. You can probably find more. What you can't find is Uber drivers to counter his example (as far as I know). However, to be honest, that's not even remotely my complaint with Uber. I'm just pointing out that you're likely being down-modded because that's not a very good argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you reply to the wrong post? I'm not sure what everything in your post is referring to.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
They don't set their rates (Score:4, Insightful)
Uber actually comes (Score:5, Interesting)
Generally it's easier to get an Uber than a taxi, unless you're right in the middle of a big city. And it will be a long time before traditional taxi companies get their game together enough to equal that.
Re:Uber actually comes (Score:5, Interesting)
I generally avoided Uber, but last year I needed a taxi to get to the airport. I called two different taxi companies, and neither one had any taxis available to pick me up. Uber came right away, and was cheaper than a taxi.
I had the exact same experience. I've ridden Uber exactly three times. The first was after I tried getting a taxi to the airport in a medium-sized city around 3pm on a weekday. 45 minutes before a taxi would show, plus some kind of surcharge for the hour--was going to be like $35, pre-tip. Uber arrived in about 45 seconds and was $18. I even tipped the guy a $5 because he carried 3 of us and he picked up our suitcases...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The last two times I've tried to get an Uber I've ended up taking public transport. Just last night I tried to get one outside a Tube station in west London. The app said 3 mins until pick-up, until I actually tried to hail one, at which point it jumped to 11 mins and suddenly all the vehicles nearby vanished from the map. When I tried to reserve it it sat there for a bloody age before flashing up a driver. Somehow it got cancelled. This is the second time I've seen this. Given that I've only used it
Re: (Score:2)
"Regulation is not a good in itself." (Score:5, Insightful)
"Regulation is not a good in itself."
I wish more people realized that. How many times have you seen people arguing, one side saying, "Regulation is bad!" and the other "Regulation is good!" It's one of the dumbest arguments ever, because both sides are wrong.
Some regulation is good, and some regulation is bad. If you want to know which is which, you need to actually look at the regulation itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Regulations are rules. If you oppose regulations on principle, than you oppose rules on principle. Which, by the way, throws outl your contracts and your property rights.
You Randian Jihadists might have noticed that, if your eyes hadn't started moving in independent directions the first time you finished Atlas Wanked.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with your first line. Your second, however, just demonstrates that you haven't actually read Atlas Shrugged. That's not uncommon; I can't, off the top of my head, think of another book which more people claim to have read without ever having done so. I read it a couple of years ago - I make a point, once a year, of reading something completely outside of my usual comfort zone, and Alas Shrugged got its turn.
Altas Shrugged has a number of passages on the "proper" role of the state, which include: nat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All regulations are an affront to individual freedoms and as such they are all bad.
This isn't phrased very well, I'm not sure it's what you really mean. Can you really not think of any regulation that you think is good?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarians regard this as some sort of violation of contract law, but who knows how they think contracts are supposed to be enforced without laws. It's all a bunch of malarkey.
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarians regard this as some sort of violation of contract law, but who knows how they think contracts are supposed to be enforced without laws. It's all a bunch of malarkey.
I agree that it's a bunch of malarky, but you haven't successfully described their views. They believe there will be some law, but nobody to automagically enforce it. You will have to pay, or get your employer or community to pay, if you want someone brought to justice. You'll have to pay to get a judgement, and then you'll have to hire mercenaries to collect it. Not the best plan, IMO.
Gig Economy (Score:3)
I live in Chiang Mai Thailand. I suggest if you really really like the idea of a 'gig economy' then move here for a few months and see how that idea works out in real life. I don't think you'll care for it much as only a few live a decent lifestyle.
Re: Gig Economy (Score:2)
You're missing the point. A gig economy is fine as long as someone else is doing it. If that was applied to their jobs, I doubt they'd be quite so keen.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm that was my point. It doesn't work out well for the masses.
Re: Gig Economy (Score:4, Insightful)
And my point is that they won't be able to see that. Our great-grandparents fought and suffered to get rid of that kind of exploitation and our society improved immensely as a result. These idiots are desperate to bring it back because they don't understand that consumer capitalism needs people with disposable income.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, in Thailand (at least in Bangkok), if you want to take a ride, you better make sure it is in a regulated taxi. Otherwise you are likely to pay at least double price, or worse.
Really? (Score:3)
Oh how naive. The way taxis rip people off is by taking long routes and adding distance/time. That is specifically the scam that Uber avoids by route planning. If she thinks they are trustworthy just because they have a visible meter, she is an idiot.
I bet she wholeheartedly agrees to see all the recommended specialists every time she goes to the doctor's office, and makes sure to get as many undercarriage coatings as she can from the car dealer because their pricing is transparent too.
You can't allow Uber without allowing H1Bs (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Too many shoulds (Score:2)
The one big Uber advantage taxis will never have (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that each user JOINS a ride sharing service. Every time a conventional cabbie picks up a fare, he rolls the dice: will this ride be the one that leaves his riddled, bloody body in an alley? Giving rides to people who have subscribed to your service is a huge security advantage.
"Should" == competition (Score:3)
though it comes with a long list of "shoulds": "[Cities] should be focusing on making their taxi services better," she writes. "Taxis should be more accessible to everyone. Taxi fares should be low, predictable, and uniform. Taxi geographies should be wide. Taxis should be clean, fuel-efficient, driven by trustworthy, well-trained drivers, and available for frictionless electronic hailing."
And competition is the way to achieve those ends. All those "shoulds" have existed for decades with no action taken. Suddenly Uber arrives on the scene and people are talking about how to address them.
Drivers are too dumb to do without robot overlords (Score:3, Interesting)
In NYC I don't have any of these Uber-fixed problems. The problem I have repeatedly:
- I cannot communicate the destination to the driver.
- I attempt to, but the driver gives me no feedback.
- The driver types the address into a GPS from the 90s, distractely while driving, incorrectly, for example confusing S 4th St with 4th St, or 23rd Pl with 23rd Dr. Handing the driver a printout from Google Maps doesn't solve it. Cutting off the address, so the driver has to read the map and can't just type like a monkey, still doesn't solve it.
- The driver cannot find the destination.
- I name a landmark, "Bronx Zoo," and the driver unreasonably says "where's that?"
- The driver attempts to find his own way to the destination by memory and makes many wrong turns. He even turns off the meter apologetically, so he's not trying to scam me, but I'm still late, and it would be avoided by being forced to use a navigation app.
- The driver makes poor decisions about traffic that Waze or even Google Maps would have avoided.
It means, to take a cab and have it actually work, I have to use maps on my phone and give the driver directions. About half the time I can get where I'm going without doing this, but the other half the time there is a major fuckup like wrong turns or going to the wrong place or not knowing where the place is period until I tell him. This is a pain in the ass to do with your friends, because they take everything personally and get hysterical. Doing it with a stranger who is not in German efficiency-mode but is in insecure face-saving third world asia mode quickly becomes the most stressful part of my day.
Re:I don't care about Uber (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Umm... I believe both sides of the House are controlled by Republicans. Obama is center-right by any real definitions. How much further right do you want us to go before enough is enough? You realize that extremism isn't a good thing, right?
And this is from a guy who doesn't really like Uber because I don't think a business should just be able to ignore laws they don't like - that's a bad precedent. Why is it okay when Uber violates the law but we get irate when Microsoft does it? That's not acceptable nor
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess that's one way to look at it. *chuckles* Obama's pretty damned right leaning. I think he started with ideals, I really think he did. I'm not sure where they went but I could speculate. I'll leave that to the bubble-heads. 'Tis amusing that someone marked my post as troll. No, when I troll you'll know it. Just come out and say -1 disagree - I'm okay with that. I've got karma to spare and what's the point of karma if you can't spend it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't most people's issue with these services - it's their treatment of their drivers.
I don't buy that in the least. The taxi cartels are what's driving the criticism. It'd be a whole lot less visible to the public otherwise. And let's face it. If there were sensible taxi markets in the first place, Uber wouldn't have the revenue stream to become such an alleged problem in the first place.
Innovation is great, exploitation, not so much.
It's a great talking point, but it's bullshit. The reason any workers are valuable in the first place is their exploitability. And if you don't like Uber's treatment of their drivers, then don't be an Uber
Re: The fuss over Uber (Score:4, Informative)
Uber drivers are on strike right NOW.
Did you know that?
Re: The fuss over Uber (Score:4, Insightful)
Uber drivers are on strike right NOW.
Then they aren't Uber drivers. And as has been noted before, they aren't really employees of Uber in the first place.
Did you know that?
Nope, and I don't see a reason to care.
Rather than the nonsense of a "strike", the simple solution here is just not to use Uber's service - which would be a boycott. Uber does have competitors and a shift of business from Uber to these other competitors would hurt them. That's more effective than a strike.
Re: (Score:3)
So they dont take money from Uber in exchange for providing services as dictated by Uber?
The money comes from the customers they serve, not Uber.
However this is a good demonstration why Uber is a self correcting problem and why you shouldn't get attached to them. Uber is losing money hand over fist WHILST they have lower costs because they're ignoring the rules that other transport providers have to follow. In order for Uber to make money they have to give the employees a smaller cut. As they have to be cheaper than legitimate, insured taxi companies this means that the amount drivers get is already small and making it smaller means that only the most desperate will be willing to work for Uber (and don't even contemplate how badly the vehicle is repaired because that comes out of the drivers diminishing cut).
You rationalize however you want. Even if Uber is as incompetently run as you hope, it's still the end of most taxi oligopolies. Not everyone protects their taxi special interests as well as say, London does.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about cartels, it's about everone else. (Score:2)
I think you need to look up the definition of astro turfing. Regulation is good if it helps competition I've never understood the medallion system, and it's not relevant for me.
Driving a taxi without a insurance is a big deal for me, since I move intraffic and my lost pay checks will be paid by that insurance. If a driver does not have a professional insurance that will not happen. The stats here says that taxi drivers have accidents about once a year if not more. When this is addressed by Uber then I hav
Re: (Score:2)
Really interested to know why this comment got 5 stars since it
1) lacks any kind of support for it's assertions
2) its assertions fly in the face of what data there is (see my earlier post) and
3) basically amounts to saying nothing more than "fuck cabs! Cabs suck! Go Uber!" in just about those words.
Do I detect some form of biasing going on in the rating system here at... /. !!! My god. What has the world come to??!!!
Article submitted by a peon (Score:2)
Darn, beaten to the draw again. Obviously I need to take a lesson from Uber and embrace 24x7 agility at the speed of the interwebs and abandon my old-economy paradigms.
I wasn't sure if it was an alternate spelling, but - here's protip for timothy - I found this marvelous thing called a google where you can look things up.
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly, I suggested a story on how Uber drivers are on strike right now at this very moment, and it mysteriously, inexplicably failed to go anywhere!
How could that possibly be? It's an Uber story after all :D
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly, I suggested a story on how Uber drivers are on strike right now at this very moment, and it mysteriously, inexplicably failed to go anywhere!
How could that possibly be? It's an Uber story after all :D
http://www.latimes.com/busines... [latimes.com]
the drivers have four demands: that Uber increase fares by 60% nationwide, that the company add a tipping option to the Uber app, that the ride cancellation fee be raised to $7 and that the minimum fare be increased, also to $7.
I wonder how surge pricing works during the strike?
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, people keep claiming Uber is not a tax service.
If they're not a taxi service then drivers should be able to charge what they want without the company dictating the fares, nor have Uber take money from them for each ride.
Or isn't that how a taxi service works?
Re: (Score:2)
Your story was more interesting than this one, if only because it's about an actual event in the real world as opposed to opinions, including mine....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, you seem to be translating "achieving public goods" in a way other than "achieving [multiple] public good". Y'know, like the Four Freedoms you mention. More than one public good (four, in fact).
Your privilege, of course. Makes you look silly, but that's your privilege too.