6 ms·

I want to agree with you but unfortunately the system you're proposing isn't really feasible. The poor actually are hurt by not having access to Uber as it bec

by wfo 11y ago

I want to agree with you but unfortunately the system you're proposing isn't really feasible. The poor actually are hurt by not having access to Uber as it becomes more and more popular and ubiquitous. We all are in fact. It's a stratification of society; there's one transportation scheme for the rich, Uber, and one transportation scheme for the poor, government-funded mass transit. And mass transit is barely funded in the United States as is. Once the rich have alternatives how long do you think it will take for people to whine "why should I pay taxes for a service I don't use? I can afford Uber I shouldn't have to pay for busses for poor people". Three months? Six? Maybe a year? If people use Muni every day they're willing to support it. If not, well... Then the wealthy with all of the political clout will push to defund our 'inefficient' public transit and it will become unusable. I think that it would be really nice to let private industry test things like this, but their tests are completely worthless from the perspective of providing actual mass transportation. They will find ways to take wealthy affluent people from places where wealthy affluent people live to places where wealthy affluent people work. The government isn't allowed to cater only to the rich in the pursuit of profits so unfortunately the results of the experiment will always say: hello government, if you stop taking care of those pesky poor and disabled and old citizens, you could have a very efficient system and reap great profits. Too bad you aren't legally allowed to throw people under the bus.

jerf 11y ago
"I want to agree with you but unfortunately the system you're proposing isn't really feasible." It's the system we actually have. I suppose that isn't proof of "feasibility", because people's definitions vary. "The poor actually are hurt by not having access to Uber as it becomes more and more popular and ubiquitous. We all are in fact. It's a stratification of society; there's one transportation scheme for the rich, Uber, and one transportation scheme for the poor, government-funded mass transit." If you want to define "harm" as "one day, a new thing pops up, and only the rich have access to it because it's very expensive, and now the poor are more harmed than they were yesterday because there's a thing they don't have access to that didn't exist yesterday", that's your decision. It is consistent and perhaps not wrong. But I don't care much about that sort of "harm". You've defined yourself up a definition of harm that can never be fixed, by definition. There is no way in theory or in fact to move things instantly from brand new and expensive to "affordable to provide to the poor for free or high subsidization". And problems that don't admit of solutions, even in theory, aren't ones you should spend a lot of time worrying about.[1] Far more interesting is the question of how to harness what has been created to help the poor. And there will be a time delay. It can't be helped, only at most minimized, and economics being what they are, you can blow a lot of money that really ought to be helping people now trying too hard to push that date forward beyond what it naturally "wants" to do. If that reality bothers you... well, good, you're human. But that doesn't mean you can change it. Things like this can only start at the wealthy end of society and flow down. Deny it to the wealthy in a fit of pique and you only create a situation where the poor don't get it either! If we accept that the poor are harmed by not getting these sorts of services we are ethically constrained to consider that a bad choice. [1]: "But if people just accept this, it'll be true!" Tell you what, you create a concrete solution where innovations can generally be instantly introduced to the entire world and I'll happily, gleefully, joyfully recant. In the meantime, this is the world. The rare examples of successful rebellion against some small part of reality puts a heavy survivors bias on our view of that sort of struggle; in general, this sort of reality is not fixed by wishing really hard it wasn't true.
- wfo 11y ago
  Interesting points. I think the harm that's being caused is not in the existence of a new service, but in the transition to a system where our resources are split: the notion that funding dedicated to general transportation is a zero-sum game and pushing resources towards a private solutions that helps only the wealthy takes away resources from the public, universal service -- hurting them. It's worth noting, also, that the public subsidizes services like Uber especially when it gets to the point where private cars are replacing busses and larger public transit: cars on the road generate risk of accidents and injury, pollute, generate wear and tear on the road and transportation system, generate traffic which harms everyone, etc. Having the poor subsidize a private service for the rich so they don't have to ride alongside the riff-raff on a bus is pretty unpalatable. We don't have to take away resources from public universal solutions and transition them over the private, wealthy-only solutions. So far we haven't, and it's certainly possible that we won't, and this private system will work concurrently alongside the public one in happy concert. I am just concerned that this will not happen. And I'm inclined to agree that the time-delay is necessary, but I'm not so sure about your assumption that the effects of this transition will eventually "trickle down" to the poor at all. I'll concede to your point that a two-tiered system doesn't necessarily cause harm to the poor just through its existence; you're right and your point is very well argued. But the remainder I think remains a valid concern.
gkop 11y ago
I agree with the spirit of your comment. As a counterpoint, the NYC subway began as a private enterprise. A big point missing from this comment thread is that we may be conflating "private business" with "private (personal-ish) vehicles," where personal vehicles obviously can never have the capacity of, eg. the NYC subway. Personal vehicles are just plain all around bad for moving large numbers of people. I'm not sure Uber with its motto "Everybody's private driver" is the right private enterprise to deliver privately operated mass transit that is healthy for our cities.

by wfo 11y ago

jerf 11y ago

"I want to agree with you but unfortunately the system you're proposing isn't really feasible." It's the system we actually have. I suppose that isn't proof of "feasibility", because people's definitions vary. "The poor actually are hurt by not having access to Uber as it becomes more and more popular and ubiquitous. We all are in fact. It's a stratification of society; there's one transportation scheme for the rich, Uber, and one transportation scheme for the poor, government-funded mass transit." If you want to define "harm" as "one day, a new thing pops up, and only the rich have access to it because it's very expensive, and now the poor are more harmed than they were yesterday because there's a thing they don't have access to that didn't exist yesterday", that's your decision. It is consistent and perhaps not wrong. But I don't care much about that sort of "harm". You've defined yourself up a definition of harm that can never be fixed, by definition. There is no way in theory or in fact to move things instantly from brand new and expensive to "affordable to provide to the poor for free or high subsidization". And problems that don't admit of solutions, even in theory, aren't ones you should spend a lot of time worrying about.[1] Far more interesting is the question of how to harness what has been created to help the poor. And there will be a time delay. It can't be helped, only at most minimized, and economics being what they are, you can blow a lot of money that really ought to be helping people now trying too hard to push that date forward beyond what it naturally "wants" to do. If that reality bothers you... well, good, you're human. But that doesn't mean you can change it. Things like this can only start at the wealthy end of society and flow down. Deny it to the wealthy in a fit of pique and you only create a situation where the poor don't get it either! If we accept that the poor are harmed by not getting these sorts of services we are ethically constrained to consider that a bad choice. [1]: "But if people just accept this, it'll be true!" Tell you what, you create a concrete solution where innovations can generally be instantly introduced to the entire world and I'll happily, gleefully, joyfully recant. In the meantime, this is the world. The rare examples of successful rebellion against some small part of reality puts a heavy survivors bias on our view of that sort of struggle; in general, this sort of reality is not fixed by wishing really hard it wasn't true.

wfo 11y ago
Interesting points. I think the harm that's being caused is not in the existence of a new service, but in the transition to a system where our resources are split: the notion that funding dedicated to general transportation is a zero-sum game and pushing resources towards a private solutions that helps only the wealthy takes away resources from the public, universal service -- hurting them. It's worth noting, also, that the public subsidizes services like Uber especially when it gets to the point where private cars are replacing busses and larger public transit: cars on the road generate risk of accidents and injury, pollute, generate wear and tear on the road and transportation system, generate traffic which harms everyone, etc. Having the poor subsidize a private service for the rich so they don't have to ride alongside the riff-raff on a bus is pretty unpalatable. We don't have to take away resources from public universal solutions and transition them over the private, wealthy-only solutions. So far we haven't, and it's certainly possible that we won't, and this private system will work concurrently alongside the public one in happy concert. I am just concerned that this will not happen. And I'm inclined to agree that the time-delay is necessary, but I'm not so sure about your assumption that the effects of this transition will eventually "trickle down" to the poor at all. I'll concede to your point that a two-tiered system doesn't necessarily cause harm to the poor just through its existence; you're right and your point is very well argued. But the remainder I think remains a valid concern.

gkop 11y ago

I agree with the spirit of your comment. As a counterpoint, the NYC subway began as a private enterprise. A big point missing from this comment thread is that we may be conflating "private business" with "private (personal-ish) vehicles," where personal vehicles obviously can never have the capacity of, eg. the NYC subway. Personal vehicles are just plain all around bad for moving large numbers of people. I'm not sure Uber with its motto "Everybody's private driver" is the right private enterprise to deliver privately operated mass transit that is healthy for our cities.