3 ms·

I think you've correctly identified an alternate argument against surge pricing - "it's better to randomly distribute a smaller number of taxis than to allocate

I think you've correctly identified an alternate argument against surge pricing - "it's better to randomly distribute a smaller number of taxis than to allocate a larger number of taxis to people willing to pay more". I've never actually seen anyone make that argument - instead, they simply make the Copenhagen critique described in the article. If you know of someone making it, could you link to them?

ThomPete 11y ago
The basic point is simply that ethics isn't a local phenomena and can't be judged in the way the essay do it at least not conclusively.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  No dispute. But the arguments this article is criticizing aren't actually making those non-local arguments. Again - can you link to an Uber critic arguing that random allocation of scarce taxi rides is better than market allocation of plentiful ones?
  - gjm11 11y ago
    I think there's a fairly general case to be made that moral intuitions that look like nonsense from a utilitarian perspective (1) may sometimes actually make sense when one takes a different view and (2) may have spread and prospered for exactly that reason (e.g., because communities in which such ideas were around did better overall). In this case, the "different view" in question is a less local one (look not only at the effects on people directly involved, but also at the knock-on effects on others around them). I think there are many "Copenhagen" cases in which one could make similar points. E.g., consider laws that stop employers treating employees "badly" -- minimum wages, no making people work while heavily pregnant, etc. One can argue (as the author of the OP does) that these end up hurting workers because employers will prefer not to employ them rather than to employ them on less favourable terms. (Or, on the flip side, that "exploitative" employers are actually helping their employees because hey, otherwise they'd have no job.) But it's at least credible that when you have such laws, employers everywhere end up treating their workers a little better while more or less the same amount of work still gets done, leaving lots of vulnerable people better off overall. (And it's notable that it's at any rate far from clear that creating or increasing a minimum wage actually reduces employment overall, Econ 101 notwithstanding.) The ideas being criticized by the OP may have more merit than they look like, even if most of the people espousing those ideas don't know quite why.
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    No I don't think I can. But I can point to plenty of people who would make that argument if you asked them. However as I started out saying. My point isn't to say that one thing is better than another, just that you can't talk about ethics the way the essay tries to. Cherry picking your "control groups" isn't how ethical discussions are being done. Instead pick the dilemma and then see how different solutions situations deal with it.
coldtea 11y ago
>If you know of someone making it, could you link to them? Anybody talking about equality from a socialist standpoint, would implicitly accept this kind of argument, even if they haven't thought this idea of random distribution explicitly.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  So why don't you actually make the explicit argument why random allocation of 100 cabs is better than market allocation of 150? Start by stating your first principles.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    1) Equality FTW. 2) Providing privileged access to transporation to people with more wealth gives them an unfair advantage over other citizens. 3) Random allocation of 100 cabs is better than market allocation of 150. Actually, come to think of it, the same is what happens with things like university placements in a lot of Western European countries. The richer don't buy their way in -- they are distrubuted randomnly among those with the qualifications.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      (1) Equality of what? (2) What does "unfair" mean? (3) Random allocation of N cabs is better than market allocation of M > N. How do find an (N,M) for which the statement is false? Is a market allocation of 100 cabs worse than a random allocation of 0 cabs? Actually making the moral argument is harder than just spouting applause points like "equality FTW".
      - coldtea 11y ago
        1) Equality of access to whatever society / the world offers. 2) Unfair in this example means that something beneficial is given to some citizens over others just because they have more money -- as opposed to alternatives like: because they've benefited their society more, because they have equal rights as any other, or because of an actual merit. 3) "Is a market allocation of 100 cabs worse than a random allocation of 0 cabs?" Yes, because the latter case doesn't promote inequality, further privileging those that already have money. This "market allocation of 100 cabs" doesn't help at all anybody without the necessary cutoff amount. So essentially your question is: is it better to have a service cattering to just the top 100 richer people of a city, or to not have it at all. If it was something inconsequential, like manicure, that would may be OK. Something like cab service OTOH puts poor oeople in a further disadvantage. E.g. going to a job interview, one of the rich cab riders can get faster and more relaxed than the poor public transport/walking guy. Also not having access to a cab might even give a motive to those 100 with more money and power to fix public transport to be better.
nhaehnle 11y ago
Matt Bruenig (who I generally recommend to anybody interested in questions of economic justice because his writing introduces laypeople to brilliant and refreshing points) has a series on Uber surge pricing where, among other things, he makes that precise argument. He's the kind of guy who even includes (hints of) a sample calculation showing how the random distribution of a smaller number of taxis can lead to an objectively better outcome - it all depends on what your assumptions about people's utility functions are and what your objective function is. He also argues why it is in many people's self-interest to argue against surge pricing (a point which is, admittedly, much more obvious: many people prefer a low chance of getting an affordable taxi over a zero chance of getting a taxi they cannot afford). Here's a link to the last post in the series: http://mattbruenig.com/2014/12/28/uber-surge-prices-part-iii/ http://mattbruenig.com/2014/12/28/uber-surge-prices-part-iii...
- SilasX 11y ago
  Late to the party, but... The problem with argument's like Bruenig's is that they double as fully-general counterarguments against the entire concept of a price system, and in favor of strict price controls. You could make his exact points against e.g. allowing some foods to be priced more than others, with the same points about "the poor value the food more, it would go to a random population rather than just the rich", etc. There is too much wrong with that argument to point to any one thing, but suffice to say, even the most pro-poor nations reject it. That's why every sane nutrition policy is more like "tax people, give the poor money to buy food" rather than "all food [appropriately quantified and defined] should be cheap enough for the poor to subsist on, and if you want to sell any food at all, you must sell it at that rate".
  - nhaehnle 11y ago
    It's kind of amusing, because you are somewhat in line with what Bruenig writes, apparently without realizing it. If you think that Bruenig is arguing for price controls without any qualifiers, you read the article wrong. He is arguing for equality, because equality is a necessary precondition if you actually want to get the full benefits of a price system (among other reasons). I have yet to see a convincing counterargument to that point. You may have been misled by the part about the theory of the second best (which is a common point in economics): since the best solution (eliminating inequality) is off the table for political reasons, you have to turn to second-best solutions. Under certain circumstances, that can mean price controls. But yes, the best solution is to eliminate (or at least reduce, as a first step) inequality. For example, taxing the rich and giving to the poor, as you point out yourself (which is where we're back at you agreeing with Bruenig ;-)).

ThomPete 11y ago

The basic point is simply that ethics isn't a local phenomena and can't be judged in the way the essay do it at least not conclusively.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
No dispute. But the arguments this article is criticizing aren't actually making those non-local arguments. Again - can you link to an Uber critic arguing that random allocation of scarce taxi rides is better than market allocation of plentiful ones?
- gjm11 11y ago
  I think there's a fairly general case to be made that moral intuitions that look like nonsense from a utilitarian perspective (1) may sometimes actually make sense when one takes a different view and (2) may have spread and prospered for exactly that reason (e.g., because communities in which such ideas were around did better overall). In this case, the "different view" in question is a less local one (look not only at the effects on people directly involved, but also at the knock-on effects on others around them). I think there are many "Copenhagen" cases in which one could make similar points. E.g., consider laws that stop employers treating employees "badly" -- minimum wages, no making people work while heavily pregnant, etc. One can argue (as the author of the OP does) that these end up hurting workers because employers will prefer not to employ them rather than to employ them on less favourable terms. (Or, on the flip side, that "exploitative" employers are actually helping their employees because hey, otherwise they'd have no job.) But it's at least credible that when you have such laws, employers everywhere end up treating their workers a little better while more or less the same amount of work still gets done, leaving lots of vulnerable people better off overall. (And it's notable that it's at any rate far from clear that creating or increasing a minimum wage actually reduces employment overall, Econ 101 notwithstanding.) The ideas being criticized by the OP may have more merit than they look like, even if most of the people espousing those ideas don't know quite why.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  No I don't think I can. But I can point to plenty of people who would make that argument if you asked them. However as I started out saying. My point isn't to say that one thing is better than another, just that you can't talk about ethics the way the essay tries to. Cherry picking your "control groups" isn't how ethical discussions are being done. Instead pick the dilemma and then see how different solutions situations deal with it.

coldtea 11y ago

>If you know of someone making it, could you link to them? Anybody talking about equality from a socialist standpoint, would implicitly accept this kind of argument, even if they haven't thought this idea of random distribution explicitly.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
So why don't you actually make the explicit argument why random allocation of 100 cabs is better than market allocation of 150? Start by stating your first principles.
- coldtea 11y ago
  1) Equality FTW. 2) Providing privileged access to transporation to people with more wealth gives them an unfair advantage over other citizens. 3) Random allocation of 100 cabs is better than market allocation of 150. Actually, come to think of it, the same is what happens with things like university placements in a lot of Western European countries. The richer don't buy their way in -- they are distrubuted randomnly among those with the qualifications.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    (1) Equality of what? (2) What does "unfair" mean? (3) Random allocation of N cabs is better than market allocation of M > N. How do find an (N,M) for which the statement is false? Is a market allocation of 100 cabs worse than a random allocation of 0 cabs? Actually making the moral argument is harder than just spouting applause points like "equality FTW".
    - coldtea 11y ago
      1) Equality of access to whatever society / the world offers. 2) Unfair in this example means that something beneficial is given to some citizens over others just because they have more money -- as opposed to alternatives like: because they've benefited their society more, because they have equal rights as any other, or because of an actual merit. 3) "Is a market allocation of 100 cabs worse than a random allocation of 0 cabs?" Yes, because the latter case doesn't promote inequality, further privileging those that already have money. This "market allocation of 100 cabs" doesn't help at all anybody without the necessary cutoff amount. So essentially your question is: is it better to have a service cattering to just the top 100 richer people of a city, or to not have it at all. If it was something inconsequential, like manicure, that would may be OK. Something like cab service OTOH puts poor oeople in a further disadvantage. E.g. going to a job interview, one of the rich cab riders can get faster and more relaxed than the poor public transport/walking guy. Also not having access to a cab might even give a motive to those 100 with more money and power to fix public transport to be better.

nhaehnle 11y ago

Matt Bruenig (who I generally recommend to anybody interested in questions of economic justice because his writing introduces laypeople to brilliant and refreshing points) has a series on Uber surge pricing where, among other things, he makes that precise argument. He's the kind of guy who even includes (hints of) a sample calculation showing how the random distribution of a smaller number of taxis can lead to an objectively better outcome - it all depends on what your assumptions about people's utility functions are and what your objective function is. He also argues why it is in many people's self-interest to argue against surge pricing (a point which is, admittedly, much more obvious: many people prefer a low chance of getting an affordable taxi over a zero chance of getting a taxi they cannot afford). Here's a link to the last post in the series: http://mattbruenig.com/2014/12/28/uber-surge-prices-part-iii/ http://mattbruenig.com/2014/12/28/uber-surge-prices-part-iii...

SilasX 11y ago
Late to the party, but... The problem with argument's like Bruenig's is that they double as fully-general counterarguments against the entire concept of a price system, and in favor of strict price controls. You could make his exact points against e.g. allowing some foods to be priced more than others, with the same points about "the poor value the food more, it would go to a random population rather than just the rich", etc. There is too much wrong with that argument to point to any one thing, but suffice to say, even the most pro-poor nations reject it. That's why every sane nutrition policy is more like "tax people, give the poor money to buy food" rather than "all food [appropriately quantified and defined] should be cheap enough for the poor to subsist on, and if you want to sell any food at all, you must sell it at that rate".
- nhaehnle 11y ago
  It's kind of amusing, because you are somewhat in line with what Bruenig writes, apparently without realizing it. If you think that Bruenig is arguing for price controls without any qualifiers, you read the article wrong. He is arguing for equality, because equality is a necessary precondition if you actually want to get the full benefits of a price system (among other reasons). I have yet to see a convincing counterargument to that point. You may have been misled by the part about the theory of the second best (which is a common point in economics): since the best solution (eliminating inequality) is off the table for political reasons, you have to turn to second-best solutions. Under certain circumstances, that can mean price controls. But yes, the best solution is to eliminate (or at least reduce, as a first step) inequality. For example, taxing the rich and giving to the poor, as you point out yourself (which is where we're back at you agreeing with Bruenig ;-)).