5 ms·

>but bringing the price down by simply ignoring laws and regulations their competitors are required to abide by. You're right, in a lot of cases (Taxis vs Uber

>but bringing the price down by simply ignoring laws and regulations their competitors are required to abide by. You're right, in a lot of cases (Taxis vs Uber comes to mind) the government has created these sub-optimal local maximums with its unnecessary regulations and industry protectionism. Technology is the big energy input needed to break free and move to a new maximum. When I use Uber, I get much more value than I ever did with a taxi. Not only does it cost me less, but it's faster, the experience of ordering is painless, the cars are nicer, the drivers are honest, and there's accountability for bad drivers. Uber is most definitely creating value. More generally, new ways of doing things displace old ways of doing things. If you're a company doing things the old way, adapt or die. That's progress. In capitalism, the destruction of old business models is as essential as the construction of new ones. They are two sides of the same coin. Addressing your argument again, lots of the businesses being displaced were basically profiting from regulations that kept out competition. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. As for your general point that the valley isn't really creating much value, remember that all of those wild valuations are just risky speculation by a small few, given that there's no open market for buying and selling shares in these companies. Risky speculation is a valid investment strategy for a portion of your wealth. Beyond all of the hard-to-believe valuations, there's also thousands of small technology companies making small profits and providing real value, but not getting any media attention.

ubernostrum 11y ago
Ah yes, the evil gubmint did it. Well, you have fun with that.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  I'm addressing your specific argument here: >but bringing the price down by simply ignoring laws and regulations their competitors are required to abide by.
Apocryphon 11y ago
It certainly is possible to recognize that disruptive startup businesses provide value and quality over preexisting services, and criticize them for flouting laws that are supposed to protect their workers, and/or customers. It also is certainly possible to recognize that government overregulation has enabled rent-seekers to do great harm in staunching competition and establishing a low level of quality for consumers, but also that government has the power to protect the customer and the worker from exploitative businesses. A thing can do both good and bad. We must all recognize that.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  Yes, that's true and it wasn't my intention to say otherwise. The rule of law is a very good thing and flouting the laws is ipso facto a bad thing because it damages the rule of law. I happen to disagree with a lot of those laws, on both the grounds of individual freedom and their own stated goals (i.e. I think that a lot of worker's rights and consumer protection laws are actually bad for workers and consumers). And flouting bad laws can bring good results. Especially laws that have only civil penalties, when people accept the risk of those penalties. It's a delicate issue that should probably be evaluated case-by-case.
- icebraining 11y ago
  "The majority of drivers are classified as independent contractors, are not protected by core employment and labor laws, and often work under arduous and unsafe conditions." Yeap, Uber is awful. Oh, wait, this is actually a report from 2007 describing the Taxi industry: http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Unregulated_Work_Taxi.pdf http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Unregulated_Work... There's a lot of propaganda about how Uber is reducing the welfare of drivers, but it all seems based on some ideal of the taxi industry that isn't actually true.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    We know that Uber is awful and managed by sociopaths in absolute terms. It does not need comparison to any kind of old taxi industry ideals. Plethora of reports we had for the last few years show this clearly. And old "taxi mafia" was at least subject to some improvements - each taxi company was local and had to listen to authorities, which in turn could be influenced by citizens. Uber? They don't give a flying fuck about the law, and they're too big for any single city to pressure them into anything. It's like trying to replace a bunch of crooked mayors with a warlord hell-bent on total domination in the region.

ubernostrum 11y ago

Ah yes, the evil gubmint did it. Well, you have fun with that.

marcoperaza 11y ago
I'm addressing your specific argument here: >but bringing the price down by simply ignoring laws and regulations their competitors are required to abide by.

Apocryphon 11y ago

It certainly is possible to recognize that disruptive startup businesses provide value and quality over preexisting services, and criticize them for flouting laws that are supposed to protect their workers, and/or customers. It also is certainly possible to recognize that government overregulation has enabled rent-seekers to do great harm in staunching competition and establishing a low level of quality for consumers, but also that government has the power to protect the customer and the worker from exploitative businesses. A thing can do both good and bad. We must all recognize that.

marcoperaza 11y ago
Yes, that's true and it wasn't my intention to say otherwise. The rule of law is a very good thing and flouting the laws is ipso facto a bad thing because it damages the rule of law. I happen to disagree with a lot of those laws, on both the grounds of individual freedom and their own stated goals (i.e. I think that a lot of worker's rights and consumer protection laws are actually bad for workers and consumers). And flouting bad laws can bring good results. Especially laws that have only civil penalties, when people accept the risk of those penalties. It's a delicate issue that should probably be evaluated case-by-case.
icebraining 11y ago
"The majority of drivers are classified as independent contractors, are not protected by core employment and labor laws, and often work under arduous and unsafe conditions." Yeap, Uber is awful. Oh, wait, this is actually a report from 2007 describing the Taxi industry: http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Unregulated_Work_Taxi.pdf http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Unregulated_Work... There's a lot of propaganda about how Uber is reducing the welfare of drivers, but it all seems based on some ideal of the taxi industry that isn't actually true.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  We know that Uber is awful and managed by sociopaths in absolute terms. It does not need comparison to any kind of old taxi industry ideals. Plethora of reports we had for the last few years show this clearly. And old "taxi mafia" was at least subject to some improvements - each taxi company was local and had to listen to authorities, which in turn could be influenced by citizens. Uber? They don't give a flying fuck about the law, and they're too big for any single city to pressure them into anything. It's like trying to replace a bunch of crooked mayors with a warlord hell-bent on total domination in the region.