5 ms·

Uber-Capitalism at its worst

11 points by futuravenir 11y ago

ansgri 11y ago
tl;dr very Marxist piece about greedy capitalists using hi-tech to devalue taxi medallions, breaking some minor laws by the way (which isn't great, though not the pure evil at all). Though there's an interesting link about LaZooz, a decentralized community alternative to Uber: https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/lazooz-the-decentralized-crypto-alternative-to-uber/2015/03/01 https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/lazooz-the-decentralized-cryp...
ThomPete 11y ago
Given that Uber is going to replace each and everyone of their drivers with automatic cars it's really just pure capitalism. Not good, not evil. Calling it "capitalism at it's worst" is putting a lot of noise into the discussion as it assume that it can be solved with better morals or ethics. But even if Uber paid it's drivers as actual employers instead of this absurd freelance status they have it wouldn't change the fact that uber is going to replace it's drivers because technology allows it. And so the real discussion is not what do we do with bad actors in capitalism (we have rules for that), it's not even are uber bad actors. No the real discussion is what we do with the fact that technology is slowly but surely replacing workers with machines and leaving an increasing number of people unemployable because they don't have good enough skills. This is no ones fault, it's just what technology does and the sooner we start to accept the premise of technology the sooner we will be able to discuss the real issues without calling people names. But this wont happen until the economic models start factoring technology in and not treat it as an externality. Cause not until then the politicians will start to be able to see the real impact of technology (both the good and the bad) in a more balanced view.
- dawnbreez 11y ago
  I suspect that the notorious Basic Income Guarantee may help here. In all seriousness, a basic income would be ideal for such a situation; its low-bureaucracy implementation may even make such a system less expensive than standard welfare, while providing better benefits to the economy as a whole.
sidcool 11y ago
As Peter Thiel also said, Uber is an ethically challenged company. It's means are not proper, but it's super convenient for commuters, and that's what capitalism cares about.
- vixen99 11y ago
  Its means. It's reads as "it is means . . ." or "it has mean are not proper" which is gibberish.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
The author has a very perverse mode of thinking, at least to me personally. He praises the fact that medallions and price controls cause artificial shortages and blames Uber for devaluing the medallions through their competition. That's the most bass-ackwards thing I've read in a while. Yes, taxi companies can't compete, because they're a state cartel. The author complains about Uber becoming a monopoly, but laments the poor state-protected taxicab monopolists because their artificially fixed hundred-thousand dollar medallions are depreciating! Apparently we are at whim of a "single private company" controlling our transportation, but somehow being at the whim of state governments is not an issue at all. Circumventing local regulations makes you a greedy monopolist, but instituting outrageous item and price controls doesn't. And of course, the ultimate irony: complaining about monopolization and cartelization while praising unions. I'm not opposed to unions, but they are demand-side bargaining cartels and to be in denial over this makes you look disingenuous. If this is "capitalism at its worst," I can only be horrified at imagining what the author thinks "capitalism at its best" will be. Food rationing, I presume. Terrible article. Only gives more ammunition against left-leaning commentators and nothing else.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  Given that Uber is going to replace all it's drivers I think it's important to understand that this is not just an intellectual debate where making some isolated logical arguments make you win or loose the argument. You might be logically correct but the implications goes beyond the argument. This is something that is going to affect most people over the next 10-20 years no matter what industry they work in and so we need to discuss it in a different way. What is it that technology and capitalism does to our society, how do we ensure that the millions of people who don't have the skills to participate in the work force are going to be able to participate in society and so on. The authors mistake is that he introduces morals into this. But even if we take that out we are left with a real problem for society IMO.
  - dorfsmay 11y ago
    They are both valid debates, not opposed: - is Uber too capitalistic (not in my opinion, the only unethical thing quoted in the article are their actions against Lyft) - are the current economic practice sustainable in a worker less society (in my opinion, no, but that doesn't mean we throw the current system away, there is still a need for workers, it is changing at an accelerating pace, we need to adapt and ease into a new system)
dawnbreez 11y ago
So, Uber: >Provides the same service at lower costs >Pays more to drivers who drive at peak hours, by charging more at those times >Is (gasp!) not charging its drivers hundreds of thousands of dollars for the privelige of having someone barf on their seats Okay, the accusations of driver-poaching and underhanded tactics are bad...but then again, the driver poaching could just be drivers going where the better money is. In fact, I'd say this is capitalism at its best. It's providing a service where the service is needed at a fraction of the cost, and without having to wait for anyone else's say-so.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  You are cherry picking. Here is some other cherry picking. Uber doesn't allow it's drivers to set their own prices even though they are freelancers and not employees. Uber doesn't compensate for that by at least promoting tips. Uber doesn't allow the drivers to sub-contract to other drivers. Because there is no upper limit on how many drivers there can be, each uber driver is in effect going to fight for less and less market. Oh yeah and Uber is working on replacing all their drivers. These are just a few of the issues with uber and is hardly capitalism at it's best.
  - dawnbreez 11y ago
    Fair enough. There are tradeoffs. My comment was, honestly, more defensive than anything else. I saw that the article was making broad statements and misrepresenting the problem, and I proceeded to do the same in return. It's silly and I should've known better.
    - ThomPete 11y ago
      Well I too find the article misrepresenting the problem but for different reasons :) (see my other comment in this thread)

11 points by futuravenir 11y ago

tl;dr very Marxist piece about greedy capitalists using hi-tech to devalue taxi medallions, breaking some minor laws by the way (which isn't great, though not the pure evil at all). Though there's an interesting link about LaZooz, a decentralized community alternative to Uber: https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/lazooz-the-decentralized-crypto-alternative-to-uber/2015/03/01 https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/lazooz-the-decentralized-cryp...

ThomPete 11y ago

Given that Uber is going to replace each and everyone of their drivers with automatic cars it's really just pure capitalism. Not good, not evil. Calling it "capitalism at it's worst" is putting a lot of noise into the discussion as it assume that it can be solved with better morals or ethics. But even if Uber paid it's drivers as actual employers instead of this absurd freelance status they have it wouldn't change the fact that uber is going to replace it's drivers because technology allows it. And so the real discussion is not what do we do with bad actors in capitalism (we have rules for that), it's not even are uber bad actors. No the real discussion is what we do with the fact that technology is slowly but surely replacing workers with machines and leaving an increasing number of people unemployable because they don't have good enough skills. This is no ones fault, it's just what technology does and the sooner we start to accept the premise of technology the sooner we will be able to discuss the real issues without calling people names. But this wont happen until the economic models start factoring technology in and not treat it as an externality. Cause not until then the politicians will start to be able to see the real impact of technology (both the good and the bad) in a more balanced view.

dawnbreez 11y ago
I suspect that the notorious Basic Income Guarantee may help here. In all seriousness, a basic income would be ideal for such a situation; its low-bureaucracy implementation may even make such a system less expensive than standard welfare, while providing better benefits to the economy as a whole.

sidcool 11y ago

As Peter Thiel also said, Uber is an ethically challenged company. It's means are not proper, but it's super convenient for commuters, and that's what capitalism cares about.

vixen99 11y ago
Its means. It's reads as "it is means . . ." or "it has mean are not proper" which is gibberish.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

The author has a very perverse mode of thinking, at least to me personally. He praises the fact that medallions and price controls cause artificial shortages and blames Uber for devaluing the medallions through their competition. That's the most bass-ackwards thing I've read in a while. Yes, taxi companies can't compete, because they're a state cartel. The author complains about Uber becoming a monopoly, but laments the poor state-protected taxicab monopolists because their artificially fixed hundred-thousand dollar medallions are depreciating! Apparently we are at whim of a "single private company" controlling our transportation, but somehow being at the whim of state governments is not an issue at all. Circumventing local regulations makes you a greedy monopolist, but instituting outrageous item and price controls doesn't. And of course, the ultimate irony: complaining about monopolization and cartelization while praising unions. I'm not opposed to unions, but they are demand-side bargaining cartels and to be in denial over this makes you look disingenuous. If this is "capitalism at its worst," I can only be horrified at imagining what the author thinks "capitalism at its best" will be. Food rationing, I presume. Terrible article. Only gives more ammunition against left-leaning commentators and nothing else.

ThomPete 11y ago
Given that Uber is going to replace all it's drivers I think it's important to understand that this is not just an intellectual debate where making some isolated logical arguments make you win or loose the argument. You might be logically correct but the implications goes beyond the argument. This is something that is going to affect most people over the next 10-20 years no matter what industry they work in and so we need to discuss it in a different way. What is it that technology and capitalism does to our society, how do we ensure that the millions of people who don't have the skills to participate in the work force are going to be able to participate in society and so on. The authors mistake is that he introduces morals into this. But even if we take that out we are left with a real problem for society IMO.
- dorfsmay 11y ago
  They are both valid debates, not opposed: - is Uber too capitalistic (not in my opinion, the only unethical thing quoted in the article are their actions against Lyft) - are the current economic practice sustainable in a worker less society (in my opinion, no, but that doesn't mean we throw the current system away, there is still a need for workers, it is changing at an accelerating pace, we need to adapt and ease into a new system)

dawnbreez 11y ago

So, Uber: >Provides the same service at lower costs >Pays more to drivers who drive at peak hours, by charging more at those times >Is (gasp!) not charging its drivers hundreds of thousands of dollars for the privelige of having someone barf on their seats Okay, the accusations of driver-poaching and underhanded tactics are bad...but then again, the driver poaching could just be drivers going where the better money is. In fact, I'd say this is capitalism at its best. It's providing a service where the service is needed at a fraction of the cost, and without having to wait for anyone else's say-so.

ThomPete 11y ago
You are cherry picking. Here is some other cherry picking. Uber doesn't allow it's drivers to set their own prices even though they are freelancers and not employees. Uber doesn't compensate for that by at least promoting tips. Uber doesn't allow the drivers to sub-contract to other drivers. Because there is no upper limit on how many drivers there can be, each uber driver is in effect going to fight for less and less market. Oh yeah and Uber is working on replacing all their drivers. These are just a few of the issues with uber and is hardly capitalism at it's best.
- dawnbreez 11y ago
  Fair enough. There are tradeoffs. My comment was, honestly, more defensive than anything else. I saw that the article was making broad statements and misrepresenting the problem, and I proceeded to do the same in return. It's silly and I should've known better.
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    Well I too find the article misrepresenting the problem but for different reasons :) (see my other comment in this thread)