4 ms·

I also hate the regulations they cite as a reason why Uber should not exist. No, the regulations should not exist. We could have had Uber and more competitors

by zanny 11y ago

I also hate the regulations they cite as a reason why Uber should not exist. No, the regulations should not exist. We could have had Uber and more competitors sooner if not for taking calculated legal risk against archaic institutions of regulation surrounding everything today. Almost all progress is a constant battle not against innovation or creativity but against legal traps keeping you from thinking outside the box.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
Why is Uber better than regulated systems? What is superior about poorly-paid drivers, lack of labour rights, surge pricing, lack of disabled accommodations, no guarantee of service in all areas, lack of fare caps, no concessionary travel, having to use a smartphone to pay, unaccredited and unknowledgeable drivers, generic unmarked vehicles, etc.?
- eru 11y ago
  Drivers are poorly paid in systems that have taxi medallions, too.
  - mahyarm 11y ago
    I would ask a few taxi drivers how their compensation structure works and if they are independent contractors or not. I asked one in BC, Canada recently, and found out they have to take monthly $100/day taxi lease, minimum 1 month and then make that money + more back with whatever hours they can get. I'm guessing the drivers are 'independent contractors' too.
- eru 11y ago
  > What is superior about poorly-paid drivers, There's a labour market for that. > lack of labour rights, That's for the government to deal with. > surge pricing, Surge pricing is awesome: at least you can still get a cab if you are willing to pay. As opposed to no cab at any price. > lack of disabled accommodations, Yeah, that's annoying for those in need. I propose giving disabled people more money, so they can then vote with their newly enlarged wallets. (And perhaps there's something more efficient for them than enticing taxi drivers.) > no guarantee of service in all areas, Why should city dwellers subsidise those yokels? > lack of fare caps, As long as the fare structure is known before I get into the cab, no problem. > no concessionary travel, Just give poor people more money. No need for concessions. (I've never seen any regulated taxi with concession fares. Only in public transport.) > having to use a smartphone to pay, > unaccredited and unknowledgeable drivers, Not less knowledgeable than most `normal' cabbies, as far as I can tell. But, depends on the area. Eg London has some pretty knowledgeable cabbies. > generic unmarked vehicles, etc.? Who cares? You can pay more for an UberBlack, if you want to have a non-generic car.
  - dionidium 11y ago
    I'm a big fan of Uber, but unknowledgeable drivers are a real problem. Here in St. Louis I see a lot of suburbanites coming into the city to drive people to places they've never been. I had one guy try to take me across a bridge that's famously closed for construction. Every cabbie knows that bridge is closed. Shit, everybody on the entire Southside knows that bridge is closed.
    - asift 11y ago
      Uber will reimburse you if your driver screws up. It would be better if they didn't make mistakes in the first place, but this type of accountability never existed among yellow cabs.
- asift 11y ago
  Uber is highly regulated by the forces of market competition. Forces which are far better at protecting and serving consumers than the government. >What is superior about purely paid drivers? Low cost of transportation for consumers. No driver is entitled to a job. The efficient movement of goods and people are far more important than preserving jobs from being destroyed by technology that enhances the well-being of society.
  - zanny 11y ago
    Now while I am arguing for significantly reduced regulation around Uber, I would not say markets in general protect or serve consumers better. If markets had their way, anyone could sell a product that claims to do anything else, and if the consumers cannot organize information and catalog what products are fraudulent then people are vulnerable to deception. That already happens today, in our "tightly regulated" market. Wonder drugs or miracle cures or instant diets or self help books claim to fix everything and do nothing. Drop regulation and it gets worse. Consumers are simply bad at organizing information about businesses, though I would concede that might be partially due to an expectation that "the government will take care of it". Other things - environmental pollution / destruction (and other secondary costs of business), exploitative employment practices (particularly exploiting the poor and uneducated), using economies of scale to drive out competition, rent seeking, collusion, asset hoarding, and fraud all occur in a natural market and to varying degrees government involvement helps abate some - certainly not all, and certainly not perfectly - these anti-consumer effects of business. You can look at almost any industry and point at gratuitous and stifling regulation, very often used as shut door tactics by wealthy market players who use force of law to stop competition, because playing in markets usually keeps you honest. Just because Uber is innovative does not exonerate them from how they are playing legal hardball just as bad as many of the companies that preceded them, and if given the opportunity would not erect the same walls to competition their fore-bearers put up. Besides the concerns about workers rights for their drivers, they are actively lobbying cities around the globe to both reduce regulation for themselves and increase it for Lyft or other possible competitors.
    - asift 11y ago

by zanny 11y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

Why is Uber better than regulated systems? What is superior about poorly-paid drivers, lack of labour rights, surge pricing, lack of disabled accommodations, no guarantee of service in all areas, lack of fare caps, no concessionary travel, having to use a smartphone to pay, unaccredited and unknowledgeable drivers, generic unmarked vehicles, etc.?

eru 11y ago
Drivers are poorly paid in systems that have taxi medallions, too.
- mahyarm 11y ago
  I would ask a few taxi drivers how their compensation structure works and if they are independent contractors or not. I asked one in BC, Canada recently, and found out they have to take monthly $100/day taxi lease, minimum 1 month and then make that money + more back with whatever hours they can get. I'm guessing the drivers are 'independent contractors' too.
eru 11y ago
> What is superior about poorly-paid drivers, There's a labour market for that. > lack of labour rights, That's for the government to deal with. > surge pricing, Surge pricing is awesome: at least you can still get a cab if you are willing to pay. As opposed to no cab at any price. > lack of disabled accommodations, Yeah, that's annoying for those in need. I propose giving disabled people more money, so they can then vote with their newly enlarged wallets. (And perhaps there's something more efficient for them than enticing taxi drivers.) > no guarantee of service in all areas, Why should city dwellers subsidise those yokels? > lack of fare caps, As long as the fare structure is known before I get into the cab, no problem. > no concessionary travel, Just give poor people more money. No need for concessions. (I've never seen any regulated taxi with concession fares. Only in public transport.) > having to use a smartphone to pay, > unaccredited and unknowledgeable drivers, Not less knowledgeable than most `normal' cabbies, as far as I can tell. But, depends on the area. Eg London has some pretty knowledgeable cabbies. > generic unmarked vehicles, etc.? Who cares? You can pay more for an UberBlack, if you want to have a non-generic car.
- dionidium 11y ago
  I'm a big fan of Uber, but unknowledgeable drivers are a real problem. Here in St. Louis I see a lot of suburbanites coming into the city to drive people to places they've never been. I had one guy try to take me across a bridge that's famously closed for construction. Every cabbie knows that bridge is closed. Shit, everybody on the entire Southside knows that bridge is closed.
  - asift 11y ago
    Uber will reimburse you if your driver screws up. It would be better if they didn't make mistakes in the first place, but this type of accountability never existed among yellow cabs.
asift 11y ago
Uber is highly regulated by the forces of market competition. Forces which are far better at protecting and serving consumers than the government. >What is superior about purely paid drivers? Low cost of transportation for consumers. No driver is entitled to a job. The efficient movement of goods and people are far more important than preserving jobs from being destroyed by technology that enhances the well-being of society.
- zanny 11y ago
  Now while I am arguing for significantly reduced regulation around Uber, I would not say markets in general protect or serve consumers better. If markets had their way, anyone could sell a product that claims to do anything else, and if the consumers cannot organize information and catalog what products are fraudulent then people are vulnerable to deception. That already happens today, in our "tightly regulated" market. Wonder drugs or miracle cures or instant diets or self help books claim to fix everything and do nothing. Drop regulation and it gets worse. Consumers are simply bad at organizing information about businesses, though I would concede that might be partially due to an expectation that "the government will take care of it". Other things - environmental pollution / destruction (and other secondary costs of business), exploitative employment practices (particularly exploiting the poor and uneducated), using economies of scale to drive out competition, rent seeking, collusion, asset hoarding, and fraud all occur in a natural market and to varying degrees government involvement helps abate some - certainly not all, and certainly not perfectly - these anti-consumer effects of business. You can look at almost any industry and point at gratuitous and stifling regulation, very often used as shut door tactics by wealthy market players who use force of law to stop competition, because playing in markets usually keeps you honest. Just because Uber is innovative does not exonerate them from how they are playing legal hardball just as bad as many of the companies that preceded them, and if given the opportunity would not erect the same walls to competition their fore-bearers put up. Besides the concerns about workers rights for their drivers, they are actively lobbying cities around the globe to both reduce regulation for themselves and increase it for Lyft or other possible competitors.
  - asift 11y ago