3 ms·

I think the alternative (and we can debate whether it's the right choice) is to regulate companies like Uber that are monopsonies for a segment (in this case Ub

I think the alternative (and we can debate whether it's the right choice) is to regulate companies like Uber that are monopsonies for a segment (in this case Uber is the only buyer of Uber drivers, and works to reduce the elasticity of labor supply so drivers will stay with Uber). That could take the form of a minimum wage for drivers, or regulation that establishes a separate market for drivers that ridesharing platforms would need to all use. The issue is not the job loss, but that the benefits of the disruption accrue not only accrue mainly with the employer, but are less valuable to the employer and the economy then the loss of taxable income and stable jobs. The Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony isn't a bad read.

jdminhbg 11y ago
Uber has a monopsony on Uber drivers in the same way that Apple has a monopoly on selling Apple devices, which is to say, not for any useful definition of the term. Plenty of Uber drivers also drive for e.g. Lyft.
- lsiebert 11y ago
  Uber drivers aren't consumers, they are independent contractors. The better metaphor would be IOS developers.
darawk 11y ago
As the other commenter did I might quibble with your description of them as a monopsony, but I think the spirit of your criticism is valid. And I agree, I think we should think very carefully about how these companies are taxed and regulated, because ultimately it does make sense for them to consolidate to a single provider. Especially so once they start using self-driving cars and stop employing drivers at all. I think what we need to think very carefully about is how we distribute and deal with the gains of this massive step-change in efficiency we are about to experience / are experiencing. What we must not do though is allow fears about those gains to prevent us from attaining them. In other words, if you're worried about the plight of laborers or drivers, tax Uber and just give them the money. Don't enact protectionist policies for the taxi industry.

jdminhbg 11y ago

Uber has a monopsony on Uber drivers in the same way that Apple has a monopoly on selling Apple devices, which is to say, not for any useful definition of the term. Plenty of Uber drivers also drive for e.g. Lyft.

lsiebert 11y ago
Uber drivers aren't consumers, they are independent contractors. The better metaphor would be IOS developers.

darawk 11y ago

As the other commenter did I might quibble with your description of them as a monopsony, but I think the spirit of your criticism is valid. And I agree, I think we should think very carefully about how these companies are taxed and regulated, because ultimately it does make sense for them to consolidate to a single provider. Especially so once they start using self-driving cars and stop employing drivers at all. I think what we need to think very carefully about is how we distribute and deal with the gains of this massive step-change in efficiency we are about to experience / are experiencing. What we must not do though is allow fears about those gains to prevent us from attaining them. In other words, if you're worried about the plight of laborers or drivers, tax Uber and just give them the money. Don't enact protectionist policies for the taxi industry.