5 ms·
I cant help but wonder if Juno and others are overestimating how much people care about the treatment of their drivers. I think very many people, myself include
by dopamean 11y ago
I cant help but wonder if Juno and others are overestimating how much people care about the treatment of their drivers. I think very many people, myself included, would say that it is important to them that their driver is happy with his relationship with his employer. But at the end of the day does that really translate to a change in purchasing behavior?
For me it does not.
I use Uber here in Austin because it is significantly cheaper that Lyft. I hear people say that their drivers tell them that Lyft treats them better. Apparently that's not so much better that they stop driving for Uber. I've actually never had a driver make a comment to me in either direction about Uber. And I've had many drivers who drive for both companies. They have told me, on the few times that I've asked, that the reason they do it is to increase their likelihood of getting a fare.
When I think about it more it really seems like drivers for these services are all getting a raw deal just based on the wear and tear on their vehicles and so small differences in business practices don't really count for much to me.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoThis is why government regulation is so important. Most people don't mind others being exploited if its beneficial to them.
- angryasian 11y agoI disagree. Theres plenty of alternative services. If all Uber drivers left for lyft and Juno, then Uber would drastically be hurt in terms of drivers available, and users would have to migrate. As long as there is competition, theres no need for regulation in this market.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoI don't think its wise to rely on market forces to ensure labor protections. It didn't work so well for tech workers several years ago [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
- strictnein 11y agoTo me, the exploitation that occurs in this system are the government regulations involved in someone just wanting to be paid to drive me from Point A to Point B.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoCan you explain to me how you feel exploited by the government protecting someone from being taken advantage of economically? I would genuinely like to understand this.
- strictnein 11y agoWhy does the government have a say on who I pay to drive me someplace and where they can drive me? Edit: And the exploitation I was referring to was of the taxi drivers under the current system, not myself.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoAwesome, thanks for clarifying that. Government regulation exists to protect people. Whether that's labor regulations, fire code, zoning ordinances, etc, its to ensure the health and well being of citizens. Now, you'll argue that always isn't the case, and I'll agree with you. Incentives with taxi regulation went sideways, hence the medallion system. But that doesn't mean regulation is wrong, that means that apathetic, disinterested stakeholders are the problem. Just as we've made the problem by not caring enough to fix it, we can care enough to work towards fixing it. The number of vehicles for transport in a metro can be regulated using an unbiased algorithm. The wages of drivers can be determined by labor regulations. These are not hard technical problems to solve. They're political problems to be solved. Should we throw out the medallion system? Yes. Should Uber get to stampede all over transport regulations? No. There should be a middle ground. People say someone should be able to accept a job no matter what the pay is, as long as they're willing. No one is willing when they're an economic captive. It costs a minimum amount of money (dependent on locale) to have shelter, food, and clothing. This is what government regulation is for (see: minimum wage, employee/contractor classification, etc), to ensure that people can support themselves on the work they can obtain. If they can't support themselves on what a job pays, the job pays too little and the business relying on that undermarket labor rate is unsustainable (see: Walmart educating its workers on relying on social benefits, thereby using the government as a subsidy).
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 11y agoThere is more too it. I don't "exercise my purchasing power" because I know whether I ride Uber or something else won't make a lick of difference in the grand scheme of things. But I'd be willing to pay more for drivers to make a little more if everyone else also had to do it so there would be a real impact.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoAgree. Regulation is the only way to ensure you're dealing with the freeloader issue.
- rajacombinator 11y agoBut people are fine with exploitation so long as a group of people we call "government" are the ones doing it. ;)
- surfaceTensi0n 11y agoJust to counter your anecdata with my own, I deleted the Uber app because I wasn't happy with their business practices (especially wrt their treatment of drivers).