4 ms·

But it's also an opportunistic crime at which you'd be caught almost immediately. Supposing you rob or otherwise assault someone as an Uber driver, you can: a)

by darawk 10y ago

But it's also an opportunistic crime at which you'd be caught almost immediately. Supposing you rob or otherwise assault someone as an Uber driver, you can: a) Kill them. First thing they do is check his phone logs. Oh, he called an Uber? Let's talk to that driver. b) Rob/rape/etc them. Uber has perfect records of the identity of their drivers and who got in which car. You will be caught or at the very least banned from receiving fares instantly. These harms are completely self-limiting. You get one shot at a crime, at best.

eridius 10y ago
You're dramatically underestimating how many people will fail to report a crime (especially a sexual assault). Besides, even one crime is one too many. You can't assume the driver is going to act in a totally rational manner, they will commit crimes (and we've already seen Uber drivers committing crimes).
- darawk 10y ago
  Right, but those crimes are contained and self-limiting and as such don't justify government intervention. Government cannot stop all crimes, and the tradeoff here just isn't worth the very very minor reduction in crime that might result.
  - eridius 10y ago
    Whaaa? Government can't stop all crimes, therefore we shouldn't even make the slightest effort to check if there's a reasonable chance somebody put into a position of power over others is likely to commit violent crimes? That's utter nonsense.
    - darawk 10y ago
      Making an 'effort to check': - Imposes an enormous regulatory burden and cost on companies, which they then pass on to consumers and use as a moat against competition - Excludes tons of ex-convicts who are perfectly capable of doing the job from doing it and thereby increases their likelihood of reoffending. This isn't a case of "oh we can reduce violent crime in exchange for nothing". There is no free lunch. There are very real, very significant costs to implementing a law like this. And the simple fact of the matter is that those costs overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits in this particular case. The number of crimes that would be prevented is tiny. The social and economic cost is huge.
      - eridius 10y ago
        > Excludes tons of ex-convicts Well yes, that's the whole point. Exclude the people who committed certain classes of crimes from being drivers. They can go get other jobs that don't have the same opportunistic crime risk. I'm not advocating for the idea that every single crime, no matter what, would exclude you, I'm just saying that certain classes of crimes, including violent crimes and sexual assault, definitely mean you shouldn't be an Uber driver. > The number of crimes that would be prevented is tiny. Statement not backed up by evidence. > The social and economic cost is huge. Neither is this. Certainly, doing background checks is a cost that Uber would have to pay, but it's a far cry from saying that this cost is "huge" or implying it's a burden on everybody. As for social cost, I don't even understand what you're claiming the social cost is. There's a huge social cost when people don't feel like it's safe for them to get into an Uber alone. There's very little social cost to saying that certain types of criminals cannot be Uber drivers.
        darawk 10y ago
        > Well yes, that's the whole point. Exclude the people who committed certain classes of crimes from being drivers. They can go get other jobs that don't have the same opportunistic crime risk. I'm not advocating for the idea that every single crime, no matter what, would exclude you, I'm just saying that certain classes of crimes, including violent crimes and sexual assault, definitely mean you shouldn't be an Uber driver. Excluding these people from jobs imposes an economic cost on society. One which, imo, outweighs the benefits of keeping them out of this position of power. > Statement not backed up by evidence. Ah, indeed it is not. But I am proposing that we do nothing, and that places the burden of proof squarely upon those who propose intervention. But either way, you do not dispute that any violence is self-limiting, and surely you do not dispute that if the market demands a 'safer' alternative, one will emerge. So i'm really not sure what the argument is for government stepping in. > Neither is this. Certainly, doing background checks is a cost that Uber would have to pay, but it's a far cry from saying that this cost is "huge" or implying it's a burden on everybody. No. That's not how economics works. Uber doesn't pay the cost, people that use Uber do. And regulation like this actually cements Uber's dominance in the market place, because it creates a barrier to new entrants. If you are a 60 billion dollar company, spending 10 million a year on compliance is no big deal. If you are a startup, it will kill you. That is the true cost of this sort of regulation. Take a look at the taxi industry. The taxi industry is terrible precisely because of this sort of regulation protecting incumbents by keeping out new entrants. Anyone looking to start a taxi business needs to buy medallions which cost approximately a million dollars each (before Uber showing up made them virtually worthless). > As for social cost, I don't even understand what you're claiming the social cost is. There's a huge social cost when people don't feel like it's safe for them to get into an Uber alone. There's very little social cost to saying that certain types of criminals cannot be Uber drivers. If that were indeed true that people didn't feel safe getting in an Uber, then they wouldn't want to ride in an Uber. Uber's ridership would drop and they would feel compelled to do something about it - all on their own.

by darawk 10y ago

eridius 10y ago

You're dramatically underestimating how many people will fail to report a crime (especially a sexual assault). Besides, even one crime is one too many. You can't assume the driver is going to act in a totally rational manner, they will commit crimes (and we've already seen Uber drivers committing crimes).

darawk 10y ago
Right, but those crimes are contained and self-limiting and as such don't justify government intervention. Government cannot stop all crimes, and the tradeoff here just isn't worth the very very minor reduction in crime that might result.
- eridius 10y ago
  Whaaa? Government can't stop all crimes, therefore we shouldn't even make the slightest effort to check if there's a reasonable chance somebody put into a position of power over others is likely to commit violent crimes? That's utter nonsense.
  - darawk 10y ago
    Making an 'effort to check': - Imposes an enormous regulatory burden and cost on companies, which they then pass on to consumers and use as a moat against competition - Excludes tons of ex-convicts who are perfectly capable of doing the job from doing it and thereby increases their likelihood of reoffending. This isn't a case of "oh we can reduce violent crime in exchange for nothing". There is no free lunch. There are very real, very significant costs to implementing a law like this. And the simple fact of the matter is that those costs overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits in this particular case. The number of crimes that would be prevented is tiny. The social and economic cost is huge.
    - eridius 10y ago
      > Excludes tons of ex-convicts Well yes, that's the whole point. Exclude the people who committed certain classes of crimes from being drivers. They can go get other jobs that don't have the same opportunistic crime risk. I'm not advocating for the idea that every single crime, no matter what, would exclude you, I'm just saying that certain classes of crimes, including violent crimes and sexual assault, definitely mean you shouldn't be an Uber driver. > The number of crimes that would be prevented is tiny. Statement not backed up by evidence. > The social and economic cost is huge. Neither is this. Certainly, doing background checks is a cost that Uber would have to pay, but it's a far cry from saying that this cost is "huge" or implying it's a burden on everybody. As for social cost, I don't even understand what you're claiming the social cost is. There's a huge social cost when people don't feel like it's safe for them to get into an Uber alone. There's very little social cost to saying that certain types of criminals cannot be Uber drivers.
      - darawk 10y ago
        > Well yes, that's the whole point. Exclude the people who committed certain classes of crimes from being drivers. They can go get other jobs that don't have the same opportunistic crime risk. I'm not advocating for the idea that every single crime, no matter what, would exclude you, I'm just saying that certain classes of crimes, including violent crimes and sexual assault, definitely mean you shouldn't be an Uber driver. Excluding these people from jobs imposes an economic cost on society. One which, imo, outweighs the benefits of keeping them out of this position of power. > Statement not backed up by evidence. Ah, indeed it is not. But I am proposing that we do nothing, and that places the burden of proof squarely upon those who propose intervention. But either way, you do not dispute that any violence is self-limiting, and surely you do not dispute that if the market demands a 'safer' alternative, one will emerge. So i'm really not sure what the argument is for government stepping in. > Neither is this. Certainly, doing background checks is a cost that Uber would have to pay, but it's a far cry from saying that this cost is "huge" or implying it's a burden on everybody. No. That's not how economics works. Uber doesn't pay the cost, people that use Uber do. And regulation like this actually cements Uber's dominance in the market place, because it creates a barrier to new entrants. If you are a 60 billion dollar company, spending 10 million a year on compliance is no big deal. If you are a startup, it will kill you. That is the true cost of this sort of regulation. Take a look at the taxi industry. The taxi industry is terrible precisely because of this sort of regulation protecting incumbents by keeping out new entrants. Anyone looking to start a taxi business needs to buy medallions which cost approximately a million dollars each (before Uber showing up made them virtually worthless). > As for social cost, I don't even understand what you're claiming the social cost is. There's a huge social cost when people don't feel like it's safe for them to get into an Uber alone. There's very little social cost to saying that certain types of criminals cannot be Uber drivers. If that were indeed true that people didn't feel safe getting in an Uber, then they wouldn't want to ride in an Uber. Uber's ridership would drop and they would feel compelled to do something about it - all on their own.