4 ms·

> It's objectively better to have Uber and not regulate it than to regulate it and not have it How is that "objectively better"? What's the limit on regulation

by kartan 10y ago

> It's objectively better to have Uber and not regulate it than to regulate it and not have it How is that "objectively better"? What's the limit on regulations that, in your opinion, should be removed if they threat Uber capacity to make money? Or there is no limit?

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
The GP probably meant "objectivistly better".
darawk 10y ago
I think it's pretty reasonable to let two consenting adult parties enter into a short term agreement to provide a ride in exchange for a fee. An Uber driver doesn't have to show up to work in the morning - they can look at the rate on offer at the moment and decide whether or not they feel like driving. You could be an Uber driver for 1 hour a month if you wanted to. It is about as independent as a contracting relationship could possibly be, and I see no reason for the government to interfere in that extraordinarily simple, non-coercive relationship. If you don't like Uber's terms, just don't drive for them. If you only feel like it's worthwhile to do so when the fares are high enough - wait until they are, if enough people agree with you, then the fares will rise on a permanent basis.
- kartan 10y ago
  > It is about as independent as a contracting relationship could possibly be I completely agree that is really independent. And that is what leaves one of the sides completely unprotected. At one side you have Uber that has a big business (that can mean a lot of investors around the glove), lots of money and lots of drivers. It can decide unilaterally to increase/reduce prices as it is better for them. At the other side you have a lot of drivers competing for a small part of the pie. They cannot change anything else than stop working for Uber, and that has a negligible impact on the big company. The only way to compensate for that is for drivers to create an alliance that allows them to actually be able to have negotiation power. And THAT is what the government does with regulations and taxes. They are representing the citizens that want a better quality service, they are representing the citizens that want to drive for Uber and have a fair pay. Isn't reasonable to let consenting adult citizens to enter into a long term agreement to provide companies, employees and consumers with fair negotiated norms? Why is Uber allowed to bring capital from as many investors as they want while the drivers should not be allowed to organize themselves?
  - darawk 10y ago
    Ya, I agree they are in a much weaker bargaining position. But I guess the way I see it is that at each particular moment, these drivers are making the conscious choice to continue driving. If at any moment they feel like stopping and looking for other work, they're totally free to do that. So on the one hand, Uber does set the prices and has lots of leverage because of that - but on the other hand, they are pretty beholden to the drivers, because if they set the prices too low, they won't drive. And that might sound a little hollow, until you remember that in most places they aren't even profitable - even though of course they could be if they were willing to lower rates enough. But they must not feel like they have the leverage to do that. Which, IMO, is pretty strong evidence that they don't have undue power if they can't even get themselves a decent margin yet. I guess from my perspective, when a relationship between two entities is, to this degree, transient, transparent, and independent, it's really hard for me to feel like one of the parties is being exploited to a degree that requires government intervention. If people didn't feel like being an Uber driver was benefiting them, they simply wouldn't do it, or they'd only do it when there were large surge pricing premiums available.

by kartan 10y ago

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago

The GP probably meant "objectivistly better".

darawk 10y ago

I think it's pretty reasonable to let two consenting adult parties enter into a short term agreement to provide a ride in exchange for a fee. An Uber driver doesn't have to show up to work in the morning - they can look at the rate on offer at the moment and decide whether or not they feel like driving. You could be an Uber driver for 1 hour a month if you wanted to. It is about as independent as a contracting relationship could possibly be, and I see no reason for the government to interfere in that extraordinarily simple, non-coercive relationship. If you don't like Uber's terms, just don't drive for them. If you only feel like it's worthwhile to do so when the fares are high enough - wait until they are, if enough people agree with you, then the fares will rise on a permanent basis.

kartan 10y ago
> It is about as independent as a contracting relationship could possibly be I completely agree that is really independent. And that is what leaves one of the sides completely unprotected. At one side you have Uber that has a big business (that can mean a lot of investors around the glove), lots of money and lots of drivers. It can decide unilaterally to increase/reduce prices as it is better for them. At the other side you have a lot of drivers competing for a small part of the pie. They cannot change anything else than stop working for Uber, and that has a negligible impact on the big company. The only way to compensate for that is for drivers to create an alliance that allows them to actually be able to have negotiation power. And THAT is what the government does with regulations and taxes. They are representing the citizens that want a better quality service, they are representing the citizens that want to drive for Uber and have a fair pay. Isn't reasonable to let consenting adult citizens to enter into a long term agreement to provide companies, employees and consumers with fair negotiated norms? Why is Uber allowed to bring capital from as many investors as they want while the drivers should not be allowed to organize themselves?
- darawk 10y ago
  Ya, I agree they are in a much weaker bargaining position. But I guess the way I see it is that at each particular moment, these drivers are making the conscious choice to continue driving. If at any moment they feel like stopping and looking for other work, they're totally free to do that. So on the one hand, Uber does set the prices and has lots of leverage because of that - but on the other hand, they are pretty beholden to the drivers, because if they set the prices too low, they won't drive. And that might sound a little hollow, until you remember that in most places they aren't even profitable - even though of course they could be if they were willing to lower rates enough. But they must not feel like they have the leverage to do that. Which, IMO, is pretty strong evidence that they don't have undue power if they can't even get themselves a decent margin yet. I guess from my perspective, when a relationship between two entities is, to this degree, transient, transparent, and independent, it's really hard for me to feel like one of the parties is being exploited to a degree that requires government intervention. If people didn't feel like being an Uber driver was benefiting them, they simply wouldn't do it, or they'd only do it when there were large surge pricing premiums available.