4 ms·

What the article misses is that consumers drive startups like Seamless and Uber up the totem pole. Sure, some have more money than others, but clearly, if Seaml

by dvt 10y ago

What the article misses is that consumers drive startups like Seamless and Uber up the totem pole. Sure, some have more money than others, but clearly, if Seamless is succeeding then it must've hit a nerve. I mean I don't live in NYC, but whenever I'm there, I honestly hate it. It feels like the biggest concentration of assholery in the entire US. And I'm not saying this like some hippie pot-smoking LA liberal (because I adore LA), but as a European that is used to the hustle and bustle of city life. I was born in a small European city where people greeted each other and the streets were busy, etc. I grew up in Romania in the late 80s/early 90s.. I'd prefer living in the dilapidated Eastern Bloc to living in New York. Unless I was Donald Trump or something, but that misses the point. If people are riding in Ubers and if people are working for Uber, then, hey, maybe it's not such a terrible "soul-sucking" idea. I mean God knows I'm no Uber fanboy (I think their skirting of regulations and squeezing out markets is pretty dodgy at best), but maybe something needed to wake up the taxi companies and make cities take a serious look at their public transit systems. Silicon Valley may not always be a beacon of hope and joy, but Uber and Seamless are hardly the problems. If the author argued against companies like Theranos, he'd have a much better argument imo.

alphonsegaston 10y ago
Or the massive price subsidies/market dumping allow them to outcompete local competitors in a era of longer hours and decreasing wages.
timr 10y ago
"It feels like the biggest concentration of assholery in the entire US." I guess you haven't been to San Francisco. Take what you hate about New York, and wrap it with a thick layer of smug, futurist, "we're saving the world" self-adulation. At least in the 80s, the leveraged buyout assholes weren't trying to convince people that they were making the world a better place. Gordon Gekko was a satire. Now he's a "growth hacker" at a unicorn. I have never in my life met so many people who are excited about the idea of creating systemic unemployment as I have since living in bubble SF. Self-driving cars? Man...when Uber can fire all of those profit-sucking drivers, we'll be living the dream, won't we? And anyone who questions the premise of our glorious, pure capitalist future gets: "If people are riding in Ubers and if people are working for Uber, then, hey, maybe it's not such a terrible "soul-sucking" idea." OK seriously, dear HN: just because consumers want something doesn't make it good. Consumers want dirt cheap electronics, but don't want to think about the Chinese kid who is getting lead poisoning from his "side hustle" of pulling e-waste apart with his teeth. Consumers want to pay a bit less for their burrito, but not worry about the illegal immigrants who cooked it, and are being evicted from their five-man hovel in the Mission to make room for luxury condos. Capitalism doesn't optimize for "good". It optimizes for profit. Shitty jobs have always existed. These "gig economy" companies are celebrating this lifestyle, and trying to make it more prevalent and less lucrative for the labor. That's what sucks.
- dvt 10y ago
  > OK seriously, dear HN: just because consumers want something doesn't make it good. Consumers want dirt cheap electronics, but don't want to think about the Chinese kid who is getting lead poisoning from his "side hustle" of pulling e-waste apart with his teeth. Consumers want to pay a bit less for their burrito, but not worry about the illegal immigrants who cooked it, and are being evicted from their five-man hovel in the Mission to make room for luxury condos. Capitalism doesn't optimize for "good". It optimizes for profit. I think that's really worth thinking about. And I guess that was kind of my original point. Startups like Seamless are around because everyone in NYC is kind of a dick, maybe self-absorbed, etc. We should focus fixing that root problem, instead of solving it with some panacea.
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    We also have regulations because consumers do care about that kid, they just don't have the resources to care every time they make a purchase. Which is why it's so problematic corporations violate regulations, either by outsourcing the violation or outright flouting the law. It's literally exploiting the limited computational resources of consumers to bypass their expressed wishes.
branchless 10y ago
Uber is getting a lot of its "efficiency" over regular cab companies by side-stepping regulatory burdens. People are riding uber because it's cheaper or they can deliver a better service at the same price point because they have the comparative advantage of lower regulatory burdens. You can't infer from this that people are voting with their heart. They are voting with their wallet, which is to say they are existing within the framework of capitalism whilst at the same time Uber exist outside parts of the framework for taxis. I do agree there are bigger problems, but I don't think that precludes criticising these companies.
- l33tbro 10y ago
  To add to your points, Uber is currently operating at a loss (1) due having so much runway. Once they've smited your local cab company, do you really think they're going to maintain bargain fares? (1) http://www.businessinsider.com.au/uber-2016-losses-2016-8 http://www.businessinsider.com.au/uber-2016-losses-2016-8
  - branchless 10y ago
    Yeah I kind left that out as it's their choice how they spread their gains and losses over the medium term. I agree it's likely a monopoly play but it doesn't feed straight into my point about their "efficiency" coming from a non-level playing field. One can debate if taxis should be registered or not however those stating that uber is more efficient are not comparing like for like. Even that is a side-point to my main comment stating that credit expands to capture new productivity via land and that tech has made a marginal activity possible such as uber part-time-drivers has given access to more credit for early entrants which then forces everyone to "earn more" so that they can all bid more and pay greater interest on greater loans to the bankers. And you can be as productive as you like because the bankers keyboards are not going to run out of zeros any time soon. How do banks create money, and why can other firms not do the same? An explanation for the coexistence of lending and deposit-taking: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001434 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

by dvt 10y ago

alphonsegaston 10y ago

Or the massive price subsidies/market dumping allow them to outcompete local competitors in a era of longer hours and decreasing wages.

timr 10y ago

"It feels like the biggest concentration of assholery in the entire US." I guess you haven't been to San Francisco. Take what you hate about New York, and wrap it with a thick layer of smug, futurist, "we're saving the world" self-adulation. At least in the 80s, the leveraged buyout assholes weren't trying to convince people that they were making the world a better place. Gordon Gekko was a satire. Now he's a "growth hacker" at a unicorn. I have never in my life met so many people who are excited about the idea of creating systemic unemployment as I have since living in bubble SF. Self-driving cars? Man...when Uber can fire all of those profit-sucking drivers, we'll be living the dream, won't we? And anyone who questions the premise of our glorious, pure capitalist future gets: "If people are riding in Ubers and if people are working for Uber, then, hey, maybe it's not such a terrible "soul-sucking" idea." OK seriously, dear HN: just because consumers want something doesn't make it good. Consumers want dirt cheap electronics, but don't want to think about the Chinese kid who is getting lead poisoning from his "side hustle" of pulling e-waste apart with his teeth. Consumers want to pay a bit less for their burrito, but not worry about the illegal immigrants who cooked it, and are being evicted from their five-man hovel in the Mission to make room for luxury condos. Capitalism doesn't optimize for "good". It optimizes for profit. Shitty jobs have always existed. These "gig economy" companies are celebrating this lifestyle, and trying to make it more prevalent and less lucrative for the labor. That's what sucks.

dvt 10y ago
> OK seriously, dear HN: just because consumers want something doesn't make it good. Consumers want dirt cheap electronics, but don't want to think about the Chinese kid who is getting lead poisoning from his "side hustle" of pulling e-waste apart with his teeth. Consumers want to pay a bit less for their burrito, but not worry about the illegal immigrants who cooked it, and are being evicted from their five-man hovel in the Mission to make room for luxury condos. Capitalism doesn't optimize for "good". It optimizes for profit. I think that's really worth thinking about. And I guess that was kind of my original point. Startups like Seamless are around because everyone in NYC is kind of a dick, maybe self-absorbed, etc. We should focus fixing that root problem, instead of solving it with some panacea.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  We also have regulations because consumers do care about that kid, they just don't have the resources to care every time they make a purchase. Which is why it's so problematic corporations violate regulations, either by outsourcing the violation or outright flouting the law. It's literally exploiting the limited computational resources of consumers to bypass their expressed wishes.

branchless 10y ago

Uber is getting a lot of its "efficiency" over regular cab companies by side-stepping regulatory burdens. People are riding uber because it's cheaper or they can deliver a better service at the same price point because they have the comparative advantage of lower regulatory burdens. You can't infer from this that people are voting with their heart. They are voting with their wallet, which is to say they are existing within the framework of capitalism whilst at the same time Uber exist outside parts of the framework for taxis. I do agree there are bigger problems, but I don't think that precludes criticising these companies.

l33tbro 10y ago
To add to your points, Uber is currently operating at a loss (1) due having so much runway. Once they've smited your local cab company, do you really think they're going to maintain bargain fares? (1) http://www.businessinsider.com.au/uber-2016-losses-2016-8 http://www.businessinsider.com.au/uber-2016-losses-2016-8
- branchless 10y ago
  Yeah I kind left that out as it's their choice how they spread their gains and losses over the medium term. I agree it's likely a monopoly play but it doesn't feed straight into my point about their "efficiency" coming from a non-level playing field. One can debate if taxis should be registered or not however those stating that uber is more efficient are not comparing like for like. Even that is a side-point to my main comment stating that credit expands to capture new productivity via land and that tech has made a marginal activity possible such as uber part-time-drivers has given access to more credit for early entrants which then forces everyone to "earn more" so that they can all bid more and pay greater interest on greater loans to the bankers. And you can be as productive as you like because the bankers keyboards are not going to run out of zeros any time soon. How do banks create money, and why can other firms not do the same? An explanation for the coexistence of lending and deposit-taking: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001434 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]