4 ms·

I agree. The whole article is basically saying that it's unfair that they have competition now. Sure, cab drivers may not be making as good of a living as befor

I agree. The whole article is basically saying that it's unfair that they have competition now. Sure, cab drivers may not be making as good of a living as before, but in general everyone else has gained a lot in regards to lower fares.

zdw 9y ago
Seeing as every Uber and Lyft ride was (and still is?) subsidized by investor money, Cab vs App was never a fair competition. Replacing one problematic system with another that rearranges and changes what the problems are isn't always a net win. Assuming that any capitalist enterprise's goals will align with and optimize for the long term general health of society is frankly ludicrous.
- reading-at-work 9y ago
  Investment dollars aside, there's hard data to show that Uber and Lyft reduce drunk driving in any area where they operate, for one thing. It's a tangible addition to the general consensus that the apps are much better from a user experience perspective. Additionally, plenty of expanding companies are subsidized by investor money. You could say the same of Netflix and, until recently, Amazon. The point is that investors see potential for them to become more profitable down the road - the same is true of Uber and Lyft. Of course, you're right that Uber and Lyft are not run by saints and they will have their own problems. But so far I see it as a net gain over the old taxi system.
  - jonhendry18 9y ago
    "there's hard data to show that Uber and Lyft reduce drunk driving in any area where they operate" More cabs would likely do the same.
    - reading-at-work 9y ago
      Maybe, maybe not. What's the big difference between cabs and Uber? Price and convenience. Uber and Lyft are successful because they fill a huge need in the market that the overregulated taxi industry couldn't (or wouldn't). If there's clearly a need for more cabs, and the answer is just to add more cabs, why do you think nobody addressed that concern?
mattmanser 9y ago
America's previous taxi monopoly is skewing your view on this and have actually got nothing to do with gig economies. Uber circumvented taxi medallions AND introduced gig economy. It was the circumvention of taxi medallions that brought down your price. In countries without those insane medallions, Uber is about the same price, even when running at a loss. When you put that aside, it's a different beast. In the UK, DPD, who are Amazon's outsourced delivery drivers, recently killed someone because they fine "contractors" who are ill and he worked himself to death[1]. We have employment laws that protect against this that are being circumvented by 'disruptors' to kill people for minor savings. The worst part about this, if you follow things like what happens after minimum wages are introduced, price increase are miniscule, sales don't drop. So if you look at the inverse, the misery these 'disruptions' are causing give little to consumers and are extremely damaging to society. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/05/courier-who-was-fined-for-day-off-to-see-doctor-dies-from-diabetes https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/05/courier-who...
emodendroket 9y ago
The same process repeating itself across multiple industries would seem, to me, to send us hurtling toward a two-tiered society.
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
This isn't so much about competition. It is about unfair competition. One side has rules and regulations they need to abide by. Many are simply there to make things fair (like meters). Some are safety (not mentioned, but requiring a different class of drivers license). Some are things that obviously should be changed (car models, for example, or the medallion system). Some things are probably a mixture of safety and ridiculousness (special car colors help folks know it isn't just some person acting like a cab, but ridiculous in the manner that there are other ways to do such things). Not everyone gains by having lower fares if you need to get to work during a busy hour, as mentioned in the article. Surge pricing and weird pricing schemes makes it difficult to plan when money is tight. And they do mention that Uber drivers aren't exactly better off. "not as good of a living" is one thing. Poverty and homelessness is quite another, and seems to be happening on both sides of this. Want competition? Fine. Make sure folks are playing by the same rules and regulations.
- ric2b 9y ago
  > Not everyone gains by having lower fares if you need to get to work during a busy hour, as mentioned in the article. Surge pricing and weird pricing schemes makes it difficult to plan when money is tight. Surge pricing makes sense. It encourages people to choose different hours to travel and drivers to drive more during those times, which in the long run can lead to a much better experience for most users as it ensures that more people can use the service. Yes, it may hurt some people that would prefer a constant price, but overall it seems like a net benefit to me.
  - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    That's all fine and good if you have a choice in when you travel. Car broken down and you need to get to work? Good luck having a choice. Doctor's appointment? Need to go to court? You are just stuck having to pay. You can plan on having more cabs during busy hours and fewer during less busy hours. Buses often have more busses on the routes during busy times of day. Not everywhere has these choices, though. Outside of larger cities, Uber or Lyft might be the closest you have to public transportation. If you want choice in such things, it takes more than surge pricing. Cooperation between workplaces and so on to stagger start/end times, for example.
thawkins 9y ago
That's not what the article is saying, it's saying that the gig economy is all about transferring all the power from Labour to capital, about making the balance even more skewed in the wrong direction. You can't operate a meritocracy if there is no opertunnity to improve, if you are just an interchangeable unit. You can't improve if the system forces you beyond what is humanly possible to be above average, and where average is pined at the upper limit of performance

zdw 9y ago

Seeing as every Uber and Lyft ride was (and still is?) subsidized by investor money, Cab vs App was never a fair competition. Replacing one problematic system with another that rearranges and changes what the problems are isn't always a net win. Assuming that any capitalist enterprise's goals will align with and optimize for the long term general health of society is frankly ludicrous.

reading-at-work 9y ago
Investment dollars aside, there's hard data to show that Uber and Lyft reduce drunk driving in any area where they operate, for one thing. It's a tangible addition to the general consensus that the apps are much better from a user experience perspective. Additionally, plenty of expanding companies are subsidized by investor money. You could say the same of Netflix and, until recently, Amazon. The point is that investors see potential for them to become more profitable down the road - the same is true of Uber and Lyft. Of course, you're right that Uber and Lyft are not run by saints and they will have their own problems. But so far I see it as a net gain over the old taxi system.
- jonhendry18 9y ago
  "there's hard data to show that Uber and Lyft reduce drunk driving in any area where they operate" More cabs would likely do the same.
  - reading-at-work 9y ago
    Maybe, maybe not. What's the big difference between cabs and Uber? Price and convenience. Uber and Lyft are successful because they fill a huge need in the market that the overregulated taxi industry couldn't (or wouldn't). If there's clearly a need for more cabs, and the answer is just to add more cabs, why do you think nobody addressed that concern?

mattmanser 9y ago

America's previous taxi monopoly is skewing your view on this and have actually got nothing to do with gig economies. Uber circumvented taxi medallions AND introduced gig economy. It was the circumvention of taxi medallions that brought down your price. In countries without those insane medallions, Uber is about the same price, even when running at a loss. When you put that aside, it's a different beast. In the UK, DPD, who are Amazon's outsourced delivery drivers, recently killed someone because they fine "contractors" who are ill and he worked himself to death[1]. We have employment laws that protect against this that are being circumvented by 'disruptors' to kill people for minor savings. The worst part about this, if you follow things like what happens after minimum wages are introduced, price increase are miniscule, sales don't drop. So if you look at the inverse, the misery these 'disruptions' are causing give little to consumers and are extremely damaging to society. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/05/courier-who-was-fined-for-day-off-to-see-doctor-dies-from-diabetes https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/05/courier-who...

emodendroket 9y ago

The same process repeating itself across multiple industries would seem, to me, to send us hurtling toward a two-tiered society.

Broken_Hippo 9y ago

This isn't so much about competition. It is about unfair competition. One side has rules and regulations they need to abide by. Many are simply there to make things fair (like meters). Some are safety (not mentioned, but requiring a different class of drivers license). Some are things that obviously should be changed (car models, for example, or the medallion system). Some things are probably a mixture of safety and ridiculousness (special car colors help folks know it isn't just some person acting like a cab, but ridiculous in the manner that there are other ways to do such things). Not everyone gains by having lower fares if you need to get to work during a busy hour, as mentioned in the article. Surge pricing and weird pricing schemes makes it difficult to plan when money is tight. And they do mention that Uber drivers aren't exactly better off. "not as good of a living" is one thing. Poverty and homelessness is quite another, and seems to be happening on both sides of this. Want competition? Fine. Make sure folks are playing by the same rules and regulations.

ric2b 9y ago
> Not everyone gains by having lower fares if you need to get to work during a busy hour, as mentioned in the article. Surge pricing and weird pricing schemes makes it difficult to plan when money is tight. Surge pricing makes sense. It encourages people to choose different hours to travel and drivers to drive more during those times, which in the long run can lead to a much better experience for most users as it ensures that more people can use the service. Yes, it may hurt some people that would prefer a constant price, but overall it seems like a net benefit to me.
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  That's all fine and good if you have a choice in when you travel. Car broken down and you need to get to work? Good luck having a choice. Doctor's appointment? Need to go to court? You are just stuck having to pay. You can plan on having more cabs during busy hours and fewer during less busy hours. Buses often have more busses on the routes during busy times of day. Not everywhere has these choices, though. Outside of larger cities, Uber or Lyft might be the closest you have to public transportation. If you want choice in such things, it takes more than surge pricing. Cooperation between workplaces and so on to stagger start/end times, for example.

thawkins 9y ago

That's not what the article is saying, it's saying that the gig economy is all about transferring all the power from Labour to capital, about making the balance even more skewed in the wrong direction. You can't operate a meritocracy if there is no opertunnity to improve, if you are just an interchangeable unit. You can't improve if the system forces you beyond what is humanly possible to be above average, and where average is pined at the upper limit of performance