6 ms·

Won't this just reduce the supply of Uber & Lyft when demand is highest? In other words, instead of having the choice to pay more (or not), you just won't get

Won't this just reduce the supply of Uber & Lyft when demand is highest? In other words, instead of having the choice to pay more (or not), you just won't get an Uber (because fewer drivers will be incentivized to drive during surge periods)?

llukas 8y ago
Why assume there are always extra drivers? At some point pool of drivers is exhausted and supply of drivers likely not super elastic.
- mojomark 8y ago
  So what? If people don't want to pay surge prices, they don't have to. Just don't take an Uber or Lyft ride. Ride sharing isn't a human right. If the government wants to step in, maybe they should create a state sponsored and run ride share service of their own.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    > So what? If people don't want to pay surge prices, they don't have to. Just don't take an Uber or Lyft ride. Ride sharing isn't a human right. Some jurisdictions do consider transportation a right, and act accordingly. > If the government wants to step in, maybe they should create a state sponsored and run ride share service of their own. Careful what you wish for. It wouldn't exactly be difficult for Honolulu's government to hire someone to roll their own and ban Uber/Lyft. https://venturebeat.com/2014/09/11/yes-a-build-your-own-uber-for-x-kit-costs-only-400/ https://venturebeat.com/2014/09/11/yes-a-build-your-own-uber...
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      > Some jurisdictions do consider transportation a right, and act accordingly. I am sympathetic to this position, but IMO the right way to go about that is to build a great public transportation system (which incidentally would reduce ride share surge pricing through reduced demand).
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        > I am sympathetic to this position, but IMO the right way to go about that is to build a great public transportation system (which incidentally would reduce ride share surge pricing through reduced demand). I agree. Why can't the local government provide a transportation app that includes ride sharing as a component of that transportation system?
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > Why can't the local government provide a transportation app that includes ride sharing as a component of that transportation system? I am waiting for a single-click multi-modal transportation app. I say “I want to get to the Hamptons” and have a car pick me up, deposit me at Penn Station, notify me before the change and have a car waiting on the other side.
        TeMPOraL 8y ago
        You'll have to wait until either it's required by law, or a single monopolist covers all the transport modes. No business want to interoperate with competitors.
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        Waive ridesharing taxes in exchange for an open booking and billing API.
        TeMPOraL 8y ago
        > Why can't the local government provide a transportation app that includes ride sharing as a component of that transportation system? Probably because taxis and pseudo-taxis don't want to be commoditized. They want to steer users towards their platform, not be a part of someone else's platform.
    - djf1 8y ago
      If "transportation is a right" means approximately, "everyone has access to affordable ridesharing", I don't think capping surge pricing yields this outcome. Hitting the price cap necessarily leads to excess demand, i.e. some people have _no_ access. In effect, those willing to pay the most are replaced by a random subset of those willing to pay PRICE_CAP or more.
      - nicoburns 8y ago
        > In effect, those willing to pay the most are replaced by a random subset of those willing to pay PRICE_CAP or more. This is precisely the effect. And many would consider this fairer. I think it depends on whether you people's willingness to pay as being determined more by their preferences (between say convenient transport or having a bigger house), or their income level. If it's the latter, then I think it's fair to question for each good and service, why should someone with a greater income be prioritized?
        djf1 8y ago
        I suppose my axiom is that "free market price" == "fair value". On this basis, a price ceiling is _unfair_ for both: • the provider (they must exchange their product for less than it's worth). • the consumer who values the service at free market price (they lose the service to someone who values it less). Regarding willingness to pay, I think the underlying factors are much to complicated to list (e.g. a pregnant woman heading to the hospital). The beauty of a free market is that fair price sorts itself out.
  - clamprecht 8y ago
    In fact, the article even said riders "were quoted as much as $221 to get to Waikiki when a cab ride was $44." So if the cab ride was $44, why not just take the cab?!
    - lhorie 8y ago
      Or to put a different way: if there was a taxi service that took you to waikiki on a Maserati for $250, and people were willing to pay for it, what rationale would there be for capping the price to that of other taxi services? If someone is willing to pay more for not having to deal with the hassle of making a phone call or fumbling w/ cash or long wait times or whatever, shouldn't that be fine?
    - jwatte 8y ago
      Because no cabs were actually available at that price: they were all taken. When there is scarcity, there are three ways to solve it: - allocating to those who exchange (pay) most - allocating based on lottery - allocating based on nepotism We now know what the politicians there prefer.
      - s2g 8y ago
        or just first come first serve.
        Spivak 8y ago
        Which is just lottery with fewer steps.
  - llukas 8y ago
    Running a ride sharing service and charging ${WHATEVER} is also not a human right. Did you really wanted invoke this argument?
    - privong 8y ago
      > Running a ride sharing service and charging ${WHATEVER} is also not a human right. Did you really wanted invoke this argument? I think it should be permissible to ask ${WHATEVER}, as long as the price is clearly stated prior to both parties agreeing to the transaction. I do however think that one doesn't have a right to have paying customers at ${WHATEVER} price. And I don't think people are suggesting that Uber or Lyft have a right to customers paying the prices they set. Both parties in the transaction have some agency with respect to whether or not the transaction happens at ${WHATEVER}.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    If the government wants to step in, maybe they should create a state sponsored and run ride share service of their own. We call them buses. And yes, Honolulu has buses. Flat fee however far you go or however long the trip takes. Bonus: they take the same amount of time as Uber or a cab to get from the airport to Wakiki.
- graeme 8y ago
  It's more elastic than you'd think. Some people only drive in surges. I've had drivers who told me this. Capping them will shrink the supply.
kjeetgill 8y ago
Or there will be more drivers. Drivers will be working more since they need to make up the missing revenue with more hours. The point is, it's trivial to make a rational argument either way. My question is, what do we need to know to separate these two cases.
RileyJames 8y ago
Is there an option to pay standard pricing with an extended wait time, during peak periods? No. So it’s not a choice to pay more. Yes, you could use another app / transport method, or go nowhere. But based on the behaviour (anecdotally) I have seen from my friends they reluctantly accept uber is ripping them off. Hence, regulation. I would like to see this enacted in Australia as well.
- benchaney 8y ago
  > Is there an option to pay standard pricing with an extended wait time, during peak periods? No. So it’s not a choice to pay more. Yes, that choice is called waiting for the surge to end, and then ordering a ride.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
s2g 8y ago
Only if you believe their excuse for massive price gouging.

llukas 8y ago

Why assume there are always extra drivers? At some point pool of drivers is exhausted and supply of drivers likely not super elastic.

mojomark 8y ago
So what? If people don't want to pay surge prices, they don't have to. Just don't take an Uber or Lyft ride. Ride sharing isn't a human right. If the government wants to step in, maybe they should create a state sponsored and run ride share service of their own.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  > So what? If people don't want to pay surge prices, they don't have to. Just don't take an Uber or Lyft ride. Ride sharing isn't a human right. Some jurisdictions do consider transportation a right, and act accordingly. > If the government wants to step in, maybe they should create a state sponsored and run ride share service of their own. Careful what you wish for. It wouldn't exactly be difficult for Honolulu's government to hire someone to roll their own and ban Uber/Lyft. https://venturebeat.com/2014/09/11/yes-a-build-your-own-uber-for-x-kit-costs-only-400/ https://venturebeat.com/2014/09/11/yes-a-build-your-own-uber...
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    > Some jurisdictions do consider transportation a right, and act accordingly. I am sympathetic to this position, but IMO the right way to go about that is to build a great public transportation system (which incidentally would reduce ride share surge pricing through reduced demand).
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      > I am sympathetic to this position, but IMO the right way to go about that is to build a great public transportation system (which incidentally would reduce ride share surge pricing through reduced demand). I agree. Why can't the local government provide a transportation app that includes ride sharing as a component of that transportation system?
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > Why can't the local government provide a transportation app that includes ride sharing as a component of that transportation system? I am waiting for a single-click multi-modal transportation app. I say “I want to get to the Hamptons” and have a car pick me up, deposit me at Penn Station, notify me before the change and have a car waiting on the other side.
        TeMPOraL 8y ago
        You'll have to wait until either it's required by law, or a single monopolist covers all the transport modes. No business want to interoperate with competitors.
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        Waive ridesharing taxes in exchange for an open booking and billing API.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        > Why can't the local government provide a transportation app that includes ride sharing as a component of that transportation system? Probably because taxis and pseudo-taxis don't want to be commoditized. They want to steer users towards their platform, not be a part of someone else's platform.
  - djf1 8y ago
    If "transportation is a right" means approximately, "everyone has access to affordable ridesharing", I don't think capping surge pricing yields this outcome. Hitting the price cap necessarily leads to excess demand, i.e. some people have _no_ access. In effect, those willing to pay the most are replaced by a random subset of those willing to pay PRICE_CAP or more.
    - nicoburns 8y ago
      > In effect, those willing to pay the most are replaced by a random subset of those willing to pay PRICE_CAP or more. This is precisely the effect. And many would consider this fairer. I think it depends on whether you people's willingness to pay as being determined more by their preferences (between say convenient transport or having a bigger house), or their income level. If it's the latter, then I think it's fair to question for each good and service, why should someone with a greater income be prioritized?
      - djf1 8y ago
        I suppose my axiom is that "free market price" == "fair value". On this basis, a price ceiling is _unfair_ for both: • the provider (they must exchange their product for less than it's worth). • the consumer who values the service at free market price (they lose the service to someone who values it less). Regarding willingness to pay, I think the underlying factors are much to complicated to list (e.g. a pregnant woman heading to the hospital). The beauty of a free market is that fair price sorts itself out.
- clamprecht 8y ago
  In fact, the article even said riders "were quoted as much as $221 to get to Waikiki when a cab ride was $44." So if the cab ride was $44, why not just take the cab?!
  - lhorie 8y ago
    Or to put a different way: if there was a taxi service that took you to waikiki on a Maserati for $250, and people were willing to pay for it, what rationale would there be for capping the price to that of other taxi services? If someone is willing to pay more for not having to deal with the hassle of making a phone call or fumbling w/ cash or long wait times or whatever, shouldn't that be fine?
  - jwatte 8y ago
    Because no cabs were actually available at that price: they were all taken. When there is scarcity, there are three ways to solve it: - allocating to those who exchange (pay) most - allocating based on lottery - allocating based on nepotism We now know what the politicians there prefer.
    - s2g 8y ago
      or just first come first serve.
      - Spivak 8y ago
        Which is just lottery with fewer steps.
- llukas 8y ago
  Running a ride sharing service and charging ${WHATEVER} is also not a human right. Did you really wanted invoke this argument?
  - privong 8y ago
    > Running a ride sharing service and charging ${WHATEVER} is also not a human right. Did you really wanted invoke this argument? I think it should be permissible to ask ${WHATEVER}, as long as the price is clearly stated prior to both parties agreeing to the transaction. I do however think that one doesn't have a right to have paying customers at ${WHATEVER} price. And I don't think people are suggesting that Uber or Lyft have a right to customers paying the prices they set. Both parties in the transaction have some agency with respect to whether or not the transaction happens at ${WHATEVER}.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  If the government wants to step in, maybe they should create a state sponsored and run ride share service of their own. We call them buses. And yes, Honolulu has buses. Flat fee however far you go or however long the trip takes. Bonus: they take the same amount of time as Uber or a cab to get from the airport to Wakiki.
graeme 8y ago
It's more elastic than you'd think. Some people only drive in surges. I've had drivers who told me this. Capping them will shrink the supply.

kjeetgill 8y ago

Or there will be more drivers. Drivers will be working more since they need to make up the missing revenue with more hours. The point is, it's trivial to make a rational argument either way. My question is, what do we need to know to separate these two cases.

RileyJames 8y ago

Is there an option to pay standard pricing with an extended wait time, during peak periods? No. So it’s not a choice to pay more. Yes, you could use another app / transport method, or go nowhere. But based on the behaviour (anecdotally) I have seen from my friends they reluctantly accept uber is ripping them off. Hence, regulation. I would like to see this enacted in Australia as well.

benchaney 8y ago
> Is there an option to pay standard pricing with an extended wait time, during peak periods? No. So it’s not a choice to pay more. Yes, that choice is called waiting for the surge to end, and then ordering a ride.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

s2g 8y ago

Only if you believe their excuse for massive price gouging.