6 ms·

Uber has been raising prices lately. > there's so many people that went ahead and are doing it full time as their primary source of income. Did you ever think

Uber has been raising prices lately. > there's so many people that went ahead and are doing it full time as their primary source of income. Did you ever think that they do this because it’s their best opportunity and they’re acting rationally? That taking away the opportunity to drive for Uber would be bad for them? It’s a way to make money that didn’t used to exist and people want to kill it because it’s vaguely incompatible with their political ideas.

hobls 8y ago
What I’m suggesting is that if someone is driving for Uber they should be getting paid at or above minimum wage, and that they should have standard employment protections such as unemployment. This is not the same as wanting to kill Uber.
- lliamander 8y ago
  It will significantly raise prices for customers. Do you use Uber presently(or other such services)? Would you use it if prices went up 50% or more?
  - jpetso 8y ago
    Shouldn't I have to factor in all externalities into my choice of transportation, and use the one that's the best choice overall? Why should I pay for the full price of my car but get a discount from Uber for offloading costs onto other people? (Note that I'm not saying Uber is actually doing this, that's just what the ruling implies.) If the two can't compare on equal footing then sure, why not skip the Uber instead.
    - lliamander 8y ago
      It's not an externality. An externality is "[a] cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit" (source: Wikipedia). The Uber drivers are choosing to incur that cost by their contractual agreement with Uber.
- glenra 8y ago
  It actually is the same as killing Uber. Paying a guaranteed above-minimum-wage plus benefits would kill Uber's business model and either drive the company out of business or force it to act just like the cab companies. Either way, many customers and Uber drivers would be worse off. Suppose I'm a spare time Uber driver. On the weekends I sit at home, comfortable on my own couch watching TV. Outside of "surge" times I only answer calls that seem REALLY CONVENIENT to take, like people traveling from my own block. When somebody within a few blocks of me wants a ride, I pause the TV, jog out to the car and take the fare, then work for a bit, eventually ending with a fare that takes me close to home again. That business model is great for customers because the car they need is ALREADY NEARBY so they get a much quicker response. It's great for drivers because they can spend more time at home and have the flexibility to stop whenever or as often as they want, which makes it more compatible with family responsibilities - say, taking the afternoon off to look after a sick kid. If the firm has to cover unemployment insurance, they cannot afford to let people just work whenever they feel like it and work from any location they want. If the firm has to pay a minimum wage while you've got the app running, they're not going to let you run the app while sitting on the couch all afternoon only taking the few jobs that happen to suit your fancy. You have to work X hours per day to cover the insurance premiums and every hour working has to have a certain number of fares per hour to cover the minimum wage guarantee. That turns it back into a micromanaged standard wage-slave job rather than a flexible opportunity to make a little side money on your own schedule.
  - Spivak 8y ago
    Okay, but it isn't exactly difficult to separate people into tiers: side-gig, part-time, and full-time depending on how many hours they work and what portion of their income comes from these services.
    - woolvalley 8y ago
      Thing is, the law isn't so discriminating for the side-gig part.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "It actually is the same as killing Uber. Paying a guaranteed above-minimum-wage plus benefits would kill Uber's business model and either drive the company out of business or force it to act just like the cab companies. Either way, many customers and Uber drivers would be worse off." I fail to see the problem. If you cannot give that to your employees, then you do not deserve to be in business, full stop.
untog 8y ago
Why would Uber treating these people as employees "take away their opportunity"? What would a full-time Uber driver lose by this?
manofmanysmiles 8y ago
I hate being the guy that suggests a book as part of a debate, but have you read The Grapes of Wrath? Among other things, it shows in wrenching emotional details what can happen without minimum wages when people are desperate. Also, do you think humans (in an economy or not) always act rationally?
- mindcrime 8y ago
  Also, do you think humans (in an economy or not) always act rationally? Depends on how strictly you define "rationally". If you mean "spend a month collecting data, download, install, and learn R, and run sophisticated statistical analysis on the data before making any decision", then no, clearly not. IOW, humans are not the fictional "rational agents" mentioned in economics textbooks and papers. We're not Homo Optimizicus. But if you mean "give some thought to the options based on known information, weigh the different options, outcomes and consequences, and then make the best decision", then I would say that people are generally rational. It would probably be most accurate to say that humans "are semi-rational agents that employs lots of heuristics, including satisficing[1], to make decisions that are not necessarily the best possible, but usually aren't the worst possible either". Or to put it another way, we employ "bounded rationality"[2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality
- mindcrime 8y ago
  Among other things, it shows in wrenching emotional details what can happen without minimum wages when people are desperate. I'm jobless, hungry and desperate. Minimum wage is $15.00 /hour. Given my skills and abilities, no one can justify hiring me at $15.00 / hour. I have two options: 1. Work for $8.00 / hour, which sucks balls, but at least lets me eat. 2. Not work at all for $0.00 / hour, and starve to death. I don't think it's hard to guess which option many people would pick. A high minimum wage just hurts the people at the lowest rung of the economic ladder, by knocking them completely off the ladder.
  - darpa_escapee 8y ago
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Literally nobody is talking about taking away anyone's ability to drive for Uber. If Uber decides to cut them out of spite for regulations, that's entirely on Uber, and no one else.

hobls 8y ago

What I’m suggesting is that if someone is driving for Uber they should be getting paid at or above minimum wage, and that they should have standard employment protections such as unemployment. This is not the same as wanting to kill Uber.

lliamander 8y ago
It will significantly raise prices for customers. Do you use Uber presently(or other such services)? Would you use it if prices went up 50% or more?
- jpetso 8y ago
  Shouldn't I have to factor in all externalities into my choice of transportation, and use the one that's the best choice overall? Why should I pay for the full price of my car but get a discount from Uber for offloading costs onto other people? (Note that I'm not saying Uber is actually doing this, that's just what the ruling implies.) If the two can't compare on equal footing then sure, why not skip the Uber instead.
  - lliamander 8y ago
    It's not an externality. An externality is "[a] cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit" (source: Wikipedia). The Uber drivers are choosing to incur that cost by their contractual agreement with Uber.
glenra 8y ago
It actually is the same as killing Uber. Paying a guaranteed above-minimum-wage plus benefits would kill Uber's business model and either drive the company out of business or force it to act just like the cab companies. Either way, many customers and Uber drivers would be worse off. Suppose I'm a spare time Uber driver. On the weekends I sit at home, comfortable on my own couch watching TV. Outside of "surge" times I only answer calls that seem REALLY CONVENIENT to take, like people traveling from my own block. When somebody within a few blocks of me wants a ride, I pause the TV, jog out to the car and take the fare, then work for a bit, eventually ending with a fare that takes me close to home again. That business model is great for customers because the car they need is ALREADY NEARBY so they get a much quicker response. It's great for drivers because they can spend more time at home and have the flexibility to stop whenever or as often as they want, which makes it more compatible with family responsibilities - say, taking the afternoon off to look after a sick kid. If the firm has to cover unemployment insurance, they cannot afford to let people just work whenever they feel like it and work from any location they want. If the firm has to pay a minimum wage while you've got the app running, they're not going to let you run the app while sitting on the couch all afternoon only taking the few jobs that happen to suit your fancy. You have to work X hours per day to cover the insurance premiums and every hour working has to have a certain number of fares per hour to cover the minimum wage guarantee. That turns it back into a micromanaged standard wage-slave job rather than a flexible opportunity to make a little side money on your own schedule.
- Spivak 8y ago
  Okay, but it isn't exactly difficult to separate people into tiers: side-gig, part-time, and full-time depending on how many hours they work and what portion of their income comes from these services.
  - woolvalley 8y ago
    Thing is, the law isn't so discriminating for the side-gig part.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "It actually is the same as killing Uber. Paying a guaranteed above-minimum-wage plus benefits would kill Uber's business model and either drive the company out of business or force it to act just like the cab companies. Either way, many customers and Uber drivers would be worse off." I fail to see the problem. If you cannot give that to your employees, then you do not deserve to be in business, full stop.

untog 8y ago

Why would Uber treating these people as employees "take away their opportunity"? What would a full-time Uber driver lose by this?

manofmanysmiles 8y ago

I hate being the guy that suggests a book as part of a debate, but have you read The Grapes of Wrath? Among other things, it shows in wrenching emotional details what can happen without minimum wages when people are desperate. Also, do you think humans (in an economy or not) always act rationally?

mindcrime 8y ago
Also, do you think humans (in an economy or not) always act rationally? Depends on how strictly you define "rationally". If you mean "spend a month collecting data, download, install, and learn R, and run sophisticated statistical analysis on the data before making any decision", then no, clearly not. IOW, humans are not the fictional "rational agents" mentioned in economics textbooks and papers. We're not Homo Optimizicus. But if you mean "give some thought to the options based on known information, weigh the different options, outcomes and consequences, and then make the best decision", then I would say that people are generally rational. It would probably be most accurate to say that humans "are semi-rational agents that employs lots of heuristics, including satisficing[1], to make decisions that are not necessarily the best possible, but usually aren't the worst possible either". Or to put it another way, we employ "bounded rationality"[2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality
mindcrime 8y ago
Among other things, it shows in wrenching emotional details what can happen without minimum wages when people are desperate. I'm jobless, hungry and desperate. Minimum wage is $15.00 /hour. Given my skills and abilities, no one can justify hiring me at $15.00 / hour. I have two options: 1. Work for $8.00 / hour, which sucks balls, but at least lets me eat. 2. Not work at all for $0.00 / hour, and starve to death. I don't think it's hard to guess which option many people would pick. A high minimum wage just hurts the people at the lowest rung of the economic ladder, by knocking them completely off the ladder.
- darpa_escapee 8y ago

s73v3r_ 8y ago

Literally nobody is talking about taking away anyone's ability to drive for Uber. If Uber decides to cut them out of spite for regulations, that's entirely on Uber, and no one else.