5 ms·

Efficiency, to me, means getting the same result for less inputs. This could take the form of a less expensive method for performing some work or a higher util

Efficiency, to me, means getting the same result for less inputs. This could take the form of a less expensive method for performing some work or a higher utilization of existing time / equipment. A lot of these gig employers aren't increasing efficiency they are just shifting costs to unsophisticated workers who don't realize it.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> A lot of these gig employers aren't increasing efficiency Regarding ridesharing, I disagree. App-based hailing is objectively more efficient and scalable (to lower population densities) than street hailing, and more efficient than privately-owned cars requiring massive, distributed investments in parking infrastructure.
- radiantswirl 8y ago
  App-based hailing increases efficiency for SOME people in SOME domains, but studies show that App-based hailing unequivocally REDUCES efficiency in terms of traffic and pollution on a city-wide scale because it incentivizes people to take car trips they wouldn't have otherwise taken and because Uber/Lyft drivers wind up clogging the streets with single-rider cars as they drive to their next fare. TL;DR: App-based hailing does increase efficiency of transportation for consumers in the very short term, but it definitely DECREASES the efficiency of transportation for cities as a whole in the longer term. Allowing Ride-sharing to exist is a Faustian bargain that cities have made with VC-Funded tech "bullies" like Trav Kalanick. The cities win in the short term on an individual basis for each of its residents, but the cities lose as a collective in the long term. It's a version of the Faustian bargain America made by replacing trains with cars -- yes, cars bring greater transportation efficiency ON AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL but they massively reduce it on a collective level. Ride-sharing apps do the same thing. Individualism and collectivism are both Faustian bargains in different ways. We need a balance between the two ideologies that allows will-to-power Nietzchean entrepreneurial folks to generate value without shitting on the less-energetic people who create less value through no fault of their own. We need Minimum Viable Individualism. Uber, Lyft, and -- depending who you ask, cars themselves -- are examples of Individualism Run Amok because they empower the Nietzchean folks (Trav Kalanick, Henry Ford & Co) at the direct expense of the Lower-Energy folks (Uber Drivers and the pedestrians they annoy) instead of creating a win-win situation like the Hyperloop, or other more innovative transportation-tech plans that are admittedly idealistic but at least aren't transparently exploitative of "the little guys" as a collective (of both drivers and pedestrians) like ride-sharing apps so obviously are.
- BurritoAlPastor 8y ago
  Agreed about app-based hailing being more efficient, but I think it’s not germane to the issue at hand – those same organizational improvements would be seen if Uber classified its employees as employees, or if a city’s licensed taxi providers could get their shit together for a good app.
- pmorici 8y ago
  You realize you have always been able to call a cab in low density areas right? Ride-sharing eliminates the dispatcher. It doesn't change the economics of a taxi service in lower density areas. Those higher costs are shifted to the gig employee. Last I checked a driver doesn't get any extra fee if she has to drive 5 miles vs 500 feet to get to her next fair. At least until recently these services didn't even seem to help with the utilization problem where drivers would be sitting for periods w/o a fair. At least Lyft now will schedule a drive with their next rider while the current one is in the car.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    They do. It's called a Long Pickup Fee or a Long Pickup Premium and it depends on time as well.
    - pmorici 8y ago
      Yeah, they just instituted that in 2017 because drivers were getting wise.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> A lot of these gig employers aren't increasing efficiency Regarding ridesharing, I disagree. App-based hailing is objectively more efficient and scalable (to lower population densities) than street hailing, and more efficient than privately-owned cars requiring massive, distributed investments in parking infrastructure.

radiantswirl 8y ago
App-based hailing increases efficiency for SOME people in SOME domains, but studies show that App-based hailing unequivocally REDUCES efficiency in terms of traffic and pollution on a city-wide scale because it incentivizes people to take car trips they wouldn't have otherwise taken and because Uber/Lyft drivers wind up clogging the streets with single-rider cars as they drive to their next fare. TL;DR: App-based hailing does increase efficiency of transportation for consumers in the very short term, but it definitely DECREASES the efficiency of transportation for cities as a whole in the longer term. Allowing Ride-sharing to exist is a Faustian bargain that cities have made with VC-Funded tech "bullies" like Trav Kalanick. The cities win in the short term on an individual basis for each of its residents, but the cities lose as a collective in the long term. It's a version of the Faustian bargain America made by replacing trains with cars -- yes, cars bring greater transportation efficiency ON AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL but they massively reduce it on a collective level. Ride-sharing apps do the same thing. Individualism and collectivism are both Faustian bargains in different ways. We need a balance between the two ideologies that allows will-to-power Nietzchean entrepreneurial folks to generate value without shitting on the less-energetic people who create less value through no fault of their own. We need Minimum Viable Individualism. Uber, Lyft, and -- depending who you ask, cars themselves -- are examples of Individualism Run Amok because they empower the Nietzchean folks (Trav Kalanick, Henry Ford & Co) at the direct expense of the Lower-Energy folks (Uber Drivers and the pedestrians they annoy) instead of creating a win-win situation like the Hyperloop, or other more innovative transportation-tech plans that are admittedly idealistic but at least aren't transparently exploitative of "the little guys" as a collective (of both drivers and pedestrians) like ride-sharing apps so obviously are.
BurritoAlPastor 8y ago
Agreed about app-based hailing being more efficient, but I think it’s not germane to the issue at hand – those same organizational improvements would be seen if Uber classified its employees as employees, or if a city’s licensed taxi providers could get their shit together for a good app.
pmorici 8y ago
You realize you have always been able to call a cab in low density areas right? Ride-sharing eliminates the dispatcher. It doesn't change the economics of a taxi service in lower density areas. Those higher costs are shifted to the gig employee. Last I checked a driver doesn't get any extra fee if she has to drive 5 miles vs 500 feet to get to her next fair. At least until recently these services didn't even seem to help with the utilization problem where drivers would be sitting for periods w/o a fair. At least Lyft now will schedule a drive with their next rider while the current one is in the car.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  They do. It's called a Long Pickup Fee or a Long Pickup Premium and it depends on time as well.
  - pmorici 8y ago
    Yeah, they just instituted that in 2017 because drivers were getting wise.