3 ms·

Disagree with this move. Uber & co. have been a net positive to the country, people and the economy. After pouring billions into creating and proving a market,

Disagree with this move. Uber & co. have been a net positive to the country, people and the economy. After pouring billions into creating and proving a market, the government is baselessly capping their earnings. Here's a fair proposal: 1. Encourage competitors and allow the free market to set prices and revenue shares. A vendor undercutting prices will get higher ridership 2. Prevent price gouging via collusion - do not let the companies cartel up 3. Limiting surge pricing to 2X is the only reasonable policy in their proposal After all, every stakeholder in this vertical is an at-will participant, with no compulsion to stay if the economics do not work out

yipbub 7y ago
> After all, every stakeholder in this vertical is an at-will participant, with no compulsion to stay if the economics do not work out That's not true. There are only 2 aggregators to choose from. Staying off one is not a feasible option for most. > the government is baselessly capping their earnings. They are not capping earning, they are capping percentage of fares. The cab driver puts in most of the cost. > Encourage competitors and allow the free market to set prices and revenue shares. A vendor undercutting prices will get higher ridership How? A company trying to enter this market would have a loong cash burn ahead of it with no certainty of a profit. Like social media, there's an inertia to users platform switching.
- ReptileMan 7y ago
  I don't know. With the Ubers you don't have the network effects as strongly. As long as the ride if safe, you will pick up the cheapest for given comfort level and be done with it. Cost of switching for the user is 0. And cost of switching for drivers is probably not high since any serfdom agreement for freelancers can be struck down as invalid.
  - yipbub 7y ago
    What I mean is that it's very hard for any new company to compete. It's also a very bad bet for any VC to back them.
mikojan 7y ago
Uber tapped into a market that is completely dependent on cheap, insecure, unorganized labor. A market that creates disastrous externalities. How any of this gives you reason to celebrate them rather than question what the f- went wrong is absolutely beyond me
ignoramous 7y ago
> Uber & co. have been a net positive to the country, the people and the economy. Net-positive for who? Folks who can afford to pay for their services? That's probably just the top 10%. If you speak to the drivers, they have nothing but complaints about the economics of it all. Not discounting the fact that there's increased traffic now and overall less emphasis on using/improving public transit. > After pouring billions into creating and proving a market, the government is baselessly capping their earnings. I don't understand this line of thinking: Pouring billions shouldn't really get you a free pass to exploit, corrupt, amend, sway, flout, transcend, overpower governance, regulations, laws, discussions, resources. As far as creating value is concerned (on-demand rides), may be you've got a point: The taxi industry was expensive before Ola and Uber set foot, but it turns out VC money is finite, and expensive is what makes it work economically on the supply-side. > After all, every stakeholder in this vertical is an at-will participant, with no compulsion to stay if the economics do not work out. Surely, you have heard abt the high incentives based payment structure that Uber and Ola had in 2015/16 that coerced the drivers into taking loans for their cars which they struggle to since pay, now that those incentives have been changed because IPO? It doesn't seem to me you're thinking much from the drivers' side who are really struggling to make ends meet with the current predatory commissions that Uber et al enforce. The problem here is, there's a disproportionate amount of power in the hands of aggregators which time and again they've exercised in a ruthless manner: There's a need to curb that greed that otherwise would eat up the already economically struggling populace, imho.
ReptileMan 7y ago
Money lending/financial services/credit is also usually net positive for a country, but there still are anti ursury laws. A government jobs in theory is to make sure they get the best possible deal for whatever area they are responsible for. A situation in which Uber takes smaller cut and money flows to the drivers may be more beneficial for the local economy.

yipbub 7y ago

> After all, every stakeholder in this vertical is an at-will participant, with no compulsion to stay if the economics do not work out That's not true. There are only 2 aggregators to choose from. Staying off one is not a feasible option for most. > the government is baselessly capping their earnings. They are not capping earning, they are capping percentage of fares. The cab driver puts in most of the cost. > Encourage competitors and allow the free market to set prices and revenue shares. A vendor undercutting prices will get higher ridership How? A company trying to enter this market would have a loong cash burn ahead of it with no certainty of a profit. Like social media, there's an inertia to users platform switching.

ReptileMan 7y ago
I don't know. With the Ubers you don't have the network effects as strongly. As long as the ride if safe, you will pick up the cheapest for given comfort level and be done with it. Cost of switching for the user is 0. And cost of switching for drivers is probably not high since any serfdom agreement for freelancers can be struck down as invalid.
- yipbub 7y ago
  What I mean is that it's very hard for any new company to compete. It's also a very bad bet for any VC to back them.

mikojan 7y ago

Uber tapped into a market that is completely dependent on cheap, insecure, unorganized labor. A market that creates disastrous externalities. How any of this gives you reason to celebrate them rather than question what the f- went wrong is absolutely beyond me

ignoramous 7y ago

> Uber & co. have been a net positive to the country, the people and the economy. Net-positive for who? Folks who can afford to pay for their services? That's probably just the top 10%. If you speak to the drivers, they have nothing but complaints about the economics of it all. Not discounting the fact that there's increased traffic now and overall less emphasis on using/improving public transit. > After pouring billions into creating and proving a market, the government is baselessly capping their earnings. I don't understand this line of thinking: Pouring billions shouldn't really get you a free pass to exploit, corrupt, amend, sway, flout, transcend, overpower governance, regulations, laws, discussions, resources. As far as creating value is concerned (on-demand rides), may be you've got a point: The taxi industry was expensive before Ola and Uber set foot, but it turns out VC money is finite, and expensive is what makes it work economically on the supply-side. > After all, every stakeholder in this vertical is an at-will participant, with no compulsion to stay if the economics do not work out. Surely, you have heard abt the high incentives based payment structure that Uber and Ola had in 2015/16 that coerced the drivers into taking loans for their cars which they struggle to since pay, now that those incentives have been changed because IPO? It doesn't seem to me you're thinking much from the drivers' side who are really struggling to make ends meet with the current predatory commissions that Uber et al enforce. The problem here is, there's a disproportionate amount of power in the hands of aggregators which time and again they've exercised in a ruthless manner: There's a need to curb that greed that otherwise would eat up the already economically struggling populace, imho.

ReptileMan 7y ago

Money lending/financial services/credit is also usually net positive for a country, but there still are anti ursury laws. A government jobs in theory is to make sure they get the best possible deal for whatever area they are responsible for. A situation in which Uber takes smaller cut and money flows to the drivers may be more beneficial for the local economy.