4 ms·

The problem here is you failed to identify the regulations as the problem in the first place, especially with Taxi's and Uber The regulations created an artif

by syshum 6y ago

The problem here is you failed to identify the regulations as the problem in the first place, especially with Taxi's and Uber The regulations created an artificial scarcity for transportation that increased prices, and lowered quality of service to the point where people were BEGGING for a service like Uber to come along The solution to this problem is not "make Uber follow the tax regulations" which seems to be what you are suggesting

jahaja 6y ago
> The regulations created an artificial scarcity Is the classification as an employee, with attached benefits, artificial scarcity in a negative sense? If so, we got quite a few industries that would also love to remove this "artificial scarcity" and allow the use of day labourers.
- syshum 6y ago
  Many taxi drivers, like uber drivers, are also classified as Independent contractors Employment classification was not what I was referring to, I am talking about the endless regulations around taxi medallion system that puts a government regulated cap on the number of taxi's
  - jahaja 6y ago
    Alright, but that's not the case in the majority of the places where Uber have, and have tried to, introduce day labourers.
    - syshum 6y ago
      >>Alright, but that's not the case in the majority of the places where Uber have I would love to see your source on that, most cities with any kind of taxi system have some permitting or medallion system that limits the number of taxis >>and have tried to, introduce day labourers. Do you view this as a negative? because I do not
      - jahaja 6y ago
        > I would love to see your source on that, most cities with any kind of taxi system have some permitting or medallion system that limits the number of taxis It's an assumption because the medallion system is very US-centric. Permits/taxi drivers license, if that's what you mean, isn't much more than a minimum qualification requirement and not a hard limit. > Do you view this as a negative? because I do not Yes? Because that's a ~100 year regression in most developed nations and I empathize with the people on the receiving end of that kind of hat-in-hand relationship. To not see this as a negative suggests to me a worryingly low empathy with the less fortunate and perhaps even nostalgia to a strict class-society, because that's the end result of a race-to-the-bottom unfettered capitalism.
        syshum 6y ago
        So your position is that Day labor and/or independent contracting is only predatory? That people are incapable of looking at a situation and making a choice for themselves if the situation is good for them or not? They must always be protected by the government "for the greater good", and that government regulation is inherently good and noble? Really? because after the state of CA passed a law prohibiting independent contracting for a whole host of jobs, many lost 100% of their income, many others lost flexibility in the jobs and other adverse consequences from moving from Independent contracting to employee Many people PREFER to be independent as it affords them flexibility and well independence they could not get if they were employee's it is foolish and ignorant to claim that I have "low empathy with the less fortunate" simply because I prefer less authoritarian government, less regulation and more personal freedom (and responsibility)
        jahaja 6y ago
        > So your position is that Day labor and/or independent contracting is only predatory? Yes, especially when the primary USP is just to lower labour costs compared to having them as employees. > That people are incapable of looking at a situation and making a choice for themselves if the situation is good for them or not? They must always be protected by the government "for the greater good", and that government regulation is inherently good and noble? Yes. People in a shite economic position and without any support from a welfare state are rarely in a position to refuse an exploitative relationship. And yes again, the government is most likely far more "good and noble" than an employer in day labourer relationship - whose primary motive is not one's well-being but profit. > because after the state of CA passed a law prohibiting independent contracting for a whole host of jobs, many lost 100% of their income, many others lost flexibility in the jobs and other adverse consequences from moving from Independent contracting to employee A lot of people would lose their job in the insurance industry if universal health care was adopted. But it's still the right thing to do. Furthermore, the only reason why you can use that argument "Ah, it's horrible! They're losing their income!" is because there's no welfare state to help them out in between jobs and/or (re-)education. > Many people PREFER to be independent as it affords them flexibility and well independence they could not get if they were employee's Maybe some, sure. Not sure why that's relevant or mutually exclusive to not regress to day labourers. > it is foolish and ignorant to claim that I have "low empathy with the less fortunate" simply because I prefer less authoritarian government, less regulation and more personal freedom (and responsibility) A hand-in-hat existence has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, if anything it's its opposite. Freedom for capital, or market freedom etc, does not automatically translate to freedom in its literal sense to the willing or unwilling participants. The boss is usually the most authoritarian relationship that most people experience from day to day, worsening the less fortunate one are. This would only increase the intensity of that.
    - throwaway201103 6y ago
      There are taxi owner/operators, but since the owner cannot drive 24/7, and since the cost of a medallion is more than one can afford by working only 8 hours a day, most (all?) of them sublease their cars to several drivers in shifts. That way the car and medallion can be producing income around the clock. Those subcontracted drivers are not employees of the taxi company, they might be considered employees of the car/medallion owner but if they work for several different owners, maybe they are considered independent.
  - Technically 6y ago
    Did you find the number of taxis insufficient?
buran77 6y ago
That's the kind of explanation you get from anyone breaking the law and claiming it was because the law not conducive to the greater good. Every regulated sector could get the same characterization from entities failing to meet said regulation making all of it in effect invalid. Uber has deep enough pockets to lobby for changing regulation but that would apply to everyone and they would again have to fight on a level playing field. They broke the law for profit. Robbery is illegal even if you steal from a criminal, or if people are BEGGING for someone to do it. Sure, when it's a social movement it's still breaking the law but has a different moral value. As it stands the value now is in Uber's pockets. > The solution to this problem is not "make Uber follow the tax regulations" which seems to be what you are suggesting No. Not only did I literally start my comment with <I never said (or meant only) "tax loopholes">, I also ended it with: > > The solution to an industry being crap isn't to allow someone to bypass existing regulation, it's to create a set of effective regulations that can be applied equally to everyone. I'm trying to assume good faith but replying to me while completely ignoring the content of my comment or twisting my words to imply the exact opposite of what I said is disrespectful and disqualifies your opinion in my eyes at least. Pretty sure also in the letter and spirit of HN's guidelines. Makes it seem like you don't want to be part of a conversation but rather throw your personal ideas out there everything else be damned.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  You can sort of make a moral argument for Uber, maybe others in that one of the problems with the legacy taxi services is that they would refuse to provide rides to minorites, blacks in particular. With an artificially constrained supply of taxis, they could do this without penalty, possibly even profitably. With Uber, sure an individial driver can decline a ride based on the destination and assumptions he makes about the passenger, but it's far more likely that someone will take the ride, since there are many more drivers. They also have less to fear with Uber since they don't carry cash or deal with cash payments, and there's some level of trackability/identifiability of the passenger in comparison to picking up a random person on a street hail.
- syshum 6y ago
  >>claiming it was because the law not conducive to the greater good No, I never claim the greater good, that is what people that support government and regulations claim. We need all these laws, regulations, taxation, etc "for the greater good" Anyone that claims to be doing something for the greater good chances are is evil. >>Robbery is illegal even if you steal from a criminal, or if people are BEGGING for someone to do it. Some how I bet you would not agree in all situation, income taxation as an example... That said, I do not place much stock in an argument "well that's illegal", as an Individualist libertarian I assess things based on the ethical foundation of liberty or the principle of self ownership.. So I base my support or rejection of a public policy, law, or regulation based on that ethical foundation. I do not outsource my thinking to a legislature. >>I'm trying to assume good faith but replying to me while completely ignoring the content of my comment or twisting my words to imply the exact opposite I was not "completely ignoring" your content, it seemed to me then, and continues to be my belief now based on this further comment that you desire increased regulations on Uber to make them fall inline with existing regulations, to "close the loop hole" as it were This is in stark contrast to my belief that the regulations are the problem and adding regulations to uber is not the solution to the problem Eliminating regulations on everyone is the solution.

by syshum 6y ago

jahaja 6y ago

> The regulations created an artificial scarcity Is the classification as an employee, with attached benefits, artificial scarcity in a negative sense? If so, we got quite a few industries that would also love to remove this "artificial scarcity" and allow the use of day labourers.

syshum 6y ago
Many taxi drivers, like uber drivers, are also classified as Independent contractors Employment classification was not what I was referring to, I am talking about the endless regulations around taxi medallion system that puts a government regulated cap on the number of taxi's
- jahaja 6y ago
  Alright, but that's not the case in the majority of the places where Uber have, and have tried to, introduce day labourers.
  - syshum 6y ago
    >>Alright, but that's not the case in the majority of the places where Uber have I would love to see your source on that, most cities with any kind of taxi system have some permitting or medallion system that limits the number of taxis >>and have tried to, introduce day labourers. Do you view this as a negative? because I do not
    - jahaja 6y ago
      > I would love to see your source on that, most cities with any kind of taxi system have some permitting or medallion system that limits the number of taxis It's an assumption because the medallion system is very US-centric. Permits/taxi drivers license, if that's what you mean, isn't much more than a minimum qualification requirement and not a hard limit. > Do you view this as a negative? because I do not Yes? Because that's a ~100 year regression in most developed nations and I empathize with the people on the receiving end of that kind of hat-in-hand relationship. To not see this as a negative suggests to me a worryingly low empathy with the less fortunate and perhaps even nostalgia to a strict class-society, because that's the end result of a race-to-the-bottom unfettered capitalism.
      - syshum 6y ago
        So your position is that Day labor and/or independent contracting is only predatory? That people are incapable of looking at a situation and making a choice for themselves if the situation is good for them or not? They must always be protected by the government "for the greater good", and that government regulation is inherently good and noble? Really? because after the state of CA passed a law prohibiting independent contracting for a whole host of jobs, many lost 100% of their income, many others lost flexibility in the jobs and other adverse consequences from moving from Independent contracting to employee Many people PREFER to be independent as it affords them flexibility and well independence they could not get if they were employee's it is foolish and ignorant to claim that I have "low empathy with the less fortunate" simply because I prefer less authoritarian government, less regulation and more personal freedom (and responsibility)
        jahaja 6y ago
        > So your position is that Day labor and/or independent contracting is only predatory? Yes, especially when the primary USP is just to lower labour costs compared to having them as employees. > That people are incapable of looking at a situation and making a choice for themselves if the situation is good for them or not? They must always be protected by the government "for the greater good", and that government regulation is inherently good and noble? Yes. People in a shite economic position and without any support from a welfare state are rarely in a position to refuse an exploitative relationship. And yes again, the government is most likely far more "good and noble" than an employer in day labourer relationship - whose primary motive is not one's well-being but profit. > because after the state of CA passed a law prohibiting independent contracting for a whole host of jobs, many lost 100% of their income, many others lost flexibility in the jobs and other adverse consequences from moving from Independent contracting to employee A lot of people would lose their job in the insurance industry if universal health care was adopted. But it's still the right thing to do. Furthermore, the only reason why you can use that argument "Ah, it's horrible! They're losing their income!" is because there's no welfare state to help them out in between jobs and/or (re-)education. > Many people PREFER to be independent as it affords them flexibility and well independence they could not get if they were employee's Maybe some, sure. Not sure why that's relevant or mutually exclusive to not regress to day labourers. > it is foolish and ignorant to claim that I have "low empathy with the less fortunate" simply because I prefer less authoritarian government, less regulation and more personal freedom (and responsibility) A hand-in-hat existence has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, if anything it's its opposite. Freedom for capital, or market freedom etc, does not automatically translate to freedom in its literal sense to the willing or unwilling participants. The boss is usually the most authoritarian relationship that most people experience from day to day, worsening the less fortunate one are. This would only increase the intensity of that.
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    There are taxi owner/operators, but since the owner cannot drive 24/7, and since the cost of a medallion is more than one can afford by working only 8 hours a day, most (all?) of them sublease their cars to several drivers in shifts. That way the car and medallion can be producing income around the clock. Those subcontracted drivers are not employees of the taxi company, they might be considered employees of the car/medallion owner but if they work for several different owners, maybe they are considered independent.
- Technically 6y ago
  Did you find the number of taxis insufficient?

buran77 6y ago

That's the kind of explanation you get from anyone breaking the law and claiming it was because the law not conducive to the greater good. Every regulated sector could get the same characterization from entities failing to meet said regulation making all of it in effect invalid. Uber has deep enough pockets to lobby for changing regulation but that would apply to everyone and they would again have to fight on a level playing field. They broke the law for profit. Robbery is illegal even if you steal from a criminal, or if people are BEGGING for someone to do it. Sure, when it's a social movement it's still breaking the law but has a different moral value. As it stands the value now is in Uber's pockets. > The solution to this problem is not "make Uber follow the tax regulations" which seems to be what you are suggesting No. Not only did I literally start my comment with <I never said (or meant only) "tax loopholes">, I also ended it with: > > The solution to an industry being crap isn't to allow someone to bypass existing regulation, it's to create a set of effective regulations that can be applied equally to everyone. I'm trying to assume good faith but replying to me while completely ignoring the content of my comment or twisting my words to imply the exact opposite of what I said is disrespectful and disqualifies your opinion in my eyes at least. Pretty sure also in the letter and spirit of HN's guidelines. Makes it seem like you don't want to be part of a conversation but rather throw your personal ideas out there everything else be damned.

throwaway201103 6y ago
You can sort of make a moral argument for Uber, maybe others in that one of the problems with the legacy taxi services is that they would refuse to provide rides to minorites, blacks in particular. With an artificially constrained supply of taxis, they could do this without penalty, possibly even profitably. With Uber, sure an individial driver can decline a ride based on the destination and assumptions he makes about the passenger, but it's far more likely that someone will take the ride, since there are many more drivers. They also have less to fear with Uber since they don't carry cash or deal with cash payments, and there's some level of trackability/identifiability of the passenger in comparison to picking up a random person on a street hail.
syshum 6y ago
>>claiming it was because the law not conducive to the greater good No, I never claim the greater good, that is what people that support government and regulations claim. We need all these laws, regulations, taxation, etc "for the greater good" Anyone that claims to be doing something for the greater good chances are is evil. >>Robbery is illegal even if you steal from a criminal, or if people are BEGGING for someone to do it. Some how I bet you would not agree in all situation, income taxation as an example... That said, I do not place much stock in an argument "well that's illegal", as an Individualist libertarian I assess things based on the ethical foundation of liberty or the principle of self ownership.. So I base my support or rejection of a public policy, law, or regulation based on that ethical foundation. I do not outsource my thinking to a legislature. >>I'm trying to assume good faith but replying to me while completely ignoring the content of my comment or twisting my words to imply the exact opposite I was not "completely ignoring" your content, it seemed to me then, and continues to be my belief now based on this further comment that you desire increased regulations on Uber to make them fall inline with existing regulations, to "close the loop hole" as it were This is in stark contrast to my belief that the regulations are the problem and adding regulations to uber is not the solution to the problem Eliminating regulations on everyone is the solution.