3 ms·

>>Because if you allow that, everyone will try to undercut the competitors prices to get the "good" customers, and nobody will bother to offer services to the n

>>Because if you allow that, everyone will try to undercut the competitors prices to get the "good" customers, and nobody will bother to offer services to the not so profitable customers. They're not a charity. If you want to help the less fortunate, then donate directly to them. Or if you believe that helping the less fortunate should be something people should be required to do, under pain of imprisonment, then advocate taxing people, and using that revenue to directly subsidize the less fortunate. There's no reason the mandatory charity should fall entirely on service providers. It's not even an efficient way to help the less fortunate. If they received cash subsidies instead, then service providers would crop up that specialize in servicing people who have their disability, and would provide a far higher quality of service per dollar spent.

HWR_14 6y ago
The idea is that larger companies in the space (like Uber) should be the ones subsidizing the drivers. Just like we could have offered complex taxes and subsidies to encourage banks to invest in local communities, but instead we just passed a law. Or simply required private insurers to supply insurance regardless of preconidtions. Uber, Bank of America, and Blue Cross are big enough they can handle mixing the more and less valuable customers themselves, and don't need a government program.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  They eventually pass the cost down to consumers. Even profits, redirected from shareholders, to these projects, indirectly costs consumers in the form of reduced investment that would otherwise enchance productivity and bring down consumer prices. I'm arguing that we shouldn't be forcing private companies, large or otherwise, to fulfill social justice agendas, because it creates an unstable business environment where firms can be encumbered by any conceivable regulatory barrier to participating in the marketplace. It's also mixing concerns, leading to less optimized and well thought out social interventions. For example, forcing banks to lend in high-credit-risk neighbourhoods turned out to be a huge mistake, as this article from 21 years ago presciently warned: https://www.city-journal.org/html/trillion-dollar-bank-shakedown-bodes-ill-cities-12096.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/trillion-dollar-bank-shake... If we do decide to force society to collectively help the less fortunate, it should be out of general revenue, in the form of cash subsidies. If a disabled person gets $1,000 a month, they may use it for more rides, or they may find their money can go further if they instead pay to have service providers do home-visits to their place. Or they may rent special exo-suits that let them operate like a non-disabled person. Letting the affected party decide will let them maximize the return they get from the resources being allocated to the cause of helping them.

HWR_14 6y ago

The idea is that larger companies in the space (like Uber) should be the ones subsidizing the drivers. Just like we could have offered complex taxes and subsidies to encourage banks to invest in local communities, but instead we just passed a law. Or simply required private insurers to supply insurance regardless of preconidtions. Uber, Bank of America, and Blue Cross are big enough they can handle mixing the more and less valuable customers themselves, and don't need a government program.

CryptoPunk 6y ago
They eventually pass the cost down to consumers. Even profits, redirected from shareholders, to these projects, indirectly costs consumers in the form of reduced investment that would otherwise enchance productivity and bring down consumer prices. I'm arguing that we shouldn't be forcing private companies, large or otherwise, to fulfill social justice agendas, because it creates an unstable business environment where firms can be encumbered by any conceivable regulatory barrier to participating in the marketplace. It's also mixing concerns, leading to less optimized and well thought out social interventions. For example, forcing banks to lend in high-credit-risk neighbourhoods turned out to be a huge mistake, as this article from 21 years ago presciently warned: https://www.city-journal.org/html/trillion-dollar-bank-shakedown-bodes-ill-cities-12096.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/trillion-dollar-bank-shake... If we do decide to force society to collectively help the less fortunate, it should be out of general revenue, in the form of cash subsidies. If a disabled person gets $1,000 a month, they may use it for more rides, or they may find their money can go further if they instead pay to have service providers do home-visits to their place. Or they may rent special exo-suits that let them operate like a non-disabled person. Letting the affected party decide will let them maximize the return they get from the resources being allocated to the cause of helping them.