5 ms·

> The challenge from the company's perspective is that historically, people game the system and tragedy of commons scenarios can quickly become prevalent. It d

> The challenge from the company's perspective is that historically, people game the system and tragedy of commons scenarios can quickly become prevalent. It drives me crazy that when we talk about gig workers acting in their best interest, it's "gaming the system" but when companies like Uber operate (read: manipulates) a market in their best interests, it's just SOP. > I'm sure when Uber rolls out these new programs designed to make driver life better, people will find some way to criticize them This is essentially a captive market and Uber's best interests are often not aligned with that of the drivers, as you perfectly detail above. As long as that remains true, there is always going to be valid criticism against this kind of model.

hdhcndk 5y ago
Isn't that always the case? You are just treated worse when you have less money. How's one perceived if high earner hires professional help to take advantage of every loop hole in the system and how's one perceived if they take advantage of a loop hole in the system with say food stamps. Neither is breaking the law.
- scarface74 5y ago
  It’s not about having less money. If I’m going into town from the burbs, I have the money to pay Uber and I’m willing to pay more for one. But there are not that many people in the burbs that need to use ridesharing. I might be poorer in the inner city. But my rides are going to be a shorter distance and there are more people.
nearbuy 5y ago
I think you're misinterpreting the parent comment. By "gaming the system" and "tragedy of the commons" they mean that features they release to help can hurt the drivers and the passengers. Tragedy of the commons is when people individually following their self interests make themselves worse off. Eg, if you aren't careful with heat maps, drivers flock to the busy area and then can't get enough fares and passengers elsewhere can't get drivers.
- hansworst 5y ago
  But the “solution” to that potential problem arising cannot be limiting the information that drivers get. At least not as long as Uber also wants to treat their drivers as independent contractors.
  - SkinTaco 5y ago
    The parent comment you are replying to is acknowledges this, validates what you are saying, and even goes as far as to say that "Insiders legitimately want drivers to have flexibility without fear of penalties, and there are some major projects in the works to try to make things better for drivers" Maybe you disagree that they are actually trying but, at least according to this comment chain, everyone at uber agrees with you.
    - dekervin 5y ago
      Totally disagree with you. The parent you are referring to is framing the debate desingenously. Uber, and Uber insiders, are free to ponder all the intricacies and challenges of running Uber in its current form. As long as they recognize that drivers are not in practice independent contractors, with all ensuing legal consequences. If they still insist on saying drivers are independant contractors, none of their whining about "tragedy of the commons" is anybody's business. Just provide information to market participants.
      - lhorie 5y ago
        > If they still insist on saying drivers are independant contractors, none of their whining about "tragedy of the commons" is anybody's business You're confusing things a bit. Uber itself doesn't "whine" about tragedy of the commons, the other stakeholders (drivers and riders) are the ones who do. Also, for everyone going on about how Uber doesn't provide info upfront, and parroting the old drivers-should-be-employees clueless hot take, perhaps they missed this other recent article[0]: > The company says the new feature provides drivers with more transparency. They [drivers] see more details of a prospective ride before accepting it, such as the fare and pick-up and drop-off locations, which is something drivers say they’ve been asking for. In the past, most drivers wouldn’t receive this information until after they accepted a ride. So yes, Uber knows what drivers want and it wants to provide it to them, and it obviously has a vested interest in avoiding scenarios where drivers cannibalize themselves to death. What's not obvious to y'all outsiders is that Uber has to figure out all of the unspoken complexity and cleverness required to enable changes like this to be rolled out in a way that basically looks like what all the armchair analysts were saying it should have been done, without running into the previously known risks of rolling out such a thing. And even then, there's always some cherrypicky over-simplified scenario to bitch about (as the very article I linked to does). Everyone who keeps making statements that "Uber wants drivers to be employees it can rip off" fundamentally do not understand what they are talking about. As an insider, I don't owe it to anyone to "argue" with them. I can just inform them that I've heard from many other insiders that they think independent contractor status is a good thing (i.e. McDonalds FTE already exists and more options on top of that are always a good thing), that the implementation still has room for improvement, and that they want to make it better. [0] https://themarkup.org/working-for-an-algorithm/2022/03/01/secretive-algorithm-will-now-determine-uber-driver-pay-in-many-cities https://themarkup.org/working-for-an-algorithm/2022/03/01/se...

hdhcndk 5y ago

Isn't that always the case? You are just treated worse when you have less money. How's one perceived if high earner hires professional help to take advantage of every loop hole in the system and how's one perceived if they take advantage of a loop hole in the system with say food stamps. Neither is breaking the law.

scarface74 5y ago
It’s not about having less money. If I’m going into town from the burbs, I have the money to pay Uber and I’m willing to pay more for one. But there are not that many people in the burbs that need to use ridesharing. I might be poorer in the inner city. But my rides are going to be a shorter distance and there are more people.

nearbuy 5y ago

I think you're misinterpreting the parent comment. By "gaming the system" and "tragedy of the commons" they mean that features they release to help can hurt the drivers and the passengers. Tragedy of the commons is when people individually following their self interests make themselves worse off. Eg, if you aren't careful with heat maps, drivers flock to the busy area and then can't get enough fares and passengers elsewhere can't get drivers.

hansworst 5y ago
But the “solution” to that potential problem arising cannot be limiting the information that drivers get. At least not as long as Uber also wants to treat their drivers as independent contractors.
- SkinTaco 5y ago
  The parent comment you are replying to is acknowledges this, validates what you are saying, and even goes as far as to say that "Insiders legitimately want drivers to have flexibility without fear of penalties, and there are some major projects in the works to try to make things better for drivers" Maybe you disagree that they are actually trying but, at least according to this comment chain, everyone at uber agrees with you.
  - dekervin 5y ago
    Totally disagree with you. The parent you are referring to is framing the debate desingenously. Uber, and Uber insiders, are free to ponder all the intricacies and challenges of running Uber in its current form. As long as they recognize that drivers are not in practice independent contractors, with all ensuing legal consequences. If they still insist on saying drivers are independant contractors, none of their whining about "tragedy of the commons" is anybody's business. Just provide information to market participants.
    - lhorie 5y ago
      > If they still insist on saying drivers are independant contractors, none of their whining about "tragedy of the commons" is anybody's business You're confusing things a bit. Uber itself doesn't "whine" about tragedy of the commons, the other stakeholders (drivers and riders) are the ones who do. Also, for everyone going on about how Uber doesn't provide info upfront, and parroting the old drivers-should-be-employees clueless hot take, perhaps they missed this other recent article[0]: > The company says the new feature provides drivers with more transparency. They [drivers] see more details of a prospective ride before accepting it, such as the fare and pick-up and drop-off locations, which is something drivers say they’ve been asking for. In the past, most drivers wouldn’t receive this information until after they accepted a ride. So yes, Uber knows what drivers want and it wants to provide it to them, and it obviously has a vested interest in avoiding scenarios where drivers cannibalize themselves to death. What's not obvious to y'all outsiders is that Uber has to figure out all of the unspoken complexity and cleverness required to enable changes like this to be rolled out in a way that basically looks like what all the armchair analysts were saying it should have been done, without running into the previously known risks of rolling out such a thing. And even then, there's always some cherrypicky over-simplified scenario to bitch about (as the very article I linked to does). Everyone who keeps making statements that "Uber wants drivers to be employees it can rip off" fundamentally do not understand what they are talking about. As an insider, I don't owe it to anyone to "argue" with them. I can just inform them that I've heard from many other insiders that they think independent contractor status is a good thing (i.e. McDonalds FTE already exists and more options on top of that are always a good thing), that the implementation still has room for improvement, and that they want to make it better. [0] https://themarkup.org/working-for-an-algorithm/2022/03/01/secretive-algorithm-will-now-determine-uber-driver-pay-in-many-cities https://themarkup.org/working-for-an-algorithm/2022/03/01/se...