3 ms·

I think I agree with you in this case, but I'm not so sure about a lot of the examples given in that linked article. BHH Labs: pretty obvious to me it's ethica

I think I agree with you in this case, but I'm not so sure about a lot of the examples given in that linked article. BHH Labs: pretty obvious to me it's ethically wrong to find the most desperate people around and pay them less than minimum wage to staff your event... Uber: yes there was a need here, yes the experience offered by traditional taxis is awful and their service is strictly better where available, that really is not related to the ethical concerns I have with them. They're cheaper because they underpay drivers, and quite often they'll come into an area and drive out all the taxis then all but disappear themselves, leaving the town with zero practical transport options.

some_random 2y ago
I actually agree with you on BHH Labs but for a completely different reason. We have minimum wage laws for a reason, and by working for less than that they were undercutting other people's labor. Without that externality I don't really see an issue with it. Underpaying drivers is not part of the Uber discussion here whatsoever, they're specifically talking about raising prices for inclement weather to incentivize more drivers to accommodate more passengers. If they're paid $10 vs $11 an hour or $100 vs $110 an hour is irrelevant for discussing the ethics in this case.
- xelamonster 2y ago
  I'm a bit unclear what you're trying to say re BHH or if that actually is a different reason. Totally fair point on Uber though, I didn't read that one closely enough, but I'll still argue that's unethical for a more relevant reason: surge pricing reinforces inequality by blocking less wealthy people from access to services while those who can afford it are unaffected. The distribution of who is able to use the service under heavy demand is massively skewed towards the class of people that most likely would be just fine without it while the ones most heavily impacted by a missed appointment or being late to work or whatever are the ones left out to dry.
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> They're cheaper because they underpay drivers I don't really get this one. If you drive for Uber, you're going to have a pretty good idea what you're getting paid, and if you don't like that amount then you're under no obligation to keep doing it. People like to do the math on this using some kind of midsized SUV getting 20ish MPG and that will need major repairs before 150k miles, whereas the people doing it sensibly are using full electric cars or 50 MPG hybrids from reliable makes that will do 500k miles, for which the math is very different. There are also people who do it part time and thereby have very different costs because they're e.g. accepting rides for trips that they themselves would have made alone regardless. These people are not being "underpaid", they're getting nearly free money. And when everybody knows the deal ahead of time -- or can reasonably have figured it out within a week -- how can they be underpaying people (i.e. paying them less than competing employers) and yet people still choose to do it? Unless it's not as bad a deal as it's made out to be for those people. > then all but disappear themselves, leaving the town with zero practical transport options. Do they leave or are they forced out? Because it's an app; it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to leave for no reason.
- freeone3000 2y ago
  Uber offers higher rates when moving into an area, sometimes the point of making a loss per ride. Once an area is established, they cut rates to drivers. Obviously, the drivers make the rational decision you’ve outlined above; but the taxi companies don’t come back.
  - LewisVerstappen 2y ago
    Again that's not how it works. It's a two-sided marketplace. > the drivers make the rational decision you’ve outlined above Okay... then the rates for drivers will automatically go up again since there's there'll be a mismatch between drivers & riders.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      Not only that, how would the proposed alternative make any sense for Uber? They spend a lot of money to undercut the taxi companies, only to abandon the market as soon as they have no competition? The predatory practice would be to raise prices at that point, not to abandon the market, but they can't even do that very much because then they'd be undercut by Lyft or the taxi companies actually would come back.
kortilla 2y ago
Don’t distract this thread with a shit tier “Uber sux” analysis. Cabs were completely unusable in most cities before Uber unless you were staying at a hotel where they hung out. They also paid their drivers as poorly as Uber does and the benefit just went to the owner instead of Uber. It’s not like cabbies were specially trained. Taxis were more expensive because they were so fucking shitty that the 5 fares a day a car would get had to cover the expenses. >leaving the town with zero practical transport options. Again, taxis were not practical before. It was more reliable to beg strangers at a bar for a ride home than to get a cab to show up in the 90s.
- xelamonster 2y ago
  I'm not sure where you got the idea my post was claiming taxis were superior in any way, I explicitly said Uber was better. Taxis weren't practical but they at least they existed. I have lived in cities that used to have taxis which were annoying and unreliable, but after Uber came and left there was literally no way at all to get from point A to point B without getting a ride from a friend. Regardless I will admit I misread the issue stated in the article a bit and addressed that more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42097052 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42097052
  - rangestransform 2y ago
    Did uber leave or did your city scare them off
- Rapzid 2y ago
  In Texas most times I called a cab I expected them to never come. Only exception was scheduled airport rides a day or more in advance.
  - 20after4 2y ago
    Yep, and that scheduled ride costs $100
dang 2y ago
(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42096116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42096116. Not that what you posted was bad, it just led to an offtopic tangent.)

some_random 2y ago

I actually agree with you on BHH Labs but for a completely different reason. We have minimum wage laws for a reason, and by working for less than that they were undercutting other people's labor. Without that externality I don't really see an issue with it. Underpaying drivers is not part of the Uber discussion here whatsoever, they're specifically talking about raising prices for inclement weather to incentivize more drivers to accommodate more passengers. If they're paid $10 vs $11 an hour or $100 vs $110 an hour is irrelevant for discussing the ethics in this case.

xelamonster 2y ago
I'm a bit unclear what you're trying to say re BHH or if that actually is a different reason. Totally fair point on Uber though, I didn't read that one closely enough, but I'll still argue that's unethical for a more relevant reason: surge pricing reinforces inequality by blocking less wealthy people from access to services while those who can afford it are unaffected. The distribution of who is able to use the service under heavy demand is massively skewed towards the class of people that most likely would be just fine without it while the ones most heavily impacted by a missed appointment or being late to work or whatever are the ones left out to dry.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> They're cheaper because they underpay drivers I don't really get this one. If you drive for Uber, you're going to have a pretty good idea what you're getting paid, and if you don't like that amount then you're under no obligation to keep doing it. People like to do the math on this using some kind of midsized SUV getting 20ish MPG and that will need major repairs before 150k miles, whereas the people doing it sensibly are using full electric cars or 50 MPG hybrids from reliable makes that will do 500k miles, for which the math is very different. There are also people who do it part time and thereby have very different costs because they're e.g. accepting rides for trips that they themselves would have made alone regardless. These people are not being "underpaid", they're getting nearly free money. And when everybody knows the deal ahead of time -- or can reasonably have figured it out within a week -- how can they be underpaying people (i.e. paying them less than competing employers) and yet people still choose to do it? Unless it's not as bad a deal as it's made out to be for those people. > then all but disappear themselves, leaving the town with zero practical transport options. Do they leave or are they forced out? Because it's an app; it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to leave for no reason.

freeone3000 2y ago
Uber offers higher rates when moving into an area, sometimes the point of making a loss per ride. Once an area is established, they cut rates to drivers. Obviously, the drivers make the rational decision you’ve outlined above; but the taxi companies don’t come back.
- LewisVerstappen 2y ago
  Again that's not how it works. It's a two-sided marketplace. > the drivers make the rational decision you’ve outlined above Okay... then the rates for drivers will automatically go up again since there's there'll be a mismatch between drivers & riders.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    Not only that, how would the proposed alternative make any sense for Uber? They spend a lot of money to undercut the taxi companies, only to abandon the market as soon as they have no competition? The predatory practice would be to raise prices at that point, not to abandon the market, but they can't even do that very much because then they'd be undercut by Lyft or the taxi companies actually would come back.

kortilla 2y ago

Don’t distract this thread with a shit tier “Uber sux” analysis. Cabs were completely unusable in most cities before Uber unless you were staying at a hotel where they hung out. They also paid their drivers as poorly as Uber does and the benefit just went to the owner instead of Uber. It’s not like cabbies were specially trained. Taxis were more expensive because they were so fucking shitty that the 5 fares a day a car would get had to cover the expenses. >leaving the town with zero practical transport options. Again, taxis were not practical before. It was more reliable to beg strangers at a bar for a ride home than to get a cab to show up in the 90s.

xelamonster 2y ago
I'm not sure where you got the idea my post was claiming taxis were superior in any way, I explicitly said Uber was better. Taxis weren't practical but they at least they existed. I have lived in cities that used to have taxis which were annoying and unreliable, but after Uber came and left there was literally no way at all to get from point A to point B without getting a ride from a friend. Regardless I will admit I misread the issue stated in the article a bit and addressed that more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42097052 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42097052
- rangestransform 2y ago
  Did uber leave or did your city scare them off
Rapzid 2y ago
In Texas most times I called a cab I expected them to never come. Only exception was scheduled airport rides a day or more in advance.
- 20after4 2y ago
  Yep, and that scheduled ride costs $100

dang 2y ago

(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42096116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42096116. Not that what you posted was bad, it just led to an offtopic tangent.)