3 ms·

I lean very heavily socialist, but I can't see how anyone would benefit from there being no cars available. Actually, I recall just such an occasion, in Dublin

by pbiggar 14y ago

I lean very heavily socialist, but I can't see how anyone would benefit from there being no cars available. Actually, I recall just such an occasion, in Dublin at 4am New Years eve when there was a surprise snowfall. Tens of thousands of people in the city center, taxis weren't running, buses weren't running, and there was no way for many to get home. The worst I saw was girls in skimpy dresses holding their heels in their hands as they walked a few miles home in the snow and ice. They would have been glad to be "gouged" for a taxi.

rprospero 14y ago
As a supporter of price gouging laws, the idea isn't that there should be no cars. No one expects UberCar to look at the situation, say "We're losing $X million per day. Oh well." and keep sending cars out on the street. The plan for price gouging laws is for Uber to say "We're losing $X million per day and our Hurricane insurance will pay out $Y million. This will leave us $Z million ahead." The problem is that, for Uber, Y = 0. Under the price gouging model, every company would be charging extra on a daily basis outside of emergencies to either buy insurance or build a safety fund to use during disasters. Instead of gouging some guy $100 after a hurricane, Uber is expected to gouge everyone 25¢ year round. This slows the economy during the good times, but keeps things running smoothly in the bad. Whether or not this is a good model is freely debately, but that's how it was intended to work.
- pbiggar 14y ago
  Uber don't control the cars or employ the drivers, and can't force their drivers to be out on the street. They have a very good mechanism for ensuring supply during high demand: allow their drivers to charge more. I see that it would be possible for them to have a hurricane fund which they would use to encourage the drivers to come out, but I don't think its fair to expect them to have expected this. To be honest, I don't see this as gouging. Its a 2-sided marketplace, and there are pretty simple economics at play.

by pbiggar 14y ago

rprospero 14y ago

As a supporter of price gouging laws, the idea isn't that there should be no cars. No one expects UberCar to look at the situation, say "We're losing $X million per day. Oh well." and keep sending cars out on the street. The plan for price gouging laws is for Uber to say "We're losing $X million per day and our Hurricane insurance will pay out $Y million. This will leave us $Z million ahead." The problem is that, for Uber, Y = 0. Under the price gouging model, every company would be charging extra on a daily basis outside of emergencies to either buy insurance or build a safety fund to use during disasters. Instead of gouging some guy $100 after a hurricane, Uber is expected to gouge everyone 25¢ year round. This slows the economy during the good times, but keeps things running smoothly in the bad. Whether or not this is a good model is freely debately, but that's how it was intended to work.

pbiggar 14y ago
Uber don't control the cars or employ the drivers, and can't force their drivers to be out on the street. They have a very good mechanism for ensuring supply during high demand: allow their drivers to charge more. I see that it would be possible for them to have a hurricane fund which they would use to encourage the drivers to come out, but I don't think its fair to expect them to have expected this. To be honest, I don't see this as gouging. Its a 2-sided marketplace, and there are pretty simple economics at play.