4 ms·

There's two issues here. First is the supply-demand balance, which several commenters have addressed (would you rather have bottled water cost $5 a bottle durin

by mlchild 14y ago

There's two issues here. First is the supply-demand balance, which several commenters have addressed (would you rather have bottled water cost $5 a bottle during Sandy or not be able to find any bottled water because "gouging" law kept it at $1?). The second is that studies of cab drivers during rainstorms show that cabbies set a goal for daily earnings, and then leave the streets once they hit the goal (causing supply constraints). Would be interesting to see if uber has been able to address that psychological response in any way (tweaked incentives that give an additional bonus for driving more per month, rather than per day, for example).

corford 14y ago
>would you rather have bottled water cost $5 a bottle during Sandy or not be able to find any bottled water because "gouging" law kept it at $1? If I had the $5 I'd rather they gouge me. On the other hand, if I had only $1 at least there's a chance I could get a bottle if the price stayed at $1. To me, the supply and demand argument seems to ultimately boil down to a simple survival of the fittest scenario where "fittest" is determined by wealth. Ethical me hates that (at least for essential goods like water, food, fuel). But selfish, "I've just survived a major natural disaster and need some f*ing water!" me wouldn't have a problem with gouging. Tricky!