6 ms·

This infuriates me beyond belief. How is Uber not in everybody's best interests? The end-user experience is clearly far superior, I can't find a soul who can ar

by ngoel36 13y ago

This infuriates me beyond belief. How is Uber not in everybody's best interests? The end-user experience is clearly far superior, I can't find a soul who can argue with that (except for the understandable price differential which will diminish with scale). I haven't personally talked to a driver for either service, but the experience for them has to be better. Uber, as a private company, can optimize for extraneous costs, ultimately leaving a larger margin to be paid to the drivers. But I digress, why make bold claims as to which is better, I just wish municipalities would let the free market decide. Let the boys play, goddammit. In a magical world where I could change all city cabs into Ubers, I can't imagine there would be too many complaints. The situation reminds me of local food merchants in my parents' hometown in India. They fucking hate Walmart, and they've got every city official in their pockets to make sure Walmart (or any large grocery store) ever lays a brick there. They hate the fact that Walmart will have lower, standardized prices; better, consistently fresh produce; well-trained, honest workers. They hate that Walmart might kill their business. What they don't realize is if they just went and worked for Walmart, their life might be better than it is while running their own shitty little tomato stand. Where they have to work their ass off all summer so their wives can buy a winter jacket. Where one little tomato pest can kill their entire crop, and in turn, their kid's chance of going to school that year. Where another tomato farmer can undercut their prices and move their cart next door whenever they want. It's a bummer that some people will always be resistant to change.

tptacek 13y ago
It's easy to show how Uber isn't in everyone's best interests: cabs are required to service well-defined metro areas at a standardized fare; in return for agreeing to operate under a set of regulations that makes them part of the transit fabric of a city, regulated cab services is granted a monopoly. That system doesn't work if cabs are forced to compete at a disadvantage with other services that don't operate under the same constraints.
- enoptix 13y ago
  For cab service, Uber rides are serviced by already existing metro cab companies. The Uber cabs in here in Chicago were already licensed cabs, but now they can get dispatched via Uber. How is that any different from say, a cab company deciding to dispatch its drivers with their own in-house iPhone app? Do you think that would that be allowed under these regulations?
  - untog 13y ago
    Uber Cab is a relatively new addition- when people discuss "Uber" they are usually referring to the black car service.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    The deal Chicago has with taxi cabs is that street hails are reserved for regulated medallion taxi cabs; in exchange for that, the medallion owners are required to maintain vehicles, insurance, and coverage areas, and are required to comply with the billing procedures set up by Chicago. Uber currently uses Chicago tax company drivers directly, but doesn't comply with the regulations the medallion owners are required to comply with --- for instance, Uber adds 20% to the fares, which is something cab companies can't do. Uber's defense for this is that using an iPhone to get a cab isn't a "street hail"; the cab companies argue that they're equivalent. We'll see who wins.
- andrewljohnson 13y ago
  You're right of course, in explaining how there are opposing interests. That said, do you think that these granted monopolies have turned out to be a flawed model, that Uber is proof that innovation has been stifled, and now it's just entrenched money holding back progress?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I think that Uber is an improvement for relatively well-off people, a direct no-op for poorer people, and a potential indirect harm to poorer people if Uber harms taxicab service by competing unfairly. I have no problem at all with Uber's black car service, but I think the taxi service is sketchy.
    - andrewljohnson 13y ago
      Wait, poor people take cabs? Isn't the primary cheap mode of transportation in a large city the bus and train system? That's got to be true for SF and NY at least. Uber is getting pretty cheap too, regardless. Example: my wife just caught a car to SFO from Berkeley for less than $80, and no tip. That's cheaper than a taxi, friendlier, you can call 10 minutes before you need the Uber, and track it to your door. A taxi would need to be reserved well in advance, would show up at an indeterminate time, the driver would be indeterminately sleepy, and you'd have to deal with tipping and credit cards. He might be smoking too, and if any of this happened with Uber, you'd leave a bad review. A few reviews, no more driver. Of course, a person on a budget is going to take BART or a shuttle.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        Yes, poor people take cabs.
        andrewljohnson 13y ago
        Then they are lucky Uber exists. Don't believe in your purported indirect harm, do believe in downward price pressure, and upward quality pressure.
- baddox 13y ago
  If there is sufficient demand for a competing service that puts taxis at a disadvantage, doesn't that indicate a government failure (i.e. the flip side of a market failure)? I would think that indicates that the constraints on taxis are too tight and/or their prices are too high.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    No. For instance, it might be more lucrative to operate a cab company that refuses to service North Lawndale and Englewood in Chicago. The company that provides such restricted service competes at an advantage against those companies who comply with the regulations. That doesn't mean there's a market failure, unless you think "universal coverage" is itself fundamentally a market failure because the free market doesn't "want" to serve Englewood.
    - baddox 13y ago
      I don't think that having different transit prices in different regions is itself a market failure. I disagree with the implication that the only two options are universal same-price coverage and certain regions having no service. The regions you mentioned (which I'm assuming are either rough or remote) would most likely simply have higher prices than downtown areas.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        I understand why you disagree with the decision city legislatures have made to enforce universal same-price coverage. My only point is that these decisions don't necessarily boil down to special interest protections.
        baddox 13y ago
        When government has the ability to regulate certain industries, that ability will be utilized by participants of those industries for their own benefit, unless there is a process in place which prevents that. I suspect such a process to be impossible, but that's a separate argument. What's clear is that the process currently does not exist. Thus the distinction between government action that is truly "for the people" and government action was "serves special interests" is mostly nonexistent. There can certainly be overlap, but at the end of the day all government action will be sold as being for the people simply because of the supposedly representative nature of our government (essentially, the government's argument is "you occasionally get to vote, and you haven't overthrown us yet, therefore all of our actions are justified and are in your best interest, and by the way, if you try to overthrow or even disobey us we will kill you and use this same argument to justify that"). I don't think of "special interests" as something conspiratorial or even surprising, but rather obvious and inevitable. Just like any effective craftsman will use every tool at his or her disposal (at least, every tool that will not be widely perceived as unethical/immoral/illegitimate), so will an effective businessperson, and government (being the only organization that can initiate violence without being widely perceived as unethical/immoral/illegitimate) is just another of those tools.
citricsquid 13y ago
The problem is doing this (ending regulation, allowing uber and any other company to operate in any way they decide) may work in the short term with uber in its current form but long term the effects COULD be disastrous, uber is going to evolve and may evolve into something that does not work as well as it does now, which could cripple a lot of American cities. I visited an American city and wanted to get a burger, we had to take a cab just to get a burger! If you were a city that had a dependence on cabs would you be willing to risk it all? The current system might not be perfect but is it worth sacrificing for something that nobody knows how it will work in the long term? That might work for a startup... but does it work for local government?
- kkowalczyk 13y ago
  No one is making an argument that Uber should be allowed to "operate in any way they decide". Currently the problem is that they are forbidden from operating at all. The reason are usually violations of stupid laws (e.g. Uber collects payments via an app but the law of a given city says you can't do that) or because new laws (that didn't exist yesterday) are introduced to specifically kill Uber business model. Uber, as a business, is already subject to many laws and regulations, just like any other business. It also complies with town car service laws specific to transportation companies. The battle today is about nullifying stupid laws that serve no other purpose than to protect taxi companies from competition from Uber. Finally, saying "the new way is better today, but who know if it's going to be better tomorrow", without even hinting at what possible problem can be, is fear mongering, not an argument.
thwest 13y ago
You know that Walmart aggressively optimizes to reduce the amount it pays its workers: keeping everyone at 39.5 hours to avoid paying benefits and using social norms as an excuse to consistently pay women less than men? And you think it is a bummer that people are resistant to those changes? They are small business owners and you are asking them to trade in their autonomy for someone else's profits. Sounds like a decision they are capable of making on their own.
mcmatterson 13y ago
> How is Uber not in everybody's best interests? Poor and elderly people, for a start. Spend a bit of time by the entrance to a major hospital and observe how the other half uses taxis as a lifeline; you might just change your tune. It may come as a surprise to many people here, but taxis aren't just there to transport privileged rich folks to and from parties. They're an integral part of any well functioning city's transportation system, and handing the keys over in the name of disruption is naive at best and outright dangerous to some of society's most vulnerable populations at worst. Disclaimer: as a card carrying member of the privileged elite, I've used Uber in the past and will probably do so in the future. I'm merely trying to point out that the taxi industry doesn't exist in a vacuum.
- ngoel36 13y ago
  The poor and elderly have some finite amount of money that they have allocated to spend on public transportation, right? Perhaps it's a bit ideal, but Uber has already successfully penetrated a new customer stratification with Uber Cab...what's to stop it from doing so again -- whether it be via a more cost-effective Uber Cab, an "Uber Rickshaw" service (mostly kidding), or even a government subsidy (an amount to be added to municipal welfare budget, yet still far smaller than the inefficiency cost of a municipal taxi system) to service poorer customers at an affordable price?
- kkowalczyk 13y ago
  This argument assumes two things: * Uber will wipe-out taxi business while being more expensive * Uber will always be more expensive than taxis Neither is true so conclusion cannot be true either. If Uber is more expensive than taxis and there's demand for a cheaper alternative, there will still be demand for taxis. Maybe less than today, but as long as demand is there, the taxis will be there. But this point is moot, because Uber (or someone else) has a chance to be cheaper. UberX is already cheaper than Uber and they just announced up to 25% fare reductions on UberX in SF, to compete with Lyft and SideCar, which, I believe, are already cheaper than taxis. What is in the interest of everybody (rich, poor, young, elderly) is more competition. Uber is competing with taxis, hopefully forcing them to improve their service. Lyft and SideCar are competing mostly on price. The only losers from this competition are existing taxi companies, and that's exactly how it's supposed to work: people benefit when new entrants provide better service or the same service at a cheaper price.
steven777400 13y ago
Wow. Would you also say to someone struggling to make a software business work that they should just give up and go work for Microsoft? These tomato stands might be shitty, but they keep the vast majority of the wealth of the community IN the community, instead of siphoning it out like a major multi-national would do.
- ngoel36 13y ago
  Not at all. I'm struggling to make a software business work. And I used to work for Microsoft. The difference is that I don't hate Microsoft, I want to be the next Microsoft (to some degree). And eventually, if the opportunity cost (Microsoft salary) continues to outweigh the living I make from a business of my own, then I have two choices: continue to struggle or be better. Either way, bitching at Microsoft or trying to bring them down to my level solves nothing.
schiffern 13y ago
> if they just went and worked for Walmart All of them? So Walmart will employ just as many people while paying them more and simultaneously offering lower prices?

by ngoel36 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

It's easy to show how Uber isn't in everyone's best interests: cabs are required to service well-defined metro areas at a standardized fare; in return for agreeing to operate under a set of regulations that makes them part of the transit fabric of a city, regulated cab services is granted a monopoly. That system doesn't work if cabs are forced to compete at a disadvantage with other services that don't operate under the same constraints.

enoptix 13y ago
For cab service, Uber rides are serviced by already existing metro cab companies. The Uber cabs in here in Chicago were already licensed cabs, but now they can get dispatched via Uber. How is that any different from say, a cab company deciding to dispatch its drivers with their own in-house iPhone app? Do you think that would that be allowed under these regulations?
- untog 13y ago
  Uber Cab is a relatively new addition- when people discuss "Uber" they are usually referring to the black car service.
- tptacek 13y ago
  The deal Chicago has with taxi cabs is that street hails are reserved for regulated medallion taxi cabs; in exchange for that, the medallion owners are required to maintain vehicles, insurance, and coverage areas, and are required to comply with the billing procedures set up by Chicago. Uber currently uses Chicago tax company drivers directly, but doesn't comply with the regulations the medallion owners are required to comply with --- for instance, Uber adds 20% to the fares, which is something cab companies can't do. Uber's defense for this is that using an iPhone to get a cab isn't a "street hail"; the cab companies argue that they're equivalent. We'll see who wins.
andrewljohnson 13y ago
You're right of course, in explaining how there are opposing interests. That said, do you think that these granted monopolies have turned out to be a flawed model, that Uber is proof that innovation has been stifled, and now it's just entrenched money holding back progress?
- tptacek 13y ago
  I think that Uber is an improvement for relatively well-off people, a direct no-op for poorer people, and a potential indirect harm to poorer people if Uber harms taxicab service by competing unfairly. I have no problem at all with Uber's black car service, but I think the taxi service is sketchy.
  - andrewljohnson 13y ago
    Wait, poor people take cabs? Isn't the primary cheap mode of transportation in a large city the bus and train system? That's got to be true for SF and NY at least. Uber is getting pretty cheap too, regardless. Example: my wife just caught a car to SFO from Berkeley for less than $80, and no tip. That's cheaper than a taxi, friendlier, you can call 10 minutes before you need the Uber, and track it to your door. A taxi would need to be reserved well in advance, would show up at an indeterminate time, the driver would be indeterminately sleepy, and you'd have to deal with tipping and credit cards. He might be smoking too, and if any of this happened with Uber, you'd leave a bad review. A few reviews, no more driver. Of course, a person on a budget is going to take BART or a shuttle.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Yes, poor people take cabs.
      - andrewljohnson 13y ago
        Then they are lucky Uber exists. Don't believe in your purported indirect harm, do believe in downward price pressure, and upward quality pressure.
baddox 13y ago
If there is sufficient demand for a competing service that puts taxis at a disadvantage, doesn't that indicate a government failure (i.e. the flip side of a market failure)? I would think that indicates that the constraints on taxis are too tight and/or their prices are too high.
- tptacek 13y ago
  No. For instance, it might be more lucrative to operate a cab company that refuses to service North Lawndale and Englewood in Chicago. The company that provides such restricted service competes at an advantage against those companies who comply with the regulations. That doesn't mean there's a market failure, unless you think "universal coverage" is itself fundamentally a market failure because the free market doesn't "want" to serve Englewood.
  - baddox 13y ago
    I don't think that having different transit prices in different regions is itself a market failure. I disagree with the implication that the only two options are universal same-price coverage and certain regions having no service. The regions you mentioned (which I'm assuming are either rough or remote) would most likely simply have higher prices than downtown areas.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I understand why you disagree with the decision city legislatures have made to enforce universal same-price coverage. My only point is that these decisions don't necessarily boil down to special interest protections.
      - baddox 13y ago
        When government has the ability to regulate certain industries, that ability will be utilized by participants of those industries for their own benefit, unless there is a process in place which prevents that. I suspect such a process to be impossible, but that's a separate argument. What's clear is that the process currently does not exist. Thus the distinction between government action that is truly "for the people" and government action was "serves special interests" is mostly nonexistent. There can certainly be overlap, but at the end of the day all government action will be sold as being for the people simply because of the supposedly representative nature of our government (essentially, the government's argument is "you occasionally get to vote, and you haven't overthrown us yet, therefore all of our actions are justified and are in your best interest, and by the way, if you try to overthrow or even disobey us we will kill you and use this same argument to justify that"). I don't think of "special interests" as something conspiratorial or even surprising, but rather obvious and inevitable. Just like any effective craftsman will use every tool at his or her disposal (at least, every tool that will not be widely perceived as unethical/immoral/illegitimate), so will an effective businessperson, and government (being the only organization that can initiate violence without being widely perceived as unethical/immoral/illegitimate) is just another of those tools.

citricsquid 13y ago

The problem is doing this (ending regulation, allowing uber and any other company to operate in any way they decide) may work in the short term with uber in its current form but long term the effects COULD be disastrous, uber is going to evolve and may evolve into something that does not work as well as it does now, which could cripple a lot of American cities. I visited an American city and wanted to get a burger, we had to take a cab just to get a burger! If you were a city that had a dependence on cabs would you be willing to risk it all? The current system might not be perfect but is it worth sacrificing for something that nobody knows how it will work in the long term? That might work for a startup... but does it work for local government?

kkowalczyk 13y ago
No one is making an argument that Uber should be allowed to "operate in any way they decide". Currently the problem is that they are forbidden from operating at all. The reason are usually violations of stupid laws (e.g. Uber collects payments via an app but the law of a given city says you can't do that) or because new laws (that didn't exist yesterday) are introduced to specifically kill Uber business model. Uber, as a business, is already subject to many laws and regulations, just like any other business. It also complies with town car service laws specific to transportation companies. The battle today is about nullifying stupid laws that serve no other purpose than to protect taxi companies from competition from Uber. Finally, saying "the new way is better today, but who know if it's going to be better tomorrow", without even hinting at what possible problem can be, is fear mongering, not an argument.

thwest 13y ago

You know that Walmart aggressively optimizes to reduce the amount it pays its workers: keeping everyone at 39.5 hours to avoid paying benefits and using social norms as an excuse to consistently pay women less than men? And you think it is a bummer that people are resistant to those changes? They are small business owners and you are asking them to trade in their autonomy for someone else's profits. Sounds like a decision they are capable of making on their own.

mcmatterson 13y ago

> How is Uber not in everybody's best interests? Poor and elderly people, for a start. Spend a bit of time by the entrance to a major hospital and observe how the other half uses taxis as a lifeline; you might just change your tune. It may come as a surprise to many people here, but taxis aren't just there to transport privileged rich folks to and from parties. They're an integral part of any well functioning city's transportation system, and handing the keys over in the name of disruption is naive at best and outright dangerous to some of society's most vulnerable populations at worst. Disclaimer: as a card carrying member of the privileged elite, I've used Uber in the past and will probably do so in the future. I'm merely trying to point out that the taxi industry doesn't exist in a vacuum.

ngoel36 13y ago
The poor and elderly have some finite amount of money that they have allocated to spend on public transportation, right? Perhaps it's a bit ideal, but Uber has already successfully penetrated a new customer stratification with Uber Cab...what's to stop it from doing so again -- whether it be via a more cost-effective Uber Cab, an "Uber Rickshaw" service (mostly kidding), or even a government subsidy (an amount to be added to municipal welfare budget, yet still far smaller than the inefficiency cost of a municipal taxi system) to service poorer customers at an affordable price?
kkowalczyk 13y ago
This argument assumes two things: * Uber will wipe-out taxi business while being more expensive * Uber will always be more expensive than taxis Neither is true so conclusion cannot be true either. If Uber is more expensive than taxis and there's demand for a cheaper alternative, there will still be demand for taxis. Maybe less than today, but as long as demand is there, the taxis will be there. But this point is moot, because Uber (or someone else) has a chance to be cheaper. UberX is already cheaper than Uber and they just announced up to 25% fare reductions on UberX in SF, to compete with Lyft and SideCar, which, I believe, are already cheaper than taxis. What is in the interest of everybody (rich, poor, young, elderly) is more competition. Uber is competing with taxis, hopefully forcing them to improve their service. Lyft and SideCar are competing mostly on price. The only losers from this competition are existing taxi companies, and that's exactly how it's supposed to work: people benefit when new entrants provide better service or the same service at a cheaper price.

steven777400 13y ago

Wow. Would you also say to someone struggling to make a software business work that they should just give up and go work for Microsoft? These tomato stands might be shitty, but they keep the vast majority of the wealth of the community IN the community, instead of siphoning it out like a major multi-national would do.

ngoel36 13y ago
Not at all. I'm struggling to make a software business work. And I used to work for Microsoft. The difference is that I don't hate Microsoft, I want to be the next Microsoft (to some degree). And eventually, if the opportunity cost (Microsoft salary) continues to outweigh the living I make from a business of my own, then I have two choices: continue to struggle or be better. Either way, bitching at Microsoft or trying to bring them down to my level solves nothing.

schiffern 13y ago

> if they just went and worked for Walmart All of them? So Walmart will employ just as many people while paying them more and simultaneously offering lower prices?