7 ms·

There's a choice now, and it's arguable a fair choice. But if Uber puts heavily regulated cab companies out of business, the alternative disappears. That raises

by thenmar 13y ago

There's a choice now, and it's arguable a fair choice. But if Uber puts heavily regulated cab companies out of business, the alternative disappears. That raises some issues in emergency situations like bad weather. Transportation is to some extent a necessity - would you be in favor of stores selling water for $100 a bottle before a hurricane? That might be the price that the market decides but the result of that is people suffering simply because they weren't lucky to be born in the right family.

holograham 13y ago
you are missing the other half -- that high prices drive more market entrants. If the price of bottled Water is 100 dollars then more entrepreneurs will take the risk to transport bottled water to a hurricane prone area because of the profit incentive. This increase in market entrants would in turn drive down the costs to the point where the costs of transporting water to the area equals the ability of people to pay. If a business cannot profitably sell the water in the area then yes, humanitarian aid is probably needed short term (long term there probably needs to be analysis if the area is viable for humans to live in).
- metaphorm 13y ago
  > that high prices drive more market entrants citation needed. I know this is dogmatic in laissez faire capitalist philosophy, but its really not clear that this occurs in all real markets.
  - holograham 13y ago
    see my above comment on the law of supply and demand
    - metaphorm 13y ago
      I know the basic laws of supply and demand. that is EXACTLY what I mean by dogmatic. you're quoting textbook theory at me as if the doctrine is self proving and as if I'm some sort of idiot for questioning whether your textbook doctrine applies in real life situations. I'm asking you to consider whether or not your abstract economic theory is really operating as you expect it to in this situation. this is the real world we're talking about. its not a free market. its not a toy example in a text book. between naturally occurring inefficiencies, legal interventions, and unforeseen outside forces it is highly doubtful that basic supply/demand price effects can be thought to apply reliably as the textbook describes.
      - holograham 13y ago
        Fair point. I elaborated more above. Think we are missing each other's next move in the reply delay chain. Sure the real world is not a perfect free market. Regulations and laws can be a huge hinderance to new market entrants...Uber ironically has felt that pain a ton with local taxi unions and laws
  - holograham 13y ago
    I will further this a bit: there is a lag in new entrants that varies based on the industry (e.g. CapEx intensive industries need more time to ramp production). This clearly makes the case above (bottled water in disaster areas) even more of a red herring. Sometimes even the Red Cross has immense logistical trouble delivering supplies to catastrophe stricken areas. Obviously there is some need for humanitarian aid in the world (even in a purely free market society) General microeconomics holds that markets where suppliers are earning excess profit will be targeted by new market entrants for a piece of that action. You see that happen everyday. Dollar menus at fast food restaurants, pizza specials between dominos/papa johns/pizza hut, Lyft/Uber/Taxis, Andriod/iPhones, Kindle Fire/iPads, Amazon vs every supplier known to mankind, etc There are literally millions of real world examples of new market entrants seeking to cut costs for a increased share of a market. Amazon does this 2.5 million times a day apparently (source: http://qz.com/157828/amazon-changes-its-prices-more-than-2-5-million-times-a-day/ http://qz.com/157828/amazon-changes-its-prices-more-than-2-5...)
- holograham 13y ago
  This is economics 101. The law of Supply and Demand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand The four basic laws of supply and demand are: 1. If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price. 2. If demand decreases and supply remains unchanged, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price. 3. If demand remains unchanged and supply increases, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price. 4. If demand remains unchanged and supply decreases, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.
vdaniuk 13y ago
Nice red herring you've got there. Why didn't you compare cabs to emergency healthcare services? That would make your argument even stronger. /s
- thenmar 13y ago
  Obviously emergency healthcare services are more of a necessity than transportation, I thought I made that clear. But in what way is transportation nothing but a luxury? How do you get to your job, or to the store, or to the hospital if you can't afford an ambulance? Edit: I want to add that there are extremist types who think that if you can't afford emergency healthcare, you shouldn't get it. We may just fundamentally disagree about that. I think we need to use a combination of publicly funded services (yes, by taking money from the extremely wealthy) and regulation on basic necessities to ensure that everyone has access to a minimally dignified life.
guyzero 13y ago
It's not fair now, it's random. Random is not fair. Giving one person out of 100 chemotherapy isn't fair, especially if that person doesn't actually have cancer. Cabs, especially in constrained conditions, are essentially assigned randomly. Which is only fair for a fairly narrow definition of the word.
- d23 13y ago
  That's absolutely more fair than the poor getting screwed no matter what.
  - jowiar 13y ago
    I wrote a longer explanation elsewhere on this page, but the "getting screwed" in the current system falls on the drivers forced to offer their services at a sub-market rate.
    - d23 13y ago
      Oh, it's just ghastly that they can't gouge customers in times of public emergency.
  - guyzero 13y ago
    Poor people take cabs? I think this is only true for a broad definition of "poor". If Uber's proposition is that you can always get a car at some price then this seems like a good way to ensure availability. Not everyone values availability above all else. A lot of people are price-sensitive. At least Uber is transparent about it. And this isn't exactly food or healthcare where somebody is going to die for lack of a cab. Different markets require different amounts of regulation. Also, per a comment further down the thread, cabs already discriminate against the poor by simply not going to those parts of town. Presumably you can get an Uber pickup in the shittiest section of NYC.
    - d23 13y ago
      > Poor people take cabs? During a public emergency? Yes. Other than that, I think your arguments are valid and are a better point than "but they can't make egregious amounts of money off of others' pain and suffering, so it's them getting screwed".
bradleyjg 13y ago
At least in NY, there is no way in hell that Uber is going to put yellow cabs out of business. Not that yellow cabs are some kind of egalitarian paradise. They all congregate in the areas of Manhattan where the richest people live, work, and play. Good luck finding a yellow cab in e.g. East New York.
jowiar 13y ago
> But if Uber puts heavily regulated cab companies out of business, the alternative disappears. Then we're into antitrust territory, which is a totally different can of worms. > Would you be in favor of stores selling water for $100 a bottle before a hurricane? If this were to happen, it means that there was not enough water in the first place. What's the alternative? Allocate to whoever shows up in line first? Then people who don't want to risk waiting pays someone in the front of the line to buy them a bottle of non-subsidized water, and the price of water hits $100 anyway - it just goes to someone else. As an example of how this works, see ticket sales to high-demand events (Super Bowl, concerts, and the like). As an example of one strategy that works, one of the most important aspects of US Food policy is that we subsidize production so that food produced far beyond what would otherwise be the market-clearing price. This means that we don't have food shortages in times of disaster. One transportation-equivalent would be building a decent public transit system capable of mass evacuation.
- FireBeyond 13y ago
  We don't need to look to the Super Bowl for examples. When hurricanes hit, traditionally, stores DID (and arguably still do) gouge for essentials like water, gasoline, etc. To the point where the government was forced to intervene and prevent it.
johngalt 13y ago
Arguments like these always ignore any motivation of the person providing the products and services. If water is selling for $100/bottle you'll find a large number of people driving trucks full of water towards a disaster zone. If you regulate the price of water to 50 cents a bottle, those same people will stay home. You can call risk/reward decisions immoral all day, but it won't change reality. You think cab drivers will work for the same crap pay during a disaster?

by thenmar 13y ago

holograham 13y ago

you are missing the other half -- that high prices drive more market entrants. If the price of bottled Water is 100 dollars then more entrepreneurs will take the risk to transport bottled water to a hurricane prone area because of the profit incentive. This increase in market entrants would in turn drive down the costs to the point where the costs of transporting water to the area equals the ability of people to pay. If a business cannot profitably sell the water in the area then yes, humanitarian aid is probably needed short term (long term there probably needs to be analysis if the area is viable for humans to live in).

metaphorm 13y ago
> that high prices drive more market entrants citation needed. I know this is dogmatic in laissez faire capitalist philosophy, but its really not clear that this occurs in all real markets.
- holograham 13y ago
  see my above comment on the law of supply and demand
  - metaphorm 13y ago
    I know the basic laws of supply and demand. that is EXACTLY what I mean by dogmatic. you're quoting textbook theory at me as if the doctrine is self proving and as if I'm some sort of idiot for questioning whether your textbook doctrine applies in real life situations. I'm asking you to consider whether or not your abstract economic theory is really operating as you expect it to in this situation. this is the real world we're talking about. its not a free market. its not a toy example in a text book. between naturally occurring inefficiencies, legal interventions, and unforeseen outside forces it is highly doubtful that basic supply/demand price effects can be thought to apply reliably as the textbook describes.
    - holograham 13y ago
      Fair point. I elaborated more above. Think we are missing each other's next move in the reply delay chain. Sure the real world is not a perfect free market. Regulations and laws can be a huge hinderance to new market entrants...Uber ironically has felt that pain a ton with local taxi unions and laws
- holograham 13y ago
  I will further this a bit: there is a lag in new entrants that varies based on the industry (e.g. CapEx intensive industries need more time to ramp production). This clearly makes the case above (bottled water in disaster areas) even more of a red herring. Sometimes even the Red Cross has immense logistical trouble delivering supplies to catastrophe stricken areas. Obviously there is some need for humanitarian aid in the world (even in a purely free market society) General microeconomics holds that markets where suppliers are earning excess profit will be targeted by new market entrants for a piece of that action. You see that happen everyday. Dollar menus at fast food restaurants, pizza specials between dominos/papa johns/pizza hut, Lyft/Uber/Taxis, Andriod/iPhones, Kindle Fire/iPads, Amazon vs every supplier known to mankind, etc There are literally millions of real world examples of new market entrants seeking to cut costs for a increased share of a market. Amazon does this 2.5 million times a day apparently (source: http://qz.com/157828/amazon-changes-its-prices-more-than-2-5-million-times-a-day/ http://qz.com/157828/amazon-changes-its-prices-more-than-2-5...)
holograham 13y ago
This is economics 101. The law of Supply and Demand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand The four basic laws of supply and demand are: 1. If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price. 2. If demand decreases and supply remains unchanged, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price. 3. If demand remains unchanged and supply increases, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price. 4. If demand remains unchanged and supply decreases, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.

vdaniuk 13y ago

Nice red herring you've got there. Why didn't you compare cabs to emergency healthcare services? That would make your argument even stronger. /s

thenmar 13y ago
Obviously emergency healthcare services are more of a necessity than transportation, I thought I made that clear. But in what way is transportation nothing but a luxury? How do you get to your job, or to the store, or to the hospital if you can't afford an ambulance? Edit: I want to add that there are extremist types who think that if you can't afford emergency healthcare, you shouldn't get it. We may just fundamentally disagree about that. I think we need to use a combination of publicly funded services (yes, by taking money from the extremely wealthy) and regulation on basic necessities to ensure that everyone has access to a minimally dignified life.

guyzero 13y ago

It's not fair now, it's random. Random is not fair. Giving one person out of 100 chemotherapy isn't fair, especially if that person doesn't actually have cancer. Cabs, especially in constrained conditions, are essentially assigned randomly. Which is only fair for a fairly narrow definition of the word.

d23 13y ago
That's absolutely more fair than the poor getting screwed no matter what.
- jowiar 13y ago
  I wrote a longer explanation elsewhere on this page, but the "getting screwed" in the current system falls on the drivers forced to offer their services at a sub-market rate.
  - d23 13y ago
    Oh, it's just ghastly that they can't gouge customers in times of public emergency.
- guyzero 13y ago
  Poor people take cabs? I think this is only true for a broad definition of "poor". If Uber's proposition is that you can always get a car at some price then this seems like a good way to ensure availability. Not everyone values availability above all else. A lot of people are price-sensitive. At least Uber is transparent about it. And this isn't exactly food or healthcare where somebody is going to die for lack of a cab. Different markets require different amounts of regulation. Also, per a comment further down the thread, cabs already discriminate against the poor by simply not going to those parts of town. Presumably you can get an Uber pickup in the shittiest section of NYC.
  - d23 13y ago
    > Poor people take cabs? During a public emergency? Yes. Other than that, I think your arguments are valid and are a better point than "but they can't make egregious amounts of money off of others' pain and suffering, so it's them getting screwed".

bradleyjg 13y ago

At least in NY, there is no way in hell that Uber is going to put yellow cabs out of business. Not that yellow cabs are some kind of egalitarian paradise. They all congregate in the areas of Manhattan where the richest people live, work, and play. Good luck finding a yellow cab in e.g. East New York.

jowiar 13y ago

> But if Uber puts heavily regulated cab companies out of business, the alternative disappears. Then we're into antitrust territory, which is a totally different can of worms. > Would you be in favor of stores selling water for $100 a bottle before a hurricane? If this were to happen, it means that there was not enough water in the first place. What's the alternative? Allocate to whoever shows up in line first? Then people who don't want to risk waiting pays someone in the front of the line to buy them a bottle of non-subsidized water, and the price of water hits $100 anyway - it just goes to someone else. As an example of how this works, see ticket sales to high-demand events (Super Bowl, concerts, and the like). As an example of one strategy that works, one of the most important aspects of US Food policy is that we subsidize production so that food produced far beyond what would otherwise be the market-clearing price. This means that we don't have food shortages in times of disaster. One transportation-equivalent would be building a decent public transit system capable of mass evacuation.

FireBeyond 13y ago
We don't need to look to the Super Bowl for examples. When hurricanes hit, traditionally, stores DID (and arguably still do) gouge for essentials like water, gasoline, etc. To the point where the government was forced to intervene and prevent it.

johngalt 13y ago

Arguments like these always ignore any motivation of the person providing the products and services. If water is selling for $100/bottle you'll find a large number of people driving trucks full of water towards a disaster zone. If you regulate the price of water to 50 cents a bottle, those same people will stay home. You can call risk/reward decisions immoral all day, but it won't change reality. You think cab drivers will work for the same crap pay during a disaster?