4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThat's absolutely more fair than the poor getting screwed no matter what.
- jowiar 13y agoI 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 agoOh, it's just ghastly that they can't gouge customers in times of public emergency.
- guyzero 13y agoPoor 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".