14 ms·
I will accept Uber's argument when they zero their own commission (or perhaps lower it to whatever it costs to keep the lights on) whenever surge pricing is in
by michaelochurch 13y ago
I will accept Uber's argument when they zero their own commission (or perhaps lower it to whatever it costs to keep the lights on) whenever surge pricing is in effect. Then they have the ability to say, "we're also suffering here". Right now, they make more money when surge pricing is in effect and, since I don't have a view into the algorithms, I can't rule out that they more aggressively surge-price than is reasonable. In fact, I'd believe it to be almost certain that they do.
It's the fact that Uber profits from misfortune (not surge pricing itself) that is making everyone hate them.
Ultimately it's about trade-offs, not absolutes. Is that 5x price hike saving me (compared to how long getting a cab would take) two hours, or 20 seconds? That would be worth knowing. If it's 2 hours, the supply-and-demand argument makes sense: apparently, that's how high the rates must go to compensate drivers for the unpleasantness. If it's 20 seconds, then that's a case of me getting screwed for a minor convenience priced unreasonably.
- al2o3cr 13y ago"If it's 20 seconds, then that's a case of me getting screwed for a minor convenience priced unreasonably." Wow, you must be REALLY fun to stand behind in line at the coffee shop. "WADDYA MEAN $3 FOR THIS COFFEE? I COULD HAVE MADE IT FOR 10 CENTS! WHY ARE YOU SCREWING ME?" For reference, "getting screwed" would be what was happening if surge pricing was applied when you got out of the cab without your knowledge - not a advertised-up-front price that you don't agree with.
- michaelochurch 13y agoUber's justification for surge pricing is that the waits for cabs would be unacceptably long without it. If it's cutting hours off what the wait time would be without surge pricing, then that claim is correct. If it's a 20-second difference then a reasonable person would disagree.
- ewang1 13y agoBut that doesn't matter. Uber provides a service, at a price they set. Those who don't want to pay the price can just find an alternative. It's not as if their mission is to provide some kind of community service. Lots of other businesses operate the same way.
- natrius 13y agoI'm confused as to why Uber's justification matters. If surge pricing seems unjust to you, don't pay surge prices. Use a competitor, like taxis or your bike.
- pbreit 13y agoThe "don't use it" argument drives me absolutely nuts. It's a terrible argument and extremely lazy.
- iansimon 13y agoWhy?
- AngrySkillzz 13y agoWhen there are few/no alternatives, or the cost (in terms of money, time, effort, anything) is significantly larger, it is a lazy argument. But that isn't the case here. Uber is a convenience service, and there are easily-found alternatives to it.
- seanmcdirmid 13y agoSurge pricing does two things: it decreases demand ("don't use it" as you say) and increases supply (by encouraging more drivers to work). If demand is not decreased, e.g. by increasing costs ("don't use it"), then services will be denied ("can't use it") because you can't pull something out of nothing! Given that you don't believe in the principle of supply and demand (or you think it is extremely lazy, as you said). How would you balance demand with supply in extreme situations? What is the non-lazy solution? I guess we could try: * Force more drivers to drive at the normal price to match demand (the totalitarian approach) * Ensure that there are enough drivers to meet peak demand through subsidies to get them through normal demand times. What else am I missing here?
- pbreit 13y agoThe phrase is normally used as an argument to "quit complaining". In fact, complaining is a perfectly valid behavior and a key way to influence other consumers as well as service providers.