5 ms·

Fuck, I sincerely hope our generation (early-mid 20s) do not react like crusty sheltered curmudgeons in 15-30 years when they occupy these positions of power an

Fuck, I sincerely hope our generation (early-mid 20s) do not react like crusty sheltered curmudgeons in 15-30 years when they occupy these positions of power and are confronted with something they've never seen before. I'm not too hopeful though. One of the few constants in life is that while individually people may change, groups of them rarely do.

riggins 13y ago
of course existing companies are going to fight back by any means possible. You can't expect them to lay down a carpet for Uber.
rmc 13y ago
Highly likely. Remember what happened when the 1960s generation of free love and drugs got in power and legalised weed, and promoted sex? Yeah me either
- cle 13y ago
  Maybe our perception of the 1960s generation is a good example of the spotlight fallacy.
- yardie 13y ago
  You highly overestimate the influence that hippies had on the day to day of that era. Those guys are still into free love and weed. They just do it from inside the safety of their communes.
- benched 13y ago
  That's like expecting the goth subculture to result in more eyeliner in congress one day.
dclowd9901 13y ago
I think it's likely that there is a correlation between the longevity of a person, and their level of conservativeness. Wouldn't surprise me if most older people are, by nature, pretty restrictive.
rayiner 13y ago
I hope "your generation" at some point realizes that the challenges facing Uber don't stem from "opposition to the new." People aren't shocked and confused by the sheer novelty and innovation of being able to call a cab with a phone. They're reacting to companies trampling over settled expectations and compromises. Municipalities created these regulated taxi systems, and used monopoly status as a carrot in return for imposing regulation. If they let Uber and Lyft come in and skim the cream off the top of the market, without having to follow those same regulations, they would be failing to hold up their end of the bargain. This isn't empty scolding. As "software eats the world" and tech companies start trying to compete in "meat space" industries, it will be imperative for them to understand why things are done the way they are, and how fruitful progress can be made without creating unnecessary friction by simply ignoring settled expectations. People won't react well to someone just plucking the onion out of the varnish unless he can demonstrate that he understands why the onion was in there to begin with, and articulate convincingly why it no longer needs to be in there. I totally agree that the structural compromise that led to taxi monopolies need to be revisited. But not because Uber and Lyft change the market dynamics in any relevant way. These monopolies need to be revisited because highly regulated markets like that have proven to become a liability over time, and the deregulation experiment in the U.S. over the last few decades has shown that lightly-regulated markets function better.
- dbingham 13y ago
  I was with you right up until the last sentence. I do not think it is fair to say that "the deregulation experiment has shown that lightly regulated markets function better". This is how we wound up with the 2008 crash, the ascendency of finance and the absurd wealth gap we currently have.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Historically in the U.S., "regulation" implied heavy-handed measures like rate setting, price controls, capacity setting, market segmentation, granting monopolies, etc. Scaling back those measures has been very successful. For example, deregulation of freight and airlines in the 1970's allowed the modern integrated delivery networks that make Amazon possible. The trend since then has been to avoid these particularly heavy-handed and market-distorting sorts of measures. I don't think even proponents of heavier banking regulations espouse regulating banks in the way we say regulated passenger railroads (which killed them). In the context of cabs, a "lightly regulated" regime might require background checks, minimum insurance, and some sort of mechanism for verifying driver identity and reporting problems. Variables like rates, capacity, coverage area, etc, could be left to the market.
BrainInAJar 13y ago
> confronted with something they've never seen before But we have seen it before, these are just illegal unlicensed cabs. There is literally nothing separating Uber from an illegal cab, except that they've got an app for that.

riggins 13y ago

of course existing companies are going to fight back by any means possible. You can't expect them to lay down a carpet for Uber.

rmc 13y ago

Highly likely. Remember what happened when the 1960s generation of free love and drugs got in power and legalised weed, and promoted sex? Yeah me either

cle 13y ago
Maybe our perception of the 1960s generation is a good example of the spotlight fallacy.
yardie 13y ago
You highly overestimate the influence that hippies had on the day to day of that era. Those guys are still into free love and weed. They just do it from inside the safety of their communes.
benched 13y ago
That's like expecting the goth subculture to result in more eyeliner in congress one day.

dclowd9901 13y ago

I think it's likely that there is a correlation between the longevity of a person, and their level of conservativeness. Wouldn't surprise me if most older people are, by nature, pretty restrictive.

rayiner 13y ago

I hope "your generation" at some point realizes that the challenges facing Uber don't stem from "opposition to the new." People aren't shocked and confused by the sheer novelty and innovation of being able to call a cab with a phone. They're reacting to companies trampling over settled expectations and compromises. Municipalities created these regulated taxi systems, and used monopoly status as a carrot in return for imposing regulation. If they let Uber and Lyft come in and skim the cream off the top of the market, without having to follow those same regulations, they would be failing to hold up their end of the bargain. This isn't empty scolding. As "software eats the world" and tech companies start trying to compete in "meat space" industries, it will be imperative for them to understand why things are done the way they are, and how fruitful progress can be made without creating unnecessary friction by simply ignoring settled expectations. People won't react well to someone just plucking the onion out of the varnish unless he can demonstrate that he understands why the onion was in there to begin with, and articulate convincingly why it no longer needs to be in there. I totally agree that the structural compromise that led to taxi monopolies need to be revisited. But not because Uber and Lyft change the market dynamics in any relevant way. These monopolies need to be revisited because highly regulated markets like that have proven to become a liability over time, and the deregulation experiment in the U.S. over the last few decades has shown that lightly-regulated markets function better.

dbingham 13y ago
I was with you right up until the last sentence. I do not think it is fair to say that "the deregulation experiment has shown that lightly regulated markets function better". This is how we wound up with the 2008 crash, the ascendency of finance and the absurd wealth gap we currently have.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Historically in the U.S., "regulation" implied heavy-handed measures like rate setting, price controls, capacity setting, market segmentation, granting monopolies, etc. Scaling back those measures has been very successful. For example, deregulation of freight and airlines in the 1970's allowed the modern integrated delivery networks that make Amazon possible. The trend since then has been to avoid these particularly heavy-handed and market-distorting sorts of measures. I don't think even proponents of heavier banking regulations espouse regulating banks in the way we say regulated passenger railroads (which killed them). In the context of cabs, a "lightly regulated" regime might require background checks, minimum insurance, and some sort of mechanism for verifying driver identity and reporting problems. Variables like rates, capacity, coverage area, etc, could be left to the market.

BrainInAJar 13y ago

> confronted with something they've never seen before But we have seen it before, these are just illegal unlicensed cabs. There is literally nothing separating Uber from an illegal cab, except that they've got an app for that.