4 ms·

That car I would have used stayed available for someone that needed it a lot more than I did. That car stayed available for someone willing to pay more money.

That car I would have used stayed available for someone that needed it a lot more than I did. That car stayed available for someone willing to pay more money. Between two people of roughly equal means, that's a good proxy for "needs it more." Between two people of vastly disparate means it's not.

herge 12y ago
Are there these large armies of people who can afford and pay for taxis over public transportation at 1x but not exceptionally during a topical storm at 5x or 10x? A taxi is already a luxury good.
- dandelany 12y ago
  Are there large armies of people who make >$100k/year but <$1M? Yes.
  - herge 12y ago
    200 dollars is not a big emergency expense for someone who makes more than $100k per year.
    - dandelany 12y ago
      Depending on your definition of emergency, it is when you live in NYC and your rent costs $2k/month. If by emergency you mean "hurricane" - sure. But surge pricing happens every time there's a rainstorm.
- akgerber 12y ago
  Most New Yorkers don't own cars, but there are still trips that are very inconvenient by public transit (especially with kids or luggage or ...). So it makes a lot of financial sense for a lot of people of all means to use taxis/car services occasionally to supplement mass transit, as opposed to buying (and very expensively insuring!) a car for the occasional trip that's hard to take transit for.
LanceH 12y ago
Following that argument, the price should be zero, so it is equally affordable to everyone.
w4 12y ago
Right, but that's a fundamental feature of capitalism. If equality of access to a non-essential luxury between those of disparate means concerns you, don't worry about the symptom, worry about the underlying system. On the other hand, if unequal access to, say, 5 star hotels in Times Square on New Years Eve doesn't bother you, then neither should surge pricing.
- vannevar 12y ago
  I'm not sure taxi service qualifies as a "non-essential luxury"; there are times when it isn't (a rainstorm, for instance) and I think that's why it draws the political interest that it does. PS I inadvertently downvoted you, unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to upvote it back. Sorry...
  - w4 12y ago
    No worries on the inadvertent downvote. I do, however, have to take issue with the characterization of a taxi as an essential. :) Seriously, though, even in a rainstorm a taxi is a non-essential. It's nice, and I'd certainly prefer one if it's raining, but it isn't essential. There always exist alternate modes of transportation that are going to be less expensive (public transit, Zipcar, your own car, or an umbrella and your own two feet). It's not as though one, bereft of an affordable taxi, can never reach one's destination. I just don't see how Uber can possibly be construed as an essential, except maybe in highly exceptional circumstances. You're hiring someone to chauffeur you to your destination with an expensive computing device, via a similarly expensive data connection. How is that anything but the definition of a non-essential, luxury good?
    - vannevar 12y ago
      You're a mother carrying groceries and a kid and you have to walk ten blocks. Is it as essential as medical treatment? No, but it's a substantial degradation of your quality of life if you get priced out of it. I think the political attention on the topic speaks for itself as to how essential the public views it. And we're not just talking about Uber here, we're talking about taxis in general: if Uber drives taxis out of business by undercutting them during ordinary circumstances, there won't be any around to undercut Uber during a surge.
mikeash 12y ago
It may not be a good proxy between two people of vastly disparate means, but what would be better? It's bad, but still, it seems, the best available.
nazgulnarsil 12y ago
Completely wrong. THis comment betrays how people completely fail to understand resource allocation in a market economy. Willing to pay more means their time is worth more. Their time is worth more because they create more value per unit time than others. We want productive people to become even more productive, that's how the world gets better. The internet didn't improve the world by starting with connecting Indian villages. It improved the productivity of those who were already leading productive lives in first world economies.
- vannevar 12y ago
  Rather than simply downvoting you because I disagree, which is a lazy practice that undermines the purpose of having a comment system, let me address your point. You said: Willing to pay more means their time is worth more. No, it may simply mean that money is worth less to them. A common reason for this is having a lot of it, and there are many possible reasons for someone to be wealthy; being socially productive is only one of many. They might have been born with it, they might simply be lucky, or they may be actively dishonest. None of which need any additional incentives.
  - wutbrodo 12y ago
    > No, it may simply mean that money is worth less to them. You started your sentence with "No", and then literally stated the exact same thing in different words. Saying "a unit of their time is worth more of their money than the equivalent for person X" is exactly equivalent to "a unit of their money is worth less time than the equivalent for person X". The only difference between your statement and the statement you think you're disagreeing with is whether you choose to denominate "worth" in time or money: the end result however, is identical.
    - vannevar 12y ago
      If you read the rest of my comment, you'll see that it is not identical at all. For instance, why would a lottery winner value their time more highly? Their time doesn't earn them anything. And you went beyond saying that the individual values their time more, you implied that society should also value it more to encourage productivity. But again, what kind of productivity are we encouraging from a lottery winner, a trust fund baby, or a con artist?

herge 12y ago

Are there these large armies of people who can afford and pay for taxis over public transportation at 1x but not exceptionally during a topical storm at 5x or 10x? A taxi is already a luxury good.

dandelany 12y ago
Are there large armies of people who make >$100k/year but <$1M? Yes.
- herge 12y ago
  200 dollars is not a big emergency expense for someone who makes more than $100k per year.
  - dandelany 12y ago
    Depending on your definition of emergency, it is when you live in NYC and your rent costs $2k/month. If by emergency you mean "hurricane" - sure. But surge pricing happens every time there's a rainstorm.
akgerber 12y ago
Most New Yorkers don't own cars, but there are still trips that are very inconvenient by public transit (especially with kids or luggage or ...). So it makes a lot of financial sense for a lot of people of all means to use taxis/car services occasionally to supplement mass transit, as opposed to buying (and very expensively insuring!) a car for the occasional trip that's hard to take transit for.

LanceH 12y ago

Following that argument, the price should be zero, so it is equally affordable to everyone.

w4 12y ago

Right, but that's a fundamental feature of capitalism. If equality of access to a non-essential luxury between those of disparate means concerns you, don't worry about the symptom, worry about the underlying system. On the other hand, if unequal access to, say, 5 star hotels in Times Square on New Years Eve doesn't bother you, then neither should surge pricing.

vannevar 12y ago
I'm not sure taxi service qualifies as a "non-essential luxury"; there are times when it isn't (a rainstorm, for instance) and I think that's why it draws the political interest that it does. PS I inadvertently downvoted you, unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to upvote it back. Sorry...
- w4 12y ago
  No worries on the inadvertent downvote. I do, however, have to take issue with the characterization of a taxi as an essential. :) Seriously, though, even in a rainstorm a taxi is a non-essential. It's nice, and I'd certainly prefer one if it's raining, but it isn't essential. There always exist alternate modes of transportation that are going to be less expensive (public transit, Zipcar, your own car, or an umbrella and your own two feet). It's not as though one, bereft of an affordable taxi, can never reach one's destination. I just don't see how Uber can possibly be construed as an essential, except maybe in highly exceptional circumstances. You're hiring someone to chauffeur you to your destination with an expensive computing device, via a similarly expensive data connection. How is that anything but the definition of a non-essential, luxury good?
  - vannevar 12y ago
    You're a mother carrying groceries and a kid and you have to walk ten blocks. Is it as essential as medical treatment? No, but it's a substantial degradation of your quality of life if you get priced out of it. I think the political attention on the topic speaks for itself as to how essential the public views it. And we're not just talking about Uber here, we're talking about taxis in general: if Uber drives taxis out of business by undercutting them during ordinary circumstances, there won't be any around to undercut Uber during a surge.

mikeash 12y ago

It may not be a good proxy between two people of vastly disparate means, but what would be better? It's bad, but still, it seems, the best available.

nazgulnarsil 12y ago

Completely wrong. THis comment betrays how people completely fail to understand resource allocation in a market economy. Willing to pay more means their time is worth more. Their time is worth more because they create more value per unit time than others. We want productive people to become even more productive, that's how the world gets better. The internet didn't improve the world by starting with connecting Indian villages. It improved the productivity of those who were already leading productive lives in first world economies.

vannevar 12y ago
Rather than simply downvoting you because I disagree, which is a lazy practice that undermines the purpose of having a comment system, let me address your point. You said: Willing to pay more means their time is worth more. No, it may simply mean that money is worth less to them. A common reason for this is having a lot of it, and there are many possible reasons for someone to be wealthy; being socially productive is only one of many. They might have been born with it, they might simply be lucky, or they may be actively dishonest. None of which need any additional incentives.
- wutbrodo 12y ago
  > No, it may simply mean that money is worth less to them. You started your sentence with "No", and then literally stated the exact same thing in different words. Saying "a unit of their time is worth more of their money than the equivalent for person X" is exactly equivalent to "a unit of their money is worth less time than the equivalent for person X". The only difference between your statement and the statement you think you're disagreeing with is whether you choose to denominate "worth" in time or money: the end result however, is identical.
  - vannevar 12y ago
    If you read the rest of my comment, you'll see that it is not identical at all. For instance, why would a lottery winner value their time more highly? Their time doesn't earn them anything. And you went beyond saying that the individual values their time more, you implied that society should also value it more to encourage productivity. But again, what kind of productivity are we encouraging from a lottery winner, a trust fund baby, or a con artist?