3 ms·

You mean typewriter manufacturers should have been kept afloat forever using taxpayers' funds so as to not fire workers? (That's what "the worker comes first"

by _yosefk 12y ago

You mean typewriter manufacturers should have been kept afloat forever using taxpayers' funds so as to not fire workers? (That's what "the worker comes first" despite the consumer not wanting the product would mean, I think. If not, then the question is where you draw the line and how you measure the harm done to the average worker when he is forced to support other workers who are unproductive compared to available alternatives. For instance, rich people have private cars and sometimes private drivers and don't need taxis that much. Who needs a taxi? Someone without a car who needs to quickly get from A to B. Could be a rather poor chap. Of course, taxis, that regulated brand of public transportation, are hardly affordable on a regular basis to "poor" people. Whether this helps or hurts "workers" is not obvious to me. All of which is not to say that I'm "on Uber's side" or some such, I'm too uninformed to take a side on this one. Just wondering about your "pro-worker" statement.)

pron 12y ago
Common sense and politics[1] usually provide the answer. I'm not talking about keeping dead industries afloat, but protecting certain necessary ventures through regulation, to ensure that the workers get compensated fairly for their required service. It is better to have customers wait another 3 minutes for a taxi, than taxi drivers not being able to make ends meet. The important thing to remember is that we aren't supposed to work for the sake of the economy; the economy is meant to work for us. What that means in practice, is left for each country, with its own culture and customs, to decide. [1]: Although I mean politics in its very common denotation (i.e. the work of politicians, and not "politics of oppression"), it does provide a very good mechanism for groups to bargain over interests. It doesn't always come up with the same answer your common sense would give you, but it's sometimes better (though more annoying): it allows groups to consider various proposals as a package, rather than fight it out over each one in isolation (e.g. we won't oppose increase in gas tax if you don't allow unregulated taxi services).
- omonra 12y ago
  But clearly the issue here is not compensation for the workers. The issue is cost of license. Consider this hypothetical: 1. Country A - taxi license costs $300,000. Average ride costs $30, driver keeps $10 after paying off the license mortgage. 2. Country B - taxi license costs $100. Average ride costs $15, driver keeps $15 since he doesn't have to pay it off.
  - pron 12y ago
    The structure of the arrangement between taxi companies and the government is different in each area, and is subject both to particular deals struck (and I don't mean that in a bad way, though sometimes it is) and to whatever extra safety procedures the government wants to enforce. For example, a country should be free to require an expensive insurance from taxi drivers, as well as background checks as means to preventing future costs, or as part of a deal. Thing is, Travis Kalanick and his ilk are trying to restrict our freedom to choose what's right for our community, as if there's only one way to run an economy, and as if they know what it is.
    - omonra 12y ago
      Color me cynical, but I think that most of opposition to Uber stems not from desire for safety but simple desire to protect the incumbent profits. Moreover - the 'community' isn't really choosing anything. Instead it's some crony local politicians in the pocket of taxi lobby. If you want to do a referendum on whether Uber should be operating - I'll agree on the 'community' stance. Otherwise it's the minority who have the most to lose advocating against it.

by _yosefk 12y ago

pron 12y ago

Common sense and politics[1] usually provide the answer. I'm not talking about keeping dead industries afloat, but protecting certain necessary ventures through regulation, to ensure that the workers get compensated fairly for their required service. It is better to have customers wait another 3 minutes for a taxi, than taxi drivers not being able to make ends meet. The important thing to remember is that we aren't supposed to work for the sake of the economy; the economy is meant to work for us. What that means in practice, is left for each country, with its own culture and customs, to decide. [1]: Although I mean politics in its very common denotation (i.e. the work of politicians, and not "politics of oppression"), it does provide a very good mechanism for groups to bargain over interests. It doesn't always come up with the same answer your common sense would give you, but it's sometimes better (though more annoying): it allows groups to consider various proposals as a package, rather than fight it out over each one in isolation (e.g. we won't oppose increase in gas tax if you don't allow unregulated taxi services).

omonra 12y ago
But clearly the issue here is not compensation for the workers. The issue is cost of license. Consider this hypothetical: 1. Country A - taxi license costs $300,000. Average ride costs $30, driver keeps $10 after paying off the license mortgage. 2. Country B - taxi license costs $100. Average ride costs $15, driver keeps $15 since he doesn't have to pay it off.
- pron 12y ago
  The structure of the arrangement between taxi companies and the government is different in each area, and is subject both to particular deals struck (and I don't mean that in a bad way, though sometimes it is) and to whatever extra safety procedures the government wants to enforce. For example, a country should be free to require an expensive insurance from taxi drivers, as well as background checks as means to preventing future costs, or as part of a deal. Thing is, Travis Kalanick and his ilk are trying to restrict our freedom to choose what's right for our community, as if there's only one way to run an economy, and as if they know what it is.
  - omonra 12y ago
    Color me cynical, but I think that most of opposition to Uber stems not from desire for safety but simple desire to protect the incumbent profits. Moreover - the 'community' isn't really choosing anything. Instead it's some crony local politicians in the pocket of taxi lobby. If you want to do a referendum on whether Uber should be operating - I'll agree on the 'community' stance. Otherwise it's the minority who have the most to lose advocating against it.