6 ms·

People support Uber because they support the logic of the free market, which is that the government should redistribute wealth, but not fix prices, including wa

People support Uber because they support the logic of the free market, which is that the government should redistribute wealth, but not fix prices, including wages. Yes it's tough being a taxi driver, but the real problem is that it's tough being a person who for whatever reason can't get a high paying job. Fixing high wages for taxi drivers doesn't solve this problem, because it doesn't provide jobs for those who don't get to be taxi drivers.

gaius 11y ago
Society has decided that certain jobs should come with certain minimum standards attached to them, that's true of caterers, hotels, surgeons, airline pilots... and taxi drivers.
- UK-AL 11y ago
  A free market sets the standards by aggregating individual decision's
- overpaidgoogler 11y ago
  "Society has decided" is not a good substitute for an actual reason for a policy. I'm not arguing against democracy here. I also think you are confusing minimum pay with minimum qualifications. A medallion is not a qualification, it is an arbitrary limit (yes there are other reasons for the limit like congestion, but the article discuses pay)
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Not being able to get a "high paying job" is not really the problem. The problem is that the "market" has so far failed to distribute enough wealth to satisfy everyone's needs and for most of those that you can argue that market has been able to satisfy, they are essentially slaves to that market, with little to no mobility.
- prodigal_erik 11y ago
  There's a difference between "you're not qualified for this job" and "too many other people are doing this job".
- pjscott 11y ago
  Presumably Uber's customers have decided that the New York taxis do not meet their minimum standards -- else they would just take a taxi. And who better to make this decision than the people involved?
  - gaius 11y ago
    The flaw in your argument is that if anything goes wrong they will expect New York's authorities to intervene.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  "Society" rarely makes such decisions. Governments do. The narrative that government is controlled by society as a whole for its overall benefit is a fascinating fiction.
Gys 11y ago
'the logic of the free market, which is that the government should redistribute wealth' I do not think this is correct. The free market is a way by itself to distributes wealth. 'Re'-distributing wealth would mean the government interfering. For example by setting fixed prices so drivers earn more money and Uber making less profit (higher losses ;-) (and/or passengers paying higher prices).
- overpaidgoogler 11y ago
  Yes, restrictions on prices indirectly redistribute wealth. But what I was saying was that the government should only redistribute wealth directly, via welfare and taxes (eg income, sales or vat).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - Gys 11y ago
    You say less regulation means higher prices ?! From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market 'A free market is a market system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between vendors and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.' So if supply is higher then demand, for example a kind of unlimited number of taxi's, then the prices go down. I think in theory with easy entrance to a market the prices can drop as low as variable costs. But I cannot find a reference to that at the moment.
- amelius 11y ago
  > The free market is a way by itself to distributes wealth. The free market only causes agglutination of money.

gaius 11y ago

Society has decided that certain jobs should come with certain minimum standards attached to them, that's true of caterers, hotels, surgeons, airline pilots... and taxi drivers.

UK-AL 11y ago
A free market sets the standards by aggregating individual decision's
overpaidgoogler 11y ago
"Society has decided" is not a good substitute for an actual reason for a policy. I'm not arguing against democracy here. I also think you are confusing minimum pay with minimum qualifications. A medallion is not a qualification, it is an arbitrary limit (yes there are other reasons for the limit like congestion, but the article discuses pay)
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Not being able to get a "high paying job" is not really the problem. The problem is that the "market" has so far failed to distribute enough wealth to satisfy everyone's needs and for most of those that you can argue that market has been able to satisfy, they are essentially slaves to that market, with little to no mobility.
prodigal_erik 11y ago
There's a difference between "you're not qualified for this job" and "too many other people are doing this job".
pjscott 11y ago
Presumably Uber's customers have decided that the New York taxis do not meet their minimum standards -- else they would just take a taxi. And who better to make this decision than the people involved?
- gaius 11y ago
  The flaw in your argument is that if anything goes wrong they will expect New York's authorities to intervene.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
"Society" rarely makes such decisions. Governments do. The narrative that government is controlled by society as a whole for its overall benefit is a fascinating fiction.

Gys 11y ago

'the logic of the free market, which is that the government should redistribute wealth' I do not think this is correct. The free market is a way by itself to distributes wealth. 'Re'-distributing wealth would mean the government interfering. For example by setting fixed prices so drivers earn more money and Uber making less profit (higher losses ;-) (and/or passengers paying higher prices).

overpaidgoogler 11y ago
Yes, restrictions on prices indirectly redistribute wealth. But what I was saying was that the government should only redistribute wealth directly, via welfare and taxes (eg income, sales or vat).
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- Gys 11y ago
  You say less regulation means higher prices ?! From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market 'A free market is a market system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between vendors and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.' So if supply is higher then demand, for example a kind of unlimited number of taxi's, then the prices go down. I think in theory with easy entrance to a market the prices can drop as low as variable costs. But I cannot find a reference to that at the moment.
amelius 11y ago
> The free market is a way by itself to distributes wealth. The free market only causes agglutination of money.