Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disrupting Uber

jacobinmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 230 posts

Re: Disrupting Uber

#161

Post by Apocryphon »

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #160
svanderbleek wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the article more carefully, "they might be willing to switch to a co-op model that offers a cheaper price and solid service". A co-op can have lower prices and pay it's members more because they don't have to funnel profits to support the bloat of a central corporation like Uber.

The idea behind capitalism is that people who have money use it to start a company with the goal of making profits. For example, if it's a transportation company, they will use the money to buy cars or to hire drivers. Thanks to competition, they will have to make sure that they are providing a good service at a competitive price, and so if they want to get their profits, they will have to make sure that their compan…

Credit unions are co-ops.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#162

Post by Apocryphon »

Kalium wrote: post #92
nickparker wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can they, though? The corporation isn't some money-sucking black box. It's dispute resolution, software development to match rides efficiently (Uber Pool is tricky), and advertising. Yes, it also skims money off the top to pay for things like driverless car R&D, but is a small, likely disorganized co-op going to be efficient enough at all the above to take advantage of that margin?

It's highly unlikely that a small, disorganized co-op is going to be efficient enough to take advantage of the situation and be able to out-compete Uber. That said, the reality is irrelevant here. Jacobin is the kind of magazine where economic reality is treated as a suggestion, to be discarded as is convenient.

A small, disorganized co-op, sure. A large, efficient one on the other hand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Re: Disrupting Uber

#163

Post by imh »

This prompted me to try to understand what a co-op really is. I read the wikipedia page, and still don't really get what keeps it separate from a regular business, except for ideals. At a co-op like this, they would still need programmers to fix inevitable bugs in the app, marketing/logistics people to figure out how to get traction (because that doesn't just happen by itself) and expand to new cities, and managers to coordinate, and everything else a regular company needs (financial, HR, etc). It ends up sounding like what I think of as a regular company. What's the difference?

Re: Disrupting Uber

#164

Post by Spooky23 »

barney54 wrote: post #131
Spooky23 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of Uber is the ability to burn down the massive investments made into the company? As they transition to a more normal company that needs to make money, can they afford those incentives?

The incentives likely don't matter in the future because the future of Uber is driverless cars.

In the future, we'll have unicorns towing magic carpets, so Uber won't matter.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#165

Post by tanderson92 »

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #160
svanderbleek wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the article more carefully, "they might be willing to switch to a co-op model that offers a cheaper price and solid service". A co-op can have lower prices and pay it's members more because they don't have to funnel profits to support the bloat of a central corporation like Uber.

The idea behind capitalism is that people who have money use it to start a company with the goal of making profits. For example, if it's a transportation company, they will use the money to buy cars or to hire drivers. Thanks to competition, they will have to make sure that they are providing a good service at a competitive price, and so if they want to get their profits, they will have to make sure that their compan…

Non-profit consumer-owned collectives like Vanguard, you mean? How is that working out for them?

Re: Disrupting Uber

#166

Post by madgar »

davidf18 wrote: post #110
tanderson92 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is simply false. Assuming that Uber is profitable (this is not clear) then costs to riders could be lowered and drivers could be paid more, simply by splitting the profits going to Uber between these two ends. That's what a co-op is designed to do. I didn't downvote you, but if I had it would have been because you applied the standard arguments about Uber/Lyft without considering the specific argument here: that…

>> except that any profits go to the drivers instead of Travis Kalanick's pocket. This is the comment I was responding to. If the drivers provide a services at sufficient lower costs than Uber (something easy to do in NYC at least) then they won't have to worry about Uber.

You don't believe that network effects, or first-mover advantage, play any role in the ride-sharing markets? You think it's 100% about price?

Peter Thiel would like to have a word with you. We're supposed to be building monopolies that no natural market force can topple.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#167

Post by davidf18 »

madgar wrote: post #166
davidf18 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> except that any profits go to the drivers instead of Travis Kalanick's pocket. This is the comment I was responding to. If the drivers provide a services at sufficient lower costs than Uber (something easy to do in NYC at least) then they won't have to worry about Uber.

You don't believe that network effects, or first-mover advantage, play any role in the ride-sharing markets? You think it's 100% about price? Peter Thiel would like to have a word with you. We're supposed to be building monopolies that no natural market force can topple.

>> Peter Thiel would like to have a word with you. We're supposed to be building monopolies that no natural market force can topple.

For Netflix, sure.

People spend a considerable amount of money on Uber/Lyft etc at least in NYC where I live, thus many would respond to a competitor with a 20% to 30% discount or more. This is possible in NYC because the rates are so much higher than other cities.

But there are a lot of people who need taxi like services that are price sensitive. Think of elderly who aren't able to drive or use mass transit so well and are on a fixed income.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#168

Post by jdminhbg »

ma2rten wrote: post #30
skybrian wrote: post #16

What they're missing is that higher wages depend on some barrier to entry (there are many kinds) that protects the people who have jobs at the expense of anyone who is looking for a job. As someone who works for a company with high hiring standards and correspondingly high pay, I have mixed feelings about this. It seems like there should be some jobs that are easy to get without much training, and taxi driver is a go…

I think the most valid complain about Uber as an employer is that it is advertised as well a paying job but that there are hidden costs that most drivers won't consider. It's similar to how programmers often look at consulting rates, but don't factor in non-billable hours.

Agree to an extent, although I'd add that it's also similar in that people looking in from the outside frequently neglect to factor in the flexibility premium -- programmers who do consulting work frequently do so because they either enjoy or need to be able to set the amount of hours they work and when. Similarly, lots of Uber drivers seem to do it because they can just sorta fit in hours whenever they feel like it, without having to follow a manager's schedule.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#169

Post by dilemma »

Apocryphon wrote: post #162
Kalium wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's highly unlikely that a small, disorganized co-op is going to be efficient enough to take advantage of the situation and be able to out-compete Uber. That said, the reality is irrelevant here. Jacobin is the kind of magazine where economic reality is treated as a suggestion, to be discarded as is convenient.

A small, disorganized co-op, sure. A large, efficient one on the other hand... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Mondragon is a co-op by name only. If you look into how it's structured, its basically just a corporation with a twist. Source: The Ownership of Enterprise, available on Amazon.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#170

Post by mahyarm »

Spooky23 wrote: post #99
pfarnsworth wrote: post #63

Good luck with the co-op idea. The problem is that drivers feel like their services are worth a lot, and passengers simply don't believe it. The reason why Uber is a success is that they created new demand by dropping prices. Everyone I know, including myself, would never have taken an Uber as frequently as we do if the prices were as high as taxis. You can't replicate this unless you keep pushing prices down, and th…

How much of Uber is the ability to burn down the massive investments made into the company? As they transition to a more normal company that needs to make money, can they afford those incentives?

I'm not aware of any particular ride sharing startup that isn't burning massive piles of cash. It's a cash arms race induced party by all of the free floating cash probably induced by multi-nation QE policies.
Post reply on HN