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

The Uber Conflation

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 143 posts

Re: The Uber Conflation

#71

Post by GauntletWizard »

spoondan wrote: post #32

One very serious shortcoming of this article is the claim that the theoretical spirit of taxi regulation is exclusively (or even primarily) rider safety. Regardless of how we believe it has all worked out in practice, taxi regulation has long been earnestly pushed for a multitude of reasons: traffic congestion, driver pay and rights, consumer protection (from fare abuse), road safety (independent from rider safety),…

Here's a devils advocate take on it: Taxi regulation is as much and more about "Guilds", Ghettos, and outright racism. It's been used as a blunt instrument to keep many people out of doing a simple, everyday activity that many view as a form of entertainment - driving around - for cash. The effect, if not the goal, of medallions has been to enforce the assumption that drivers are underpaid immigrants. The assumption of the driver as a criminal has lead to their mistreatment. The serfdom that medallion enforcement has created - Where drivers do not own their job, merely rent it from landlords demanding an increasingly greater cut - Has created the toxic environment that has allowed even awful competitors an advantage.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#72

Post by Zak »

exDM69 wrote: post #63
tedunangst wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Philly, Uber asked for a license, was denied, then told its drivers they would cover the costs of any fines and they should drive anyway. Offering upfront to pay fines doesn't sound like they thought they found a loophole.

Where I'm from (in the EU), any profits from illegal activity are confiscated upon conviction, sometimes also including "the tools" used to commit the crime. After several Uber drivers had to pay back all their earnings, lose their car and get a fine on top, there has been significantly less drivers willing to take the risk. Outside of some peak hours (new years, etc) where the risk of getting caught is minimal, the…

This is often true in the US when the illegal activity is a crime punishable by imprisonment. It usually isn't when the illegal activity is some form of doing business without the required license.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#73

Post by criddell »

tedunangst wrote: post #6
mikeash wrote: post #2

A major point of this article is that Uber skirts regulations by sticking to the letter of the law while violating its spirit, which a lot of people (falsely, in the author's eyes) see as Uber thinking its above the law. I was under the impression that Uber outright broke the law in many places. The author describes how things went for them in San Francisco: the laws never considered smartphone apps, so Uber was able…

In Philly, Uber asked for a license, was denied, then told its drivers they would cover the costs of any fines and they should drive anyway. Offering upfront to pay fines doesn't sound like they thought they found a loophole.

In Sarasota, FL, rather than trying to regulate Uber, the city removed regulation on taxis. This was more than a year ago. I wonder why more cities don't take this approach?

Re: The Uber Conflation

#74

Post by tedunangst »

mikeash wrote: post #37
tedunangst wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we talking about parking in a spot and not feeding the meter? Or parking in the bus zone, forcing riders to wade out into traffic to board?

Does it matter when it comes to the morality of breaking the law? You might consider the latter action to be morally wrong, but it seems like it would be because of its impact on others, not because it's breaking the law.

I think choosing to disregard the law also means choosing to disregard why the law exists. Not so easily disentangled.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#75

Post by freshflowers »

Gee, and there was me thinking that the rise of Trump had put an end to the argument that these types of unethical behaviour are not symptoms of the same problem.

Defending a lack of ethics with ideology is a nothing more than a cheap trick. And I'm not falling for it anymore.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#76

Post by freshflowers »

crabasa wrote: post #20

On the flipside, I, for one, view Uber’s regulatory maneuvering in a much more positive light. After all, thinking about the “spirit of the law” can lead to a very different conclusion: the purpose of taxi regulation, at least in theory, was not to entrench local monopolies but rather to ensure safety. If those goals can be met through technology — GPS tracking, reputation scoring, and the greater availability of tra…

That's just a bullshit excuse. Uber attacked healthy markets with proper consumer protection, and more importantly: wider social protection. And it did so with blatantly illegal tactics that were clearly detrimental and socially undesirable.

Uber is just a criminal organization acting solely out of greed.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#77

Post by comicjk »

civilian wrote: post #69
brudgers wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe at the expense of consumers, but not necessarily to the detriment of citizens.

What's the difference? Please elaborate. As I see it, there are only a few citizens who benefitted-- those involved in the ownership of taxi companies & medallions.

Other people on the road benefitted, at least in some places. A major reason for taxi regulation in NYC was to reduce road congestion - they calculated that adding more taxis would increase the average travel time. Now Uber has upended this.

I think that pricing congestion directly would be better, but in the absence of that, this is an example of Uber hurting some citizens who are not taxi companies.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#78

Post by fosk »

freshflowers wrote: post #76
crabasa wrote: post #20

On the flipside, I, for one, view Uber’s regulatory maneuvering in a much more positive light. After all, thinking about the “spirit of the law” can lead to a very different conclusion: the purpose of taxi regulation, at least in theory, was not to entrench local monopolies but rather to ensure safety. If those goals can be met through technology — GPS tracking, reputation scoring, and the greater availability of tra…

That's just a bullshit excuse. Uber attacked healthy markets with proper consumer protection, and more importantly: wider social protection. And it did so with blatantly illegal tactics that were clearly detrimental and socially undesirable. Uber is just a criminal organization acting solely out of greed.

> healthy markets

Taxies are a regulated monopoly, definitely not a healthy market. Hordes of consumers moved to a better alternative like Uber at the first chance they had.

> Uber is just a criminal organization acting solely out of greed.

Uber, whether you like it or not, has revolutionized personal transportation for better. Consumers are using Uber because Uber is a better product. That's a fact.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#79

Post by slantview »

freshflowers wrote: post #76
crabasa wrote: post #20

On the flipside, I, for one, view Uber’s regulatory maneuvering in a much more positive light. After all, thinking about the “spirit of the law” can lead to a very different conclusion: the purpose of taxi regulation, at least in theory, was not to entrench local monopolies but rather to ensure safety. If those goals can be met through technology — GPS tracking, reputation scoring, and the greater availability of tra…

That's just a bullshit excuse. Uber attacked healthy markets with proper consumer protection, and more importantly: wider social protection. And it did so with blatantly illegal tactics that were clearly detrimental and socially undesirable. Uber is just a criminal organization acting solely out of greed.

I deleted Uber after all of this, but You are wrong. I lived in SF during 2010-2012 and calling taxis was a huge pain. I started using Uber when it was only black cars because they showed up. I would call yellow cab and after an hour they didn't even show up, so I called them again and they said "well, if you didn't see a car after 20 mins, you should have called back."

I had another experience in LA in 2014 where I got yelled at by a taxi driver because HIS card reader was broken and my credit card was flat so he couldn't use the old style imprint.

The taxis can suck it. They are unclean, expensive, and have irrational drivers that think they can push around their customers because they know there was no need to improve due to regulation.

While I support Lyft now instead of Uber, the ride sharing business is just the competition the industry needs to shake it's complacency.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#80

Post by nickfrostatx »

freshflowers wrote: post #76
crabasa wrote: post #20

On the flipside, I, for one, view Uber’s regulatory maneuvering in a much more positive light. After all, thinking about the “spirit of the law” can lead to a very different conclusion: the purpose of taxi regulation, at least in theory, was not to entrench local monopolies but rather to ensure safety. If those goals can be met through technology — GPS tracking, reputation scoring, and the greater availability of tra…

That's just a bullshit excuse. Uber attacked healthy markets with proper consumer protection, and more importantly: wider social protection. And it did so with blatantly illegal tactics that were clearly detrimental and socially undesirable. Uber is just a criminal organization acting solely out of greed.

> acting solely out of greed.

That's a weird thing to complain about. In a capitalist country, how would you prefer companies act? Not greedy? The whole point of a free market is that everyone tries to maximize profit. There are a lot of things you can point at to claim that Uber is evil, but I don't think greed is one of them.

Post reply on HN