101–110 of 321 posts
> ...the company’s upcoming pricing algorithms, which they hinted might be able to more precisely predict what riders might be willing to pay for a ride. I hate the whole idea of this. If they track you around, maybe realize you order from fancy places on uber eats, then they will raise prices on something that costs them the same. There's something that strikes me as especially awful about automating the "how much i…
> ...the company’s upcoming pricing algorithms, which they hinted might be able to more precisely predict what riders might be willing to pay for a ride. I hate the whole idea of this. If they track you around, maybe realize you order from fancy places on uber eats, then they will raise prices on something that costs them the same. There's something that strikes me as especially awful about automating the "how much i…
Willingness to pay more also tells you a lot about the person's need and if the person is willing to pay more it is a signal that the person needs to more. Servicing those needs first is often beneficial for the whole society. For example a person traveling for an important business meeting that will help him earn lot more would be willing to pay more than teenagers going to the mall. A person trying to catch his international flight worth $$$$ might be willing to pay more than someone just going to get a haircut.
Not only this sort of differential pricing makes sense it benefits everyone without hurting others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a reasonable working assumption that "ride share" prices end up somewhere around where taxi prices are--with the possible exception of places like London where black cabs are somewhat of a premium service relative to minicabs, etc.
I don’t see how the Uber model can ever approach the price of a taxi. Traditional taxis had purpose-built vehicles, shared garages, parts bought at wholesale, and cars on duty all day every day. Uber drivers have disposable Toyotas, pay individually retail prices for insurance, maintenance, and parts, and their vehicles are usually parked. The traditional model has the advantage on cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Knowing the max someone was willing to pay could help an actor set their prices optimally where there is no competition. Where there is competition, setting price to the max someone is willing to pay could drop overall profits since a competitor would happily undercut. So it does not change the rules of the game. Companies already price by predicting what people are willing to pay, by theory and experimentation. I wo…
But does that guarantee that the prices won't increase proportionally to your income? Companies are incentivized to make you buy stuff, not to make you motivated to make money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Finland traffic tickets sounds like a horrible idea.
Why? If I'm a poor speeding Fin, then a non-scaled speeding ticket could cost me a good number of days food. If I'm a rich speeding Fin then a non-scaled ticket is just the cost to travel quickly. When you're wealthy enough fines don't matter there's no point in the police enforcing them aside from as an additional income stream.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Finland traffic tickets sounds like a horrible idea.
Could you expand on why you think so? 1. I'm driving at 110 kph when the limit is 100. I pay $80, but I got paid $16000 after tax this month. 2. I'm driving at 110 kph when the limit is 100. I pay $80, but I got paid $4000 after tax this month. Fair?
1. I'm climbing a tree when I ought not to and fall and break my legs. I'm a poor construction worker which means I am now out of work.
2. I'm climbing a tree when I ought not to and fall and break my legs. I'm a wealthy programmer and just keep on going to work since my hands and brain still work fine.
Fair? Or should the tree break my hands and give me a concussion on the way down in order to level the playing field?
This is untrue. Without a doubt, with autonomous vehicles, efficient energy usage, storage and harvest via non eco damaging sources like solar power, the cost of rides will get cheaper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The worst part about price discrimination is that if there are a limited number of players in the market, it feels like, and maybe effectively is, price fixing. Now, it may not play out as direct collusion, but if only one company engages in it, they won’t be competitive for their wealthier customers, so it doesn’t make much sense. But if both participants in a duopoly do it, you have no options. It wouldn’t be possi…
> they won’t be competitive for their wealthier customers Sure they will. You don't charge too much so that the customer will start feeling that its worth their time to look for alternative offers. That upper limit it usually higher the wealthier (or "spending happy") the customer is. So it totally makes sense to establish that limit individually per costomer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? If I'm a poor speeding Fin, then a non-scaled speeding ticket could cost me a good number of days food. If I'm a rich speeding Fin then a non-scaled ticket is just the cost to travel quickly. When you're wealthy enough fines don't matter there's no point in the police enforcing them aside from as an additional income stream.
Best way to make Rich people move out of Finland, result in loosing tax base, jobs (businesses) etc