Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s where the invisible hand comes in and having functional markets matters. The difficulty in sustainably operating is also a demonstration of why heavily regulated taxis existed. When I had my roof replaced, estimates ranged from $12,000 to $75,000. We got 11 bids and paid $14k. That’s market forces at work, but also an example of a market without high capital costs.
those probably weren't all the same product though? like impact resistance shingles with an air gapped radiant barrier layed down with a ventilated roof line and all that fancy stuff is certainly going to cost more than generic shingles over tar paper.
Uber and Lyft Suggest the Days of Cheap Rides Could Be Over
251–260 of 321 posts
Re: Uber and Lyft Suggest the Days of Cheap Rides Could Be Over
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rich people are going to leave Finland because they aren't allowed to drive recklessly with no real consequence? Well, then maybe they should leave.
If they drive the same way as everyone else (i.e. mostly following the spirit of the law but nobody's perfect) and then get hit with a colossal fine over a minor violation, yeah, that's the sort of thing that causes people to do the math on living somewhere else.
Re: Uber and Lyft Suggest the Days of Cheap Rides Could Be Over
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has a constant negative effect so you need a penalty that has a constant discouraging effect. A flat fee doesn't discourage those with more money to pay it. It simply says "speeding is OK if you have enough money."
A constant fine has a constant discouraging effect.
In this scenario it is constant percentage though, as far as I understand it, and therefore should be constantly discouraging.
Re: Uber and Lyft Suggest the Days of Cheap Rides Could Be Over
#254How rich I am has nothing do with it per se.
So when does it turn into price fixing when they both independently figure out how much I am willing to pay and charge the same amount?
Right now they are uncannily good at charging the same amount for the same trip. Maybe the price is already competitive?
Re: Uber and Lyft Suggest the Days of Cheap Rides Could Be Over
#255It would not work in some areas due to the collective demographical mindset: having said that; Uber simply does not utilize a very obvious solution that would Greatly increase revenue without raising fares for riders. Insofar as what they burn on being the peeps that figure out self driving cars... I mean that's looking to hit the sweepstakes. Chances are They won't be the ones to cash in that particular ticket.
Downvoting me??...
1) Stop making the ride App free. Charge $2.99 payable with the first ride.
2) Stop letting people sign up to drive for free. Charge $9.99 to sign up.
3) Start UberPay... sell prepaid rides for a discount then Lend that money out via Uber Credit Cards to select peeps--> like the drivers.
4) No shot I'd share this idea. This is One is The Obvious idea I mentioned in my Parent post.
Cheers
Re: Uber and Lyft Suggest the Days of Cheap Rides Could Be Over
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, if I'm buying a new car I'll pay less for last year's model all other things being equal. (And the dealership will sure want to provide an incentive for me to buy last year's model.) But if I already own a car, how long I will continue to be able to drive it is far more determined by the mileage than by how old it is within reason. This is admittedly from the perspective of someone who basically drives cars unt…
I think almost anyone would prefer a 5 year old car with 100K miles on it than a 10 year old car with 25K (or 10K) miles on it.
Re: Uber and Lyft Suggest the Days of Cheap Rides Could Be Over
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
A constant fine has a constant discouraging effect.
> A constant fine has a constant discouraging effect. In this scenario it is constant percentage though, as far as I understand it, and therefore should be constantly discouraging.
Re: Uber and Lyft Suggest the Days of Cheap Rides Could Be Over
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I don't understand how you reached this conclusion. Set X= negative value to society of an action we want to discourage, and Y= probability of getting caught. If a fine is set at X/Y, then the expected cost of doing this action is X (fine times probability), and so it will be done if the value of doing it is above X and won't be done if the value is below X, which is efficient. Any value other than X/Y is inefficien…
The model you've presented doesn't account for a lot of other effects which we want as a collective want to account for. Let's break it down. We can't assume perfect humans, so we must assume that sometimes, some of the people will act irrationally or make mistakes. Introducing this "error rate" into our actors means there's an un-removable noise floor of cases where we issue fines to our actors for breaking the law.…
We already have a system for this, which is that the fine for speeding scales with speed. Then someone who can't afford the fine can drive more conservatively, so that if they make a mistake the degree to which they violate the rule is smaller, which reduces both the probability of enforcement and the amount of the fine.
Having at least that level of fine is inherently necessary, even for lower income people, because otherwise there is insufficient disincentive for them to speed and there is no compensation to society in the form of a proportionate fine when they do.
We can let a rich person get a thousand small speeding fines because taking their money and using it for lead abatement or cancer research saves more lives than they're risking. But we can't let anyone take that risk without "paying for it" or the net result is a very big social loss, multiplied by every person in that category who longer has any incentive not to do it.
Moreover, talking about "economic death" over a matter of something like a $250 fine is an exaggeration. Even for someone making the federal minimum wage, that's less than 2% of their income. That amount of money doesn't make the difference between whether anybody files for bankruptcy or not, it only makes the difference between whether it happens this month or next. And if you want to help those people, don't waive their traffic fines, just take all the money you would have waived in traffic fines and give it to lower income people regardless of whether or not they violated a traffic law or not -- so that you're helping them but not giving them incentive to misbehave.
Re: Uber and Lyft Suggest the Days of Cheap Rides Could Be Over
#259Surprise! Now that they've mostly killed off taxi companies, their rates will be the same as taxi companies. Who could've seen that coming? Oh wait.
So if the outcome is that the price has fluctuated back to the norm, but the service provided is of a higher quality, then the consumer has won.
What will be interesting to see is what consequences will arise from a corresponding drop in demand when met with the normalisation of prices to the previous mean. Especially given that you can't actively chose between the drivers available to you through these apps i.e. if there's less demand, supply will likely drop to meet demand (drivers don't want to be sitting around all evening, or just doing 1-2 gigs per night), and there's no way for the cream of the crop to come to the surface amongst their competition by way of superior service and hence selective demand / consumers.
Intuitively, maybe it will result in harsher ratings from consumers (expecting better service given higher prices) which, with sufficient accumulation, may take lower quality drivers out of circulation and leave those deemed to be best in the marketplace.
Re: Uber and Lyft Suggest the Days of Cheap Rides Could Be Over
#260Surprise! Now that they've mostly killed off taxi companies, their rates will be the same as taxi companies. Who could've seen that coming? Oh wait.