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

The Black Car Company That People Love to Hate

nextcity.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 61 posts

Re: The Black Car Company That People Love to Hate

#31

Post by natrius »

michaelochurch wrote: post #26
al2o3cr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If it's 20 seconds, then that's a case of me getting screwed for a minor convenience priced unreasonably." Wow, you must be REALLY fun to stand behind in line at the coffee shop. "WADDYA MEAN $3 FOR THIS COFFEE? I COULD HAVE MADE IT FOR 10 CENTS! WHY ARE YOU SCREWING ME?" For reference, "getting screwed" would be what was happening if surge pricing was applied when you got out of the cab without your knowledge - not…

Uber's justification for surge pricing is that the waits for cabs would be unacceptably long without it. If it's cutting hours off what the wait time would be without surge pricing, then that claim is correct. If it's a 20-second difference then a reasonable person would disagree.

I'm confused as to why Uber's justification matters. If surge pricing seems unjust to you, don't pay surge prices. Use a competitor, like taxis or your bike.

Re: The Black Car Company That People Love to Hate

#32

Post by chiph »

One problem with the ride-sharing apps (Lyft and Uber) is insurance companies are now wise to them.

I just got my renewal, and they specifically exclude coverage for vehicle damage, occupant injuries, pedestrian injuries, and pretty much everything else, should your vehicle be used in a ride-sharing program.

Re: The Black Car Company That People Love to Hate

#33

Post by jacalata »

natrius wrote: post #29
Philadelphia wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A shortage for everybody is more fair than a shortage just for those who aren't able to pay.

Surge pricing lures more drivers to the road because of the extra profit. More passengers are moved with surge pricing than without it. You're saying that it's more "fair" for fewer people to get the rides they want? Laws against price gouging are almost always against the public interest.

Is there evidence for this actually happening, or is it still just a hypothesis? I don't remember seeing any evidence for "more drivers drove during the storm/on NYE than would have without increasing prices" the last few times it came up.

Re: The Black Car Company That People Love to Hate

#34

Post by eddieroger »

Philadelphia wrote: post #25
jseliger wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price gouging is supply and demand. It's just supply and demand in ways that seem particularly unfair, like withholding food to make a profit. As noted elsewhere in this thread, the alternative is a shortage—that is, not being able to acquire it for any price. Wanting to make a good or service unavailable to anyone at any price is... odd. See http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/01/munger_on_price_1.h... for more.

A shortage for everybody is more fair than a shortage just for those who aren't able to pay.

Business isn't fair, and not all services are targeted at all consumers. Rates stabilize to what the market will bear. If the $texas higher that Uber was during peak times was the norm, Uber wouldn't have business. If it was lower, cars would never be available. This is just an adjustment that they specifically call out. Besides, this is a black car service we're talking about and not public transit, and even the bus costs more during some times of the day.

Also, it's not an overall shortage. Take San Francisco for example: there are lots of public transportation options, yellow cabs, and Uber clones, forgetting walking or bicycles. What's in shortage? Only Uber.

Re: The Black Car Company That People Love to Hate

#35

Post by ewang1 »

pkfrank wrote: post #19
ape4 wrote: post #15

I don't get it. Doesn't every airport in the world have taxis waiting. Why would you need an app to get a taxi at an airport.

I've had Uber drivers say not to bother using the app at LAX. They need to get a separate permit from airport officials to pick up the passenger, so it's at minimum a ~30 minute ordeal to arrange pick-up. Uber isn't right for every use-case; especially pick-ups from regulated areas where taxi stands are already prevalent.

My Uber driver just told me to request the ride when the plane touches down so he can get the permit ahead of time.

Re: The Black Car Company That People Love to Hate

#36

Post by ewang1 »

defilade wrote: post #21
ape4 wrote: post #15

I don't get it. Doesn't every airport in the world have taxis waiting. Why would you need an app to get a taxi at an airport.

Uber has higher-quality cars and you get to rate the drivers so they tend to be a little more polite and professional. Not that taxis can't have high-quality cars and drivers but it's more of a crap shoot.

I just came back from China and used Uber there... They have much better cars there: Audi A6L and MB E-class.

Re: The Black Car Company That People Love to Hate

#37

Post by ewang1 »

Philadelphia wrote: post #25
jseliger wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price gouging is supply and demand. It's just supply and demand in ways that seem particularly unfair, like withholding food to make a profit. As noted elsewhere in this thread, the alternative is a shortage—that is, not being able to acquire it for any price. Wanting to make a good or service unavailable to anyone at any price is... odd. See http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/01/munger_on_price_1.h... for more.

A shortage for everybody is more fair than a shortage just for those who aren't able to pay.

It doesn't matter that it isn't "fair". There are going to be people who are willing to pay the increased rate.

The alternative is no drivers on the road, so the increased demand pricing probably comes out on top in terms of number of rides completed.

Re: The Black Car Company That People Love to Hate

#38

Post by ewang1 »

michaelochurch wrote: post #26
al2o3cr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If it's 20 seconds, then that's a case of me getting screwed for a minor convenience priced unreasonably." Wow, you must be REALLY fun to stand behind in line at the coffee shop. "WADDYA MEAN $3 FOR THIS COFFEE? I COULD HAVE MADE IT FOR 10 CENTS! WHY ARE YOU SCREWING ME?" For reference, "getting screwed" would be what was happening if surge pricing was applied when you got out of the cab without your knowledge - not…

Uber's justification for surge pricing is that the waits for cabs would be unacceptably long without it. If it's cutting hours off what the wait time would be without surge pricing, then that claim is correct. If it's a 20-second difference then a reasonable person would disagree.

But that doesn't matter. Uber provides a service, at a price they set. Those who don't want to pay the price can just find an alternative. It's not as if their mission is to provide some kind of community service.

Lots of other businesses operate the same way.

Re: The Black Car Company That People Love to Hate

#39

Post by memracom »

I remember when I was in Russia back in 2205 and it was so much simpler than that. I just went to the edge of the road and raised my hand. within seconds a car pulled up. How much to go to the central bus station I asked. He quoted the price, I knew that I had the right change in my pocket because in Russia, you always keep mental track of what you have. I got in, we drove a few km to the station. I got the cash out of my pocket, handed it over and got out. Simple.

Of course it was because in the uber-capitalist Russian Federation either there were no laws about taxis or everyone ignored them. Anyone needing to earn some spare cash offered people rides. Always round numbers in cash negotiated in advance. Simple.

Re: The Black Car Company That People Love to Hate

#40

Post by memracom »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #14
jaibot wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, one advantage is having any competition at all. The taxi market has been so badly broken for so long that just being able to introduce new drivers and companies results in lower prices and better service all around.

I agree, but in the context of the comment you're responding to, this is subsumed in evading regulation. You are more or less saying, "Taxi regulations are bad because they reduce competition without corresponding advantages that outweigh the cost, so Uber's wins when it evades those regulations and reintroduces competition." But it's still "evading regulations." Although I'd prefer to think of it as avoiding regulat…

Actually it is more like privatization of taxi regulations. Instead of paying for a burdensome and ineffective government bureaucracy, a libertarian would let private companies handle it.

The tricky part is avoiding monopoly and arguably, monopoly is at the root of the problems with burdensome and ineffective government bureaucracy.

Post reply on HN