Are you sure? If I'm hit by a drunk driver I can sue the bar. All you need is one judge that thinks Uber has some culpability and you can sue away.
There's two differences there: 1) those suits are the result of special laws ("dram shop laws") that extend liability to bars; 2) liability in those cases arises when the bar did something negligent (serve someone who appeared to be drunk, serve a minor, etc). Absent a special law, you can only sue a business for the negligence of its employees under the theory of respondeat superior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res…
If wages were left to market mechanisms, there would be no need for a set minimum wage. The fact that there is a minimum wage, and that many earn just that, is a clear indication that the market price of labor isn't negotiated between parties of equal strength. To be clear: regardless of who sets the minimum wage, there is a minimum wage, and you aren't free to take a job under that level. To be honest, it would seem…
I agree with you that a minimum wage can be beneficial in industries where wages are not negotiated between parties of equal strength, for example, the giant Walmart that employs half the people in town. In this case, economic models show that a minimum wage could actually increase employment by pushing wages closer to what the competitive wage would be. However, I'd argue that in many (if not most) industries this i…
> In fast-food and software, for example, the workers are free to move between employers at will, giving the workers significant power to negotiate.
In jobs like these, few employees tend to be unionized. I have seen strong unions modtly in manufacturing, health care and such.
That means, the public should pay for one companies profit?
No, public healthcare makes sure you get on your foot again an then tries to get their money back as any other insurance would.
So, the public makes sure the damage of you being hurt, unable to work and maybe turning out to be a case for social security because of being maltreated is avoided.
This is the first thing that jumped out at me. Taxi drivers in London are brilliant. Try using a Taxi in Melbourne. Most of the drivers don't know the most basic of knowledge. Main roads in the city? No idea. The casino? "Could you direct me?". Getting into a bloody Taxi in the city for a fare less than 20kms is a lesson in patience. You often have to lie about where you're going until you get into the cab. Regulatio…
> I've used Uber and really like the service when I'm going a fare (sorry) distance. But they are just as bad, if not worse, than cabs when it's only a short trip around the city. I'm interested in hearing more about your Uber experiences. In my experience (and that of everyone I know), Uber has been great for short and longer distances. The Uber drivers don't even know where you want them to go until you're already…
There were two separate occasions where I tried to book an Uber driver for a short fare and no drivers accepted. Perhaps both situations were just a lack of drivers and I incorrectly assumed it was the short fare.
It's hard to trace products through the entire chain of production, but yes, in Sweden it's quite hard to buy products and services produced without the union setting the wages (there are no minimum wages set by law, only unions, and the union negotiates wages also for non-union employees). It might be under the headline "Scandinavian model" of that econ textbook.
Ah, sorry to knock your country of residence, perhaps unions work differently in Sweden. In the USA, unions use their monopoly power to push wages above the competitive rate, at the expense of consumers, the unemployed, and nonunion workers. Imagine if you were looking for your first job, and you were only allowed to be employed at union rates. It would not be easy to convince an employer to hire you. Perhaps that's…
“We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate…Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy till the moment of execution; and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people” In contrast, when workers combine, “the masters..never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combination of servants, labourers, and journeymen.” - A Wealth of Nations
Who's stopping you? London has thousands of mini-cabs. Just google London minicab, and phone one of the numbers. Have you actually ever been to London?
Googling is not an option when I'm on the street and I need a cab (I don't have mobile Internet access, nor can I justify the cost), which is most of the times when I actually take one.
Are you sure? If I'm hit by a drunk driver I can sue the bar. All you need is one judge that thinks Uber has some culpability and you can sue away.
There's two differences there: 1) those suits are the result of special laws ("dram shop laws") that extend liability to bars; 2) liability in those cases arises when the bar did something negligent (serve someone who appeared to be drunk, serve a minor, etc). Absent a special law, you can only sue a business for the negligence of its employees under the theory of respondeat superior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res…
yeah right typical americans. Let's kill people but not take responsibility.
There's two differences there: 1) those suits are the result of special laws ("dram shop laws") that extend liability to bars; 2) liability in those cases arises when the bar did something negligent (serve someone who appeared to be drunk, serve a minor, etc). Absent a special law, you can only sue a business for the negligence of its employees under the theory of respondeat superior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res…
Thanks for that... I learned something today!
There is the basic principle that anyone can be sued for the consequences of their actions. Uber arranged that drive. They didn't check for insurance status. That could be cause enough. Plus between you and the driver there exists no business relationship. So you can argue that there's nothing to sue about.
Besides who would you sue ? "The driver" doesn't work too wel. You'd sue Uber to get the name of the driver in the first place.
This go-between-suit is pretty common in legal cases. What should happen is this. Judge agrees Uber owes your medical bills/restitution/whatever applies. Judge also agrees that Uber can get this amount from their driver. Then Uber has to cough up the money, but if they ask for delay in payment until their suit of the driver is finished, 99% certain they'll get that. Then you get the choice of getting the money from Uber, or joining Uber's suit against the driver (not a hard choice with Uber).
This is easily the best (and possibly only good) argument I've seen in favour of traditional cabs. The right kind of regulation can dramatically improve accessibility to people who are otherwise at risk of becoming marginalised. Unregulated competition always has the risk of marginalising minorities because they might be too small to be an attractive market.
This doesn't make any sense. Subsidized cabs can coexist with the likes of Uber/Lyft. Do you think subsidized apartments don't exist or something?
Yes, but then you have to subsidize them. There are also advantages to cabs not needing subsidies.
How do you know? Is there a study that shows cabs need government regulation.
If you're imagination needs broadening... se, eg https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7948931 or the many parallels to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7935819
The first one is just promotion of mercantilism and the second seems more like obscurantism. Just use fancy words to hide the fallacy.
Trust can be build by simple rating system and private certifications with mostly better standarts.
The taxi regulations benefit mainly professionals at the cost of society as a whole because it cripples competition and that leads to higher costs for the consumers.
I would like to have cheaper taxis at the expense of some security. Others could just go with a certificated taxi company.