Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#51

Post by rtpg » Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 2:11 PM UTC

Hytosys wrote: post #49

gnu8 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The heavy spin is necessary to preserve the image that Uber represents the drivers. Uber really just provides technical infrastructure and marketing, and rakes off most of the profit. Almost all of that wealth should be flowing back to the drivers who provide Uber's actual service. The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for the…

>The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for them to organize, since they all have smartphones and they all end up dissatisfied when Uber cuts their rates. As a consumer who would much rather ride in a self-driving car than with a human driver, this notion pains my heart. Using unions to halt the progress of technology hurts us…

your "progress of technology" is based off of the exploitation of the lower class. I'd much rather our resources be allocated in a way that doesn't force people to work 3 jobs.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#52

Post by debacle » Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 2:12 PM UTC

wozniacki wrote: post #37

gnu8 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The heavy spin is necessary to preserve the image that Uber represents the drivers. Uber really just provides technical infrastructure and marketing, and rakes off most of the profit. Almost all of that wealth should be flowing back to the drivers who provide Uber's actual service. The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for the…

I am perfectly aware that we live in deeply partisan times. Partisan in not just political ideologies but also in ways we see the world and our place in it. At times, it seems all middle ground has vanished. But that discussion is for another time. Unionizing is a contentious issue not just for the employers but also for the consumers, especially when you look at how unions - in the industries and sectors where they…

> I am yet to find a single heavily-unionized entity proving to enhance my experience as a consumer.

Unionization has nothing to do with your experience as a consumer.

> seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers.

That's entirely the fucking point of unions - to serve the members.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#53

Post by 67726e » Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 2:13 PM UTC

Hytosys wrote: post #49

gnu8 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The heavy spin is necessary to preserve the image that Uber represents the drivers. Uber really just provides technical infrastructure and marketing, and rakes off most of the profit. Almost all of that wealth should be flowing back to the drivers who provide Uber's actual service. The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for the…

>The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for them to organize, since they all have smartphones and they all end up dissatisfied when Uber cuts their rates. As a consumer who would much rather ride in a self-driving car than with a human driver, this notion pains my heart. Using unions to halt the progress of technology hurts us…

I hope they unionize and demand higher wages. Higher costs for human drivers will increase the incentive for driver-less cars, right?

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#54

Post by DanBC » Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 2:14 PM UTC

matthewmacleod wrote: post #42

fennecfoxen wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, a blind devotion to the regulations in question without reference to passengers' overall well-being and ability to afford a ride is equally nonsense, and a common feature of the current regime's defense of itself. (For instance, when all the London taxi drivers were complaining about Uber using boring reasons about taximeters).

Agreed that there's a much wider issue to examine, because taxi services could really use an overhaul. Though I don't agree that the London case is particularly boring. The London taxi racket argued that Uber was violating the rules on minicab services not having taximeters (and that's a legitimately arguable point). That's how this sort of thing gets resolved; either we decide "yes, that rule is outdated, let's chan…

"The London Taxi racket"[1] were not just arguing about meters. They were also arguing about wheelchair and guide-dog accessibility.

[1] is language like that useful?

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#55

Post by donatj » Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 2:14 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #35

valarauca1 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence. No but you should be properly insured and bonded to prevent client liability. You can argue Laissez-faire, but we tried that in the 1860-1890's and it really sucked. We collectively decided individual safety is worth more then a fatter wallet. Your argument works from an Objectivist stand…

Nothing about laissez-faire precludes insurance and bonding. If anything the very non-laissez-faire phenomenon of bankruptcy is what makes an insurance mandate necessary. Not that I'm against bankruptcy laws in general. I'm just pointing out that personal liability is hardly unregulated.

Replying to the other reply that exceeds the max depth one can reply directly to, to imply "human life" is somehow a magical infinitely valuable commodity is childishly naive. Human life is just an electrochemical reaction and like everything else in the universe has a quantifiable value.

If you're going to vote me down please explain how I am wrong and how not being able to put a price on life is more than just silly romanticism.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#56

Post by pc86 » Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 2:16 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #43

wozniacki wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am perfectly aware that we live in deeply partisan times. Partisan in not just political ideologies but also in ways we see the world and our place in it. At times, it seems all middle ground has vanished. But that discussion is for another time. Unionizing is a contentious issue not just for the employers but also for the consumers, especially when you look at how unions - in the industries and sectors where they…

Unionizing wasn't such a contentious issue when employers were working their employees to death and paying them in credit to be used at the company store.

Which they're obviously not now, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#57

Post by valarauca1 » Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 2:17 PM UTC

brokenmusic wrote: post #40

hobs wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to have more to say than no one should be licensed for anything, that is a ridiculous proposition. No licensed electricians? Sorry your house is on fire!

Exactly, my house, not yours. That's why I'm responsible for choosing a reputable electrician, not you.

Yes but if your house causes a black out to our city, or a fire that destroys a city block who's held responsible? You, the electrician? What if people die?

The problem with Randian Objectivism is it normalizes human death to solve micro economical problems. I'd rather have micro economical problems then human death.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#58

Post by rtpg » Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 2:19 PM UTC

wozniacki wrote: post #37

gnu8 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The heavy spin is necessary to preserve the image that Uber represents the drivers. Uber really just provides technical infrastructure and marketing, and rakes off most of the profit. Almost all of that wealth should be flowing back to the drivers who provide Uber's actual service. The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for the…

I am perfectly aware that we live in deeply partisan times. Partisan in not just political ideologies but also in ways we see the world and our place in it. At times, it seems all middle ground has vanished. But that discussion is for another time. Unionizing is a contentious issue not just for the employers but also for the consumers, especially when you look at how unions - in the industries and sectors where they…

There's been enough studies showing that people having more than 0 weeks of vacation is beneficial, good for productivity, etc. Unions have secured that for people in the US who would otherwise not have access to this.

A lot of social movements granting more vacation time to people in France happened through generalised strikes caused by unions.

The argument goes that since people can be more productive when well rested and not sick, then companies can in theory pass the savings onto customers. Whether this happens in practice is slightly independent of unions getting health care and vacation for the workers.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#59

Post by donatj » Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 2:22 PM UTC

noelwelsh wrote: post #9

cpplinuxdude wrote: post #5

> "worries over the safety of consumers" Can't consumers decide what their safety requirements are? If they prefer a different service, for safety reasons, can't they just use that service instead?

Not really, because of information asymmetry. Users of taxi services, like users of medicine, are vastly less informed about the quality of the service than those that provide it. Contrary to Uber's propaganda, legislation around taxis is not there, for the most part, to increase the revenue of taxi operators.

Anyone with a smart phone to use Uber is capable of researching though. If they don't research the onus is on them. I don't just blindly buy products, or hire contractors it's not 1950. I always read reviews first. The people HAVE the power to find competitors in their area. If they donee en try that's not anyone's fault but their own.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#60

Post by ihnorton » Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 2:26 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #43

wozniacki wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am perfectly aware that we live in deeply partisan times. Partisan in not just political ideologies but also in ways we see the world and our place in it. At times, it seems all middle ground has vanished. But that discussion is for another time. Unionizing is a contentious issue not just for the employers but also for the consumers, especially when you look at how unions - in the industries and sectors where they…

Unionizing wasn't such a contentious issue when employers were working their employees to death and paying them in credit to be used at the company store.

That is incorrect. Unionizing was strongly opposed throughout the industrial revolution. Look up Pinkerton's efforts, the Haymarket incident, many others.