Uber-Capitalism at its worst • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber-Capitalism at its worst

#11

Post by vezzy-fnord » Sun, Jan 10, 2016, 5:07 PM UTC

futuravenir wrote: post #7

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #5

The author has a very perverse mode of thinking, at least to me personally. He praises the fact that medallions and price controls cause artificial shortages and blames Uber for devaluing the medallions through their competition. That's the most bass-ackwards thing I've read in a while. Yes, taxi companies can't compete, because they're a state cartel. The author complains about Uber becoming a monopoly, but laments…

>He praises the fact that medallions and price controls cause artificial shortages and blames Uber for devaluing the medallions through their competition. I didn't read the text as 'praise' for taxi companies or government regulation, just a statement of facts about them. Reread that part of the text from a neutral place. "Next, it’s time to understand the legal difference between what Uber is doing and what taxi com…

It's stating that the playing field is unfair and that becoming a taxi driver isn't a career path anymore.

Of course it's unfair. You have an artificially constrained supply.

I perceive it to be as a means for workers to make certain they have fair working conditions and fair pay for their work as a base.

In the same way, a business cartel is a means for firms to coordinate operations in a manner to mutually benefit in terms of profitability by vertically integrating stages of production or through more brute price gouging arrangements.

Of course, they have a high incentive to break down as a result of disobeying to exploit new opportunities from the leveling that has been done.

Unions serve the same function, but on the demand side (more specifically wage laborers). You can't support one without also allowing for the other.

Re: Uber-Capitalism at its worst

#12

Post by vixen99 » Sun, Jan 10, 2016, 7:53 PM UTC

sidcool wrote: post #4

As Peter Thiel also said, Uber is an ethically challenged company. It's means are not proper, but it's super convenient for commuters, and that's what capitalism cares about.

Its means. It's reads as "it is means . . ." or "it has mean are not proper" which is gibberish.

Re: Uber-Capitalism at its worst

#13

Post by dawnbreez » Sun, Jan 10, 2016, 7:53 PM UTC

So, Uber:

>Provides the same service at lower costs

>Pays more to drivers who drive at peak hours, by charging more at those times

>Is (gasp!) not charging its drivers hundreds of thousands of dollars for the privelige of having someone barf on their seats

Okay, the accusations of driver-poaching and underhanded tactics are bad...but then again, the driver poaching could just be drivers going where the better money is.

In fact, I'd say this is capitalism at its best. It's providing a service where the service is needed at a fraction of the cost, and without having to wait for anyone else's say-so.

Re: Uber-Capitalism at its worst

#14

Post by ThomPete » Sun, Jan 10, 2016, 7:59 PM UTC

dorfsmay wrote: post #10

ThomPete wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats the problem though. You seem to imply that it's just a matter of changing the skills of the workforce. But thats not the discussion thats worth having I think, cause the real issue is whether that's even possible anymore. I don't know if anything can be too capitalistic, but since uber is trying to get around normal legislation (taking the best from defining their drivers as freelancers and treating them as emp…

> Thats the problem though. You seem to imply that it's just a matter of changing the skills of the workforce. Not what I meant, but it is a much bigger discussion than Uber and ethics that involves concepts of basic income, which work can and cannot be automated, rewarding work that's not interesting, rewarding innovation, etc... The article here confuse capitalism with ethics, and tries to defend one form of capita…

Yes it's bigger which is why I was commenting on it since parent seemed to try and dismiss the essays claim by pointing toward some rational inconsistency.

At least that's how it read to me.

Re: Uber-Capitalism at its worst

#15

Post by ThomPete » Sun, Jan 10, 2016, 8:08 PM UTC

dawnbreez wrote: post #13

So, Uber: >Provides the same service at lower costs >Pays more to drivers who drive at peak hours, by charging more at those times >Is (gasp!) not charging its drivers hundreds of thousands of dollars for the privelige of having someone barf on their seats Okay, the accusations of driver-poaching and underhanded tactics are bad...but then again, the driver poaching could just be drivers going where the better money i…

You are cherry picking.

Here is some other cherry picking.

Uber doesn't allow it's drivers to set their own prices even though they are freelancers and not employees.

Uber doesn't compensate for that by at least promoting tips.

Uber doesn't allow the drivers to sub-contract to other drivers.

Because there is no upper limit on how many drivers there can be, each uber driver is in effect going to fight for less and less market.

Oh yeah and Uber is working on replacing all their drivers.

These are just a few of the issues with uber and is hardly capitalism at it's best.

Re: Uber-Capitalism at its worst

#16

Post by dawnbreez » Sun, Jan 10, 2016, 9:55 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #15

dawnbreez wrote: post #13

So, Uber: >Provides the same service at lower costs >Pays more to drivers who drive at peak hours, by charging more at those times >Is (gasp!) not charging its drivers hundreds of thousands of dollars for the privelige of having someone barf on their seats Okay, the accusations of driver-poaching and underhanded tactics are bad...but then again, the driver poaching could just be drivers going where the better money i…

You are cherry picking. Here is some other cherry picking. Uber doesn't allow it's drivers to set their own prices even though they are freelancers and not employees. Uber doesn't compensate for that by at least promoting tips. Uber doesn't allow the drivers to sub-contract to other drivers. Because there is no upper limit on how many drivers there can be, each uber driver is in effect going to fight for less and les…

Fair enough. There are tradeoffs.

My comment was, honestly, more defensive than anything else. I saw that the article was making broad statements and misrepresenting the problem, and I proceeded to do the same in return. It's silly and I should've known better.

Re: Uber-Capitalism at its worst

#17

Post by ThomPete » Sun, Jan 10, 2016, 11:11 PM UTC

dawnbreez wrote: post #16

ThomPete wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are cherry picking. Here is some other cherry picking. Uber doesn't allow it's drivers to set their own prices even though they are freelancers and not employees. Uber doesn't compensate for that by at least promoting tips. Uber doesn't allow the drivers to sub-contract to other drivers. Because there is no upper limit on how many drivers there can be, each uber driver is in effect going to fight for less and les…

Fair enough. There are tradeoffs. My comment was, honestly, more defensive than anything else. I saw that the article was making broad statements and misrepresenting the problem, and I proceeded to do the same in return. It's silly and I should've known better.

Well I too find the article misrepresenting the problem but for different reasons :) (see my other comment in this thread)

Re: Uber-Capitalism at its worst

#18

Post by dawnbreez » Mon, Jan 11, 2016, 1:31 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #3

Given that Uber is going to replace each and everyone of their drivers with automatic cars it's really just pure capitalism. Not good, not evil. Calling it "capitalism at it's worst" is putting a lot of noise into the discussion as it assume that it can be solved with better morals or ethics. But even if Uber paid it's drivers as actual employers instead of this absurd freelance status they have it wouldn't change th…

I suspect that the notorious Basic Income Guarantee may help here.

In all seriousness, a basic income would be ideal for such a situation; its low-bureaucracy implementation may even make such a system less expensive than standard welfare, while providing better benefits to the economy as a whole.