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

Uber has defeated Bill de Blasio’s plan to rein them in

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 263 posts

Re: Uber has defeated Bill de Blasio’s plan to rein them in

#151

Post by Tomte »

HappyTypist wrote: post #148
TeMPOraL wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because some people are willing to pay for something, doesn't mean it's right. People in general are very happy to pay for things that have huge externalities not directly affecting them.

What externalities for uber are you referring to?

Uninsured Uber driver causes traffic accident. Pedestrian is severely injured. Uber driver cannot pay for the medical expenses and there is no insurance company involved who could.

Either the pedestrian is ruined for life, or society has to pick up the bill.

That's one of the clearest examples of externality you will ever see.

Our free choice evangelists try to frame the whole issue as "one Uber driver, one satified customer who only exercised a choice, and no one else exist in the world".

It's dishonest, but that's Internet discussions.

Re: Uber has defeated Bill de Blasio’s plan to rein them in

#152

Post by marssaxman »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #60
marssaxman wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I make a point of asking Uber and Lyft drivers how they like it. Lyft drivers universally love it. Uber drivers are less enthusiastic on the whole, but they have generally said it's better than working as a cab driver. I've since stopped using Uber since it's hard to feel comfortable about their business practices, but they're still better than the taxi monopolies and I'm happy to see them pursuing the fight and clea…

To be honest, consider that it may take just one negative review to get fired ("independent contractors", hehe) from Uber (don't know how strict Lyft ratings are). I doubt the drivers that are not satisfied will risk answering you honestly, as you're a person in power to kick them out of their job by a single tap on your smartphone.

That's a reasonable point, and I certainly don't imagine that my informal survey results have any scientific validity. I do have what seems to be a higher-than-average sensitivity to body language, however, and I have never seen the signs of stress or guarding that I would expect if drivers were trying to give me the answers they thought I wanted. Perhaps Lyft's hiring process selects in some way for people who have the kind of social awareness and self-presentation skill necessary to fool me, but it seems simpler to believe that Lyft drivers are, by and large, genuinely happy about their jobs.

Re: Uber has defeated Bill de Blasio’s plan to rein them in

#153

Post by danieltillett »

dotBen wrote: post #139
danieltillett wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but if each market is isolated then the network effect is small. To dominate a market you just need enough drivers available to meet the market expectations. If you have two businesses in a market supplying an equal quality service, but where one is 20% cheaper, then the cheaper service will capture the majority of the market. An alternative hypothesis might be that nobody can think of a way to make money by i…

each market is isolated then the network effect is small Each market isn't isolated. I think the core difference of our perspectives is that I don't think we have a commoditized business, which you clearly think we do.

Yes I agree. I view the taxi industry as being made up of many separate markets where dominating one geographical market gives a company little competitive advantage in other geographical markets and hence why the taxi industry stayed fragmented when other areas of the transport industry consolidated. If this is wrong then the first business to win the consolidation race will dominate the market long term.

I don’t think Uber is in a commodity market right now (there is far too much innovation going on), I just don’t know how you prevent it becoming one in the future. Your current valuation suggests that a lot of smart money disagrees with me :)

Re: Uber has defeated Bill de Blasio’s plan to rein them in

#154

Post by HappyTypist »

Tomte wrote: post #151
HappyTypist wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What externalities for uber are you referring to?

Uninsured Uber driver causes traffic accident. Pedestrian is severely injured. Uber driver cannot pay for the medical expenses and there is no insurance company involved who could. Either the pedestrian is ruined for life, or society has to pick up the bill. That's one of the clearest examples of externality you will ever see. Our free choice evangelists try to frame the whole issue as "one Uber driver, one satified…

First of all, if that was true it would be a failure of the healthcare system ("society paying the bill" is just insurance with economies of scale). But that's not true. A lot of people are not aware of recent developments with uber. Uber offers commercial comprehensive insurance on all rides. When there is a passenger in the car, there is full commercial insurance.

When there are no pax, many insurance providers DO cover it under personal insurance. Some (like geico) don't, but I would wager that the majority of Uber are insured every second of the day.

Re: Uber has defeated Bill de Blasio’s plan to rein them in

#155

Post by dotBen »

p_monk wrote: post #98

Uber's "we need to meet demand" argument is true, but disingenuous. Uber needs to keep adding more drivers because they have such a high turnover rate. Many drivers work for a few months, realize that after costs they're making minimum wage, if that, and then quit. Naturally, Uber needs constant access to fresh blood in order to keep the scheme going.

If there was such an issue with churn, which isn't, the cap wouldn't be an issue because it was (as proposed) for total drivers not licenses issued.

Re: Uber has defeated Bill de Blasio’s plan to rein them in

#157

Post by debaserab2 »

EpicEng wrote: post #147
SilasX wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good pointer, but remember, as a general rule: The more savvy you have to be to avoid getting scammed, the more corrupt the system is.

That's hardly the system at work. "The system" attempts to address this problem. Your issue is with the people driving the cabs, not regulation.

This has been the status quo for some time with taxi cabs, so yes, I'd say regulation is definitely not doing it's job of protecting consumers.

Re: Uber has defeated Bill de Blasio’s plan to rein them in

#158

Post by [deleted] »

tzs wrote: post #115
vasilipupkin wrote: post #83

There is a restaurant in Chicago called El Ideas http://www.eater.com/2015/4/27/8486425/phillip-foss-el-ideas... It's in a neighborhood that has no cabs and driving there not pleasant or convenient. Last night the chef told me if it wasn't for Uber, they probably wouldn't have survived

Why did they put their restaurant in a location that depends on a single, possibly illegal, transportation service to get their customers to them? Was that location easier to get to when they opened?

[deleted]

Re: Uber has defeated Bill de Blasio’s plan to rein them in

#159

Post by Tomte »

HappyTypist wrote: post #154
Tomte wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uninsured Uber driver causes traffic accident. Pedestrian is severely injured. Uber driver cannot pay for the medical expenses and there is no insurance company involved who could. Either the pedestrian is ruined for life, or society has to pick up the bill. That's one of the clearest examples of externality you will ever see. Our free choice evangelists try to frame the whole issue as "one Uber driver, one satified…

First of all, if that was true it would be a failure of the healthcare system ("society paying the bill" is just insurance with economies of scale). But that's not true. A lot of people are not aware of recent developments with uber. Uber offers commercial comprehensive insurance on all rides. When there is a passenger in the car, there is full commercial insurance. When there are no pax, many insurance providers DO…

You're simply wrong.

Even if the healthcare system eats the cost (as it would in my country), it's not supposed to. That's akin to entering a health insurance contract and then demanding the insurer pays for the theft of your iPhone.

Road traffic is insured by car insurers. The Uber driver doesn't have any, the car insurer therefore doesn't pay, so someone else pays. It doesn't matter if you rationalize it with "oh, that someone else is also some insurer". It is someone not involved at all. Ergo an externality.

Re: Uber has defeated Bill de Blasio’s plan to rein them in

#160

Post by danieltillett »

morgante wrote: post #146
danieltillett wrote: post #65

The thing about Uber I don’t understand is how they are going to defend their monopoly once they acquire it. Assuming they eventually win all the legal battles and drive all other taxi and taxi-like services out of business then how are they going to stop anyone else from entering their market? Each transport market is effectively isolated (you don’t hail a driver from SF to get around NYC). This means any new entran…

I think you're significantly downplaying the network effects inherent in Uber's model. Yes, those network effects might be localized (each city is its own network), but they're still incredibly strong. Drivers want to be where the riders are and riders want to be where the drivers and other riders are. (As a rider, I want there to be a healthy rider pool so I can do sharing.) Additionally, Uber doesn't have to jack u…

>Given that, where do you think there is an opening? If it's so easy to compete with Uber on a micro level, why isn't Lyft beating it in any single market (despite $1b raised)?

The market is going through a lot of innovation right now and what the end result will be is not known. I just can’t see how even if Uber wins that they have a way of preventing competition eroding their margins. All the regulation in the taxi industry was driven by the players wanting to control the cut-throat competition that existed before regulation. Competition is great for consumers, but not so good for the owners of taxis.

Post reply on HN