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

It's not a crime if we do it with an app

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 640 posts

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#351

Post by Volundr »

gruez wrote: post #323
steveBK123 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly - theres a lot of stuff that if an individual/small business owner did, they'd be personally onerously fined or jailed.. but corporations get a pass. Corporations also have a lot of money to pay good lobbyists & lawyers such that laws are pretty forgiving, loopholes are found & exploited, and finally they are vigorously defended if the government ever does try to crack down. Ubers behavior during its growth p…

>To avoid having to pay any difference to make up the hourly wage to drivers, Uber runs an algorithm which kicks drivers out of the app randomly if demand gets too low, without warning or indication of when they can get back in. It can be minutes or hours. So the drivers remain on the road, driving/idling, waiting to get back into the app. The "work" is still getting done, but it doesn't count against Uber. I get leg…

> expecting uber to continue allowing unlimited amount of drivers to be "online", when they have to pay for them is absurd.

I don't recall anyone demanding that. Maybe things have changed since then, but back when I worked in restaurants if things were slow I'd be sent home and know when I was expected to be back be that the next day or in time for the dinner rush. I wasn't randomly clocked off for 15-30 minutes, and expected to hang around, then suddenly told I'm back on. In fact we'd call that wage theft, (which is very common in the US). But suddenly for Uber such a thing is acceptable.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#352

Post by maeil »

contingencies wrote: post #307
alt227 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the feeling this was the plan from begining.

IIRC the modern corporation as a legal entity was created in response to the high capital and high risk requirements embodied in early western shipping ventures. The first stock exchange ("bourse") for this was actually French(?) (hazy here, possibly Belgian or Dutch, and probably roots in Hanseatic League financing if not beyond). FWIW there's a whole subset of the antiques world which deals in share notes - promiss…

> It is perhaps not overly hyperbolic to state that the challenge of our era is to determine a mode of capturing the power of emergent technology to undo this situation, and nothing less than the fate of the planet rests on doing so.

Eugenics that select for altruism, empathy and cooporation and against greed and egotism. It's absurd to keep this subject taboo as we're staring down the apocalypse. Rather everyone goes down with the ship than consider something drastic that might go against what I was taught as a kid

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#353

Post by b112 »

gruez wrote: post #323
steveBK123 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly - theres a lot of stuff that if an individual/small business owner did, they'd be personally onerously fined or jailed.. but corporations get a pass. Corporations also have a lot of money to pay good lobbyists & lawyers such that laws are pretty forgiving, loopholes are found & exploited, and finally they are vigorously defended if the government ever does try to crack down. Ubers behavior during its growth p…

>To avoid having to pay any difference to make up the hourly wage to drivers, Uber runs an algorithm which kicks drivers out of the app randomly if demand gets too low, without warning or indication of when they can get back in. It can be minutes or hours. So the drivers remain on the road, driving/idling, waiting to get back into the app. The "work" is still getting done, but it doesn't count against Uber. I get leg…

A lot of jurisdictions require 4 hr minimum pay when called in to work.

I wonder, would cabs be more competitive of Uber's alternative business model, if Uber had to be fairer?

If so, then isn't Uber a sham? And shouldn't market forces see them go?

Airbnb used to be cheap... at the start. Then people added insurance, people had to get permits, and so on, just as Hotels, and other do. Now it's not so cheap any more.

One of the biggest disruptions is "don't pay your fair share". Or "pay people dirt wages".

Companies carve out a new business model, and aren't taxed or forced to pay as incumbents are.

Are people against people making a fair wage? Well guess what, you have to pay more for an Uber. And maybe Uber doesn't work as a business model unless it's too expensive.

Too bad! Uber has to work in the same ecosystem as everyone else... or it's a farce.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#354

Post by rambojohnson »

what a dog shit article. The claim that "apps" enable financial misconduct is unsupported, and the title's questions are left unaddressed. The central argument—that traditional companies are driving inflation—is never substantiated. The final paragraph reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of economics, suggesting that prices should fall once inflationary pressures ease, which is incorrect.

This severe lack of economic insight undermines the rest of the article's credibility for me. and at 500k upvotes, I'm really starting to question even bothering with this community anymore. Bot votes?

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#355

Post by contingencies »

maeil wrote: post #352
contingencies wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC the modern corporation as a legal entity was created in response to the high capital and high risk requirements embodied in early western shipping ventures. The first stock exchange ("bourse") for this was actually French(?) (hazy here, possibly Belgian or Dutch, and probably roots in Hanseatic League financing if not beyond). FWIW there's a whole subset of the antiques world which deals in share notes - promiss…

> It is perhaps not overly hyperbolic to state that the challenge of our era is to determine a mode of capturing the power of emergent technology to undo this situation, and nothing less than the fate of the planet rests on doing so. Eugenics that select for altruism, empathy and cooporation and against greed and egotism. It's absurd to keep this subject taboo as we're staring down the apocalypse. Rather everyone goe…

Haha :) I think evolution shows centralist solutions don't end well. GATTACA comes to mind. It'd be nice if we all did something positive and chillaxed a bit instead of fervently lining our piggy-troughs to the detriment of all other piggies, non-piggies and future piggies. So practically, that means, like - don't marry an investment banker, a politician, or a sociopath corporate ladderite.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#356

Post by gruez »

DasCorCor wrote: post #242
gruez wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The author claims, that these companies raise prices more than inflation based cost increases in production would allow for. That's just supply and demand? People get mad that when there's an oil shortage, that oil companies raise prices above the cost of production, but they're happy to see oil companies' margin collapse when there's an oil glut.

They’re colluding to fix prices. That is a cartel. It is facilitated by a middleman app. Still unethical, and should be illegal.

Right, but "companies raise prices more than inflation based cost increases in production would allow for" non-sequitur. There's plenty of ways that prices can raise faster than input costs, that doesn't imply price fixing.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#357

Post by dghlsakjg »

bdangubic wrote: post #257
amazingamazing wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sherman act in usa

how many companies - lifetime - have actually been charged, convicted and significantly impacted by the sherman act?

Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon are the ones in FANMAG off the top of my head.

Also keep in mind that the existence of the law guides decisions around compliance. There is ample evidence that all of the big decisions at FANMAG are viewed through compliance with anti-trust as a concern. Basically, a lot of big companies haven't been prosecuted because they have armies of lawyers working on where exactly that law kicks in, and how much they can step over the line without putting themselves at serious risk.

The existence of the law itself is a deterrence mechanism. It just seems like the justice department is hampered with a century old law in dealing with a modern world.

I personally think that we should be more zealous in enforcing, or better yet, pass better laws. Move the line way back, essentially.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#358

Post by gmueckl »

ajmurmann wrote: post #98
gmueckl wrote: post #76

This is all a result of a lack of active market regulation. The government needs to step in actively to keep a free market from collapsing into one of the natural end states. But the US has consistently been far too passive and accepts greedy companies far too readily. If a single company can sell almost 100% of an essential good, they need to atomatically lose the power to set their prices and margins independently.…

"But the US has consistently been far too passive and accepts greedy companies far too readily." All companies are greedy. That's the reason for existence. Your point that monopolies and oligopolies need to be crushed is very valid though. I wish more mergers were rejected in the first place. Regulating prices is a recipe for disaster though.

I feel that US companies are consistently more ruthless and cut-throat than companies in other countries I have visited. I see that as cultural rather than a pure economic issue.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#359

Post by maeil »

contingencies wrote: post #355
maeil wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is perhaps not overly hyperbolic to state that the challenge of our era is to determine a mode of capturing the power of emergent technology to undo this situation, and nothing less than the fate of the planet rests on doing so. Eugenics that select for altruism, empathy and cooporation and against greed and egotism. It's absurd to keep this subject taboo as we're staring down the apocalypse. Rather everyone goe…

Haha :) I think evolution shows centralist solutions don't end well. GATTACA comes to mind. It'd be nice if we all did something positive and chillaxed a bit instead of fervently lining our piggy-troughs to the detriment of all other piggies, non-piggies and future piggies. So practically, that means, like - don't marry an investment banker, a politician, or a sociopath corporate ladderite.

The current solution has been leading to the worst possible end.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#360

Post by sotix »

> Josh Saltzman, owner of the DC sports bar Ivy and Coney. Ten years ago, Saltzman charged $3 for fries; now it's $6 – and Saltzman's margins have declined. Saltzman has a limited number of suppliers, and they all get their potatoes from Big Potato, and they bundle those potato orders with their other supplies, making it effectively impossible for Saltzman to buy his potatoes from anyone else.

I understand there will be a demand for French fries from consumers, but you don’t have to serve them. This is something I appreciate about Greek cuisine. There are so many wonderful foods spawned from input constraints. Sugar was a luxury in Greece during the 20th century while honey was more readily available, so you see many desserts sweetened with honey. The Lenten and nativity fast call for essentially a vegan diet, so there are numerous recipes that don’t require animal products and are cheap to make. Eggs and lemons were readily available, so they created avgolemono soup, which is a modest, yet delicious dish.

The overall American cuisine seems unwilling to adapt. The tricky bit is, that’s probably correct from a business standpoint. I’ve heard, “If we don’t sell hamburgers at airport restaurants, they’ll fail.” from a consultant in the airport terminal industry. It’s as if we’ve grown to expect seasonal fruit and vegetables year round as a mindset for our cuisine. Surely, there’s room to be more flexible with what we eat, which would allow business owners to serve food based on what’s readily available and cheaper for them to serve.

Now if absolutely every type of food is experiencing price gouging, that’s hard to get around. But I think there’s some middle ground, which requires serving different food items.

Post reply on HN