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

391–400 of 640 posts

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

#391

Post by keybored »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #247
CogitoCogito wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess if our goal were to stop this sort of corporate behavior, we would remove the requirement of a crime being intentional for corporations.

> we would remove the requirement of a crime being intentional for corporations You still have the problem of punishing diffuse guilt. The correct answer is fines. Massive fines, potentially to the point of bankruptcy. We don't like to do that, however, because corporations have many stakeholders who may not deserve punishment, e.g. employees.

> You still have the problem of punishing diffuse guilt.

Corporations are hierarchical.

> however, because corporations have many stakeholders who may not deserve punishment, e.g. employees.

Hiding behind the employees. The ones with the least stake in the company. That’s a classic.

They might have their two weeks notice. What else? “There might be no other jobs around?”

Class collaboration is a lie.

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

#392

Post by philosopher1234 »

gruez wrote: post #390
philosopher1234 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok? I’m not arguing about debtors prisons? I’m not sure why you’ve focused on it

>I’m not arguing about debtors prisons? I’m not sure why you’ve focused on it Because that's seemingly what you were asking about? If not clarify what you originally meant rather than beating around the bush then being surprised when people aren't focusing on the things you want. >>>Like what? Moreover, what does this hold for public policy? Should we bring back debtor's prisons? That would be the obvious solution to…

My point is just this: it seems like there are a million reasons that all of the following could be true:

* policy is majorly influenced, to the point of near dictatorship, by shareholder profits

* thus, crimes perpetuated in the name of these profits are vague, hard to define, hard to prosecute

* some white collar crime, that shareholders despise, remains difficult to prosecute despite being aligned with the interests of this dominating power

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

#393

Post by unethical_ban »

wyager wrote: post #345
gmueckl wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any free, unregulated market will eliminate competitors until they create an oligopoly or even a single monopoly. It's an immediate consequence of the rules of the market.

Despite constant moaning about the US not engaging in monopoly-busting anymore, that doesn't actually seem to be a problem in practice. In reality, comparative advantage and specialization dynamics do not uniformly equilibrate on monopoly markets.

The content of the article shows that it is still a problem. You think that landlords and food suppliers colluding to raise prices to just below the breaking point is not a problem?

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

#394

Post by pclmulqdq »

gruez wrote: post #268
ryandrake wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The corporate veil should provide enough protection from random and unforeseeable failures to encourage entrepreneurship, but not enough that it shields wrongdoers from consequences. Currently it shields nearly everyone from everything in nearly all cases from run-of-the-mill business failure all the way up to straight-up fraud.

>Currently it shields nearly everyone from everything in nearly all cases from run-of-the-mill business failure all the way up to straight-up fraud. Tell that to Bill Hwang or Sam Bankman-Fried.

Bill Hwang and SBF committed the cardinal sin of business: losing other rich people's money. They both ran out of friends very quickly. Elizabeth Holmes was the same.

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

#395

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

steveBK123 wrote: post #330
gruez wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. They could have also kicked people out for full days, rest of shift, or given an indicator of when they may try again. Something that leaves it more clear they are off and don't linger around to try and get back in. Restaurants/retail will reduce staffing due to demand, but they d…

> If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers.

Why? All Uber cares about are the fees it collects, which are dependent on the total number of miles and total number of rides. It has no reason to care if its drivers make minimum wage or not, unless it can be shown that if they cannot, Uber will not have enough drivers. Fortunately for Uber, there is no evidence that this is the case.

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

#396

Post by gruez »

RHSeeger wrote: post #385
gruez wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. Most of those drivers were presumably enrolled before that legislation was passed/came into force. Blaming uber for having those drivers seems like a stretch. > They could have also kicked people out for full days, rest of shift, or given an indicator of when they may try again.…

> I don't doubt uber could have done better here, but characterizing poor UI as "circumvent the NYC law to try and ensure Uber drivers get a fair minimum wage" is a stretch. Honestly, that's _exactly_ what it looks like to me. Law makes it so that they have to pay drivers that are available to drive but aren't actively involved in a fair... so they change the system so that, if they don't have fairs for you you're no…

>Honestly, that's _exactly_ what it looks like to me. Law makes it so that they have to pay drivers that are available to drive but aren't actively involved in a fair... so they change the system so that, if they don't have fairs for you you're not considered available to drive. Everything about that reeks of trying to circumvent the law.

How is this any different than minimum wage laws which are ostensibly enacted to increase worker's salaries, but businesses respond by hiring people for fewer hours? I agree that uber is thwarting legislators' attempt to improve the earnings of uber drivers, but this was the outcome everyone has foresaw, including the legislators. Characterizing it as some cunning chicanery on uber's part is absurd.

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

#397

Post by pclmulqdq »

scarface_74 wrote: post #378
maeil wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed that massive fines (or, in my view preferably, massive stock dilutions) are better. However > You're proposing sending half of America to jail if any Fortune 500 commits a crime. That's a get-out-of-jail-free card, not meaningful deterrence. This is a poor argument. If the law would be as such and be upheld, everyone would start making damm sure the companies they invest in are trying their hardest to adhere t…

> If the law would be as such and be upheld, everyone would start making damm sure the companies they invest in are trying their hardest to adhere to the law So everyone in the US is going to do due diligence on all 500 companies in the S&P 500? Also you act as if the majority of Americans care about the law or ethics? You do remember the election we just had don’t you? The support that the majority has for 1500 crim…

No, just Fidelity and Vanguard (and S&P themselves) have to do due diligence for this sort of thing. In reality though, if $100 billion fines were on the table for companies like uber, that diligence would be priced into the stock and it would be far more effective.

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

#398

Post by daedrdev »

miohtama wrote: post #190
layer8 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I’m sympathetic to the sentiment, I don’t see how “sending shareholders to jail” could possibly work, given how many people own shares. It’s like your dog would be collectively owned by a million people. Maybe you mean the board?

There is no room for million people in any jail system on the planet. What should happen is to send the share price to zero or give to the government. This was e.g. done with 2008 financial crisis for Fannie Mae and it had been paying dividends to the US citizens since then. However there exists discussion whether this was a good thing in the end.

Some of the largest shareholders include pension plans and every day peoples retirement accounts

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

#399

Post by AnthonyMouse »

RHSeeger wrote: post #385
gruez wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. Most of those drivers were presumably enrolled before that legislation was passed/came into force. Blaming uber for having those drivers seems like a stretch. > They could have also kicked people out for full days, rest of shift, or given an indicator of when they may try again.…

> I don't doubt uber could have done better here, but characterizing poor UI as "circumvent the NYC law to try and ensure Uber drivers get a fair minimum wage" is a stretch. Honestly, that's _exactly_ what it looks like to me. Law makes it so that they have to pay drivers that are available to drive but aren't actively involved in a fair... so they change the system so that, if they don't have fairs for you you're no…

The actual problem is that it's a stupid law.

You effectively have two options. Option one, Uber signs up as many drivers as they have customers during off-peak hours and then if you want to drive only during peak hours to take advantage of surge pricing you can't and if you want a ride then there won't be enough drivers, because they won't sign up any more if they'd have to pay someone for 8 hours to have them only drive for one. Option two, there are that many full-time drivers and then they sign up some additional part-time drivers to satisfy peak demand, but the part-time drivers are part-time and they're not getting paid during off-peak hours.

Which one do you want? Notice that there is no one better off under the first option; the people who don't want to work part-time still have the option not to under the second option, the first just prevents them from doing it even if they want to.

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

#400

Post by daedrdev »

arrosenberg wrote: post #314
pwg wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The supplies of these goods have had occasional disruptions but are largely unchanged. Those "disruptions" you refer to create periods of "lack of supply" (i.e., less of the goods). That is what the "disruption" is, a temporary reduction in the "supply" > The demand has not changed in any material way. True, but, during the period of "temporary reduction in the supply" (i.e., the disruption) Econ 101's supply/deman…

Forget about oil for a second. Why is a large box of cereal $8 at the supermarket? It costs pennies to produce, maybe a dollar in landed cost. The small box costs almost the same landed and it's $5, which is also absurd. There is no supply shortage of corn and sugar, and no glut of demand for cereal. I'm not stupid, I understand supply and demand. COVID was 4 years ago. Explain the $8 box of cereal.

The company that makes the cereal is a low margin business. In fact most food that isnt high end is low margin. Somewhere they have a lot of costs to cover.
Post reply on HN