401–410 of 640 posts
Cooperation is easier than ever now, and happens transnationally and locally.
Sellers generally have more sunk investments than buyers, and hence more market power.
Regulators gain more by cooperating as well, and industries embrace regulation that reduces competition especially new entrants.
It’s easy to explain but hard to address.
More like "It's not a crime if a corporation does it." The US treats corporations with kid gloves. They get away with so much, and in those rare cases where a regulatory body does anything , it's often just a strongly worded letter, a warning, a threat to one day send a strongly worded letter, or, in really rare, extreme cases, a company official gets called in to say a few words in front of Congress. Nobody goes to…
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…
This is the way our world works. If you steal a potato, you will be arrested immediately and the case will be resolved in a few weeks or months. If you illegally fix the price of potatoes and steal billions from the market, you will be allowed to operate for years in the open while a lengthy civil procedure eventually may ask you to give 1 or 2% of what you stole back in fines. Don't blame the potato theives or potat…
-- Snuff by Terry Pratchett
Here are some better explanations: - the "breadbasket of the world" (Ukraine) is at war - wages are up in the agricultural sector (a good thing overall but it's not free) - egg shortage - years of government deficits have massively increased the money supply...(more money chasing the same economic output)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
More like "It's not a crime if a corporation does it." The US treats corporations with kid gloves. They get away with so much, and in those rare cases where a regulatory body does anything , it's often just a strongly worded letter, a warning, a threat to one day send a strongly worded letter, or, in really rare, extreme cases, a company official gets called in to say a few words in front of Congress. Nobody goes to…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
>I don't recall anyone demanding that. That's seemingly what OP was demanding, given the displeasure he was expressing at uber for the practice. >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…
From the OP
> 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.
I think the OP makes it very clear that the issue is the lack of communication especially around when they can work next, not that Uber isn't willing to maintain a surge staff during minimal demand.
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. 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. The number of drivers needed at any given time is completely variable. It's obviously a larger number during peak travel periods. Suppose number of drivers needed off-peak is 100 and the number needed at the peak is 500 and they have 300 drivers. They need to sign up another 200…
That's variable based upon time of day, not completely variable. It is not a new problem either. Take public transit: drivers may hate split shifts, yet they are given well defined shifts that they are paid for.
On top of that, a company that operates through an app ought to have the ability to develop software to relatively reliably predict demand.
> Moreover, there are many people willing to do that.
Willing, or desperate? For example: relatively few people want to be on-call replacement workers. They either do it because they need the money or they do it because they are hoping to get their foot in the door. Those who do it willingly are typically doing so for extra cash and because they don't have any other obligations (e.g. retirees in some fields). Now imagine that an entire company is based upon the concept of replacement workers. That puts Uber closer to the exploitive end of the spectrum than the opportunity end.
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…
>Imagine a small restaurant doing similar // These are 'zero hour' contracts a popular tool in the UK for businesses you screw over poor employees. There is some utility for workers too - some people need to be able to say 'I'm not coming in today', or 'I'm leaving right now', often due to carer responsibilities though. The power lies with the business and the workers bad circumstances are often being exploited.
Does anybody know whats stopping ethical and slightly less greedy companies from outcompeting these conglomerates? Its a question I keep coming back to because if the market were efficient then competitors should be able to use that same data to undercut big potato (or big whatever). This never seems to happen.
I like this question because it inspires the thought of an "incrementally more ethical firm". Ethics can be roughly characterized as constraints on behavior, therefore if two firms, all else equal, differ then the ethical one is naively at a natural disadvantage, having fewer degrees-of-freedom in any situation. The classic response is that cooperation between firms is itself a powerful advantage, and that ethical behavior ought to yield advantages to cooperation that outweigh the cost of behavioral restrictions.
I believe that the equation changes when ethical behavior itself is successfully attacked and associated with weakness. What happens to a bank if everyone believes it will fail? It fails. What happens when everyone believes that morality is weakness? Morality IS weakness. At that point the reputation and cooperation effects are erased, and only the loss of freedom remains. At that point the culture shifted from the "cooperate-cooperate" Nash equilibrium to the "defect-defect" one. (Religious belief tends to unequivocally favor "cooperate-cooperate" and can therefore both resist this transition and assist in the reverse transition, which adds to religion's social utility.)