Live data from Hacker News

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

pluralistic.net

481–490 of 640 posts

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

#481
post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No, that's not why "we" don't like to do that, as there's countless way around that problem. They don't like to do that because it hurts the main stakeholders: those holding the reigns, the 0.1%. There's countless ways around the issue of "average" employees being punished. E.g. hard caps on top employee compensation for X years. Bans on dividends. Forced stock dilution , now that's a solid one. Create extra shares e…

> countless ways around the issue of "average" employees being punished. E.g. hard caps on top employee compensation for X years. Bans on dividends

How do either of these help an employee of a company that was just poofed?

> there's holes in these but plenty of smarter people than me who can easily make them watertight

No. There aren't. Both the caps you proposed--capping dividends and salary--have known workarounds. Stock buybacks exist because they're more tax efficient than dividends. Health insurance is tied to employment because in WWII the U.S. government capped wages.

There is really one solution to corporate malfeasance: criminaly prosecuting where you have evidence of individual criminality and massive fines in every other case. We bankrupted our automakers without hurting their jobs. That's actually less intrusive than trying to fuck with their capital structure by e.g. banning dividends, which just incentivises leverage.

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

#482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The fallacy is assuming that the government will make everything cheap for consumers. In practice, government regulation of prices just changes the game. Look at any market with rent control: There are numerous meta-games around building or not building new supply, l…

What. Are you advocating for monopolies? Obviously there is a point where people stop buying essentials. The point of capitalism is to deliver goods as cheaply as possible. If toothpaste costs $60 I would still buy it because I need toothpaste. But that extra money now goes to someone who isn’t producing, they are mooching. It’s a welfare check to a billionaire. In a monopoly pricing is fixed at maximum profit, which…

[flagged]

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

#483
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.…

> to keep a free market from collapsing into one of the natural end states What is that natural end state? Natural monopolies are exceedingly rare, almost all monopolies are the result of government intervention .

[flagged]

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

#484
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.

[flagged]

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

#485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

"Let them eat cake" isn't a winning pitch when it's your job on the line.

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

#486
post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulating prices is a recipe for disaster though That's an assertion, not a statement of fact. Pricing in natural monopolies is a mature subject, and public utilities have been a thing for over 100 years. Also, pricing for medical procedures is regulated in Europe, and it works extremely well.

The wait time for medical procedures is extremely long in places with price caps. It does not work “extremely well” at all, it results in shortages and wait times exactly as you would expect from economics 101. I’m speaking from personal experience having been through it myself but feel free to look up how many Canadians go to the US every year and pay out of pocket for more evidence.

[flagged]

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

#487
post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> That's seemingly what OP was demanding, given the displeasure he was expressing at uber for the practice. 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 nex…

>I think the OP makes it very clear that the issue is the lack of communication especially around when they can work next

"When they can work next" is entirely dependent on supply and demand. Also, it seems like he was more upset about drivers having to wait around while not getting paid, than having to periodically check the app. From the OP:

>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.

In a later comment he also lamented about how uber was "leave [drivers] hanging by an on-call thread". I doubt that if uber added push notifications for slots becoming available, that OP would be even slightly placated. The issue is that there's more willing drivers than active "slots" available, since such slots uber have to pay for. As a result, there's still going to be people waiting around for a chance to make money, while being unpaid. Adding push notifications only means people don't have to check their phones every 5-10 minutes for a slot, but they're still forced to wait around unpaid.

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

#488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it's strange to see zero acknowledgement of the massive increase in money supply over the same time period. Because when you look at inflation in the period of say ~2000 to ~2025 [1] it's really not very obvious that there's an increase in M2 from '08 onward. Talking about M2 as a source of inflation is like shouting Red at a roulette wheel. Sure, sometimes the ball will land on Red but your shouting is a non-s…

The CPI time series you provided is monthly % change. Here's M2 in those same units: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1DcYJ They look pretty similar to me. Chaotic in the short term, but averaging positive between 0-1%. In other words, slow but consistent exponential growth. I didn't say anything about a discontinuity in '08, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that. Edit: here they are both plotte…

Maybe you can see something in that noise, but I just plotted those and looked at their correlations, and it's garbage. Even looking at their sums, they have different slopes (over decades), all you can say is "number go up". The monthly correlation is junk, the yearly correlation of their sums is junk, the decade long optimally lagged correlation is junk (include 2008-2010 and it's worse). I had to look, because I wondered if there was some interesting coincidence, but there's not.

Now, if what you're trying to say is that the much larger (non M2) eurodollar currency correlates to long term global growth and inflation, yeah that's true. There is a trillion $ industry maintaining that called the banking system. But the idea that eggs, oil, lumber, or rent are well correlated is not even a funny joke. Gold and bitcoin are a bit different because they are so financialized, but I wouldn't go day trading them just based on Fed stats either.

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

#489

The food companies accused of gouging are mostly publicly traded corporations that publish their finances...if profit margins shot up we would be able to see it, but everyone who does the analysis finds margins are mostly steady, slightly down overall. Yet the bullshit claim persists. Here are some better explanations: - the "breadbasket of the world" (Ukraine) is at war - wages are up in the agricultural sector (a g…

[flagged]

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

#490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

[flagged]

Surely he'll come through! And totally won't take Biden's work and claim it as his own, right?
Post reply on HN