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

511–520 of 640 posts

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

#511

Post by Volundr »

gruez wrote: post #487
Volundr wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 drive…

> "When they can work next" is entirely dependent on supply and demand.

Are you really going to try to make the case that a company the size of Uber finds the demand in NEW YORK, of all places, unpredictable? That speaks more to incompetence on Uber's part than any unrealistic expectations elsewhere. Especially since restaurants have managed to operate in far more unpredictable conditions for all of human history.

> Also, it seems like he was more upset about drivers having to wait around while not getting paid.

Right, yeah. If they said hey, we don't need you for the next four hours, drivers don't have to wait around. If they say it'll be 15 minutes, drivers know to wait around. Instead, they conveniently tell them nothing, effectively keeping them on-call. A bit of communication fixes that.

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

#512

Post by JumpCrisscross »

keybored wrote: post #506
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You are trying to turn “the corporations are committing crimes” into “the peasants are starving”. I know that this is board of diverse backgrounds, but you have to be very out of touch for that hilarious reversal to be convincing.

> You are trying to turn “the corporations are committing crimes” into “the peasants are starving”

No, I'm pointing out the real limitations on the types of punishments that folks--typically on the left, with good intentions but breathlessly naively--like to propose. Ignoring the board doesn't make you a smarter player.

I'm then pointing out the option that works within those limitations to exact tremendous justice. The option that when it comes up, anyone in its crosshairs will immediately start pointing to hare-brained schemes like a "corporate death penalty" to get out of. Massive. Fines.

(For those who prefer jail time to fines, do you really thing Bytedance's CZ would trade his 6 months in jail for the tens of billions he's personally walked away with?)

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

#513

Post by dudeofea »

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.

Henry Ford tried not to be greedy all the time, then he was sued, and now all corporations are required to be greedy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

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

#514

Post by Ekaros »

eesmith wrote: post #305
klipt wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole concept of "retirement" where old people are allowed to relax and be supported by young people, compared to the old days when people just worked until they died, requires enough surplus productivity from young people to look after old people as well as themselves. If the population pyramid inverts and there are too few young people, the whole concept of "retirement" becomes unsustainable, unless AI advances…

Setting aside that 'too few young people' is by definition when there's a problem, thus making it a tautology, there's a lot we can do by changing our views of what retirement means. Retirement should not mean a life of air travel and cruises, achieved by pension savings. Retirement should not mean continuing to live in your 2,500 sq. ft. ranch house in the suburbs with only car access. John Maynard Keynes famously p…

Also in many cases we must accept the fact that people die. And some times keeping them alive is too costly or take too much labour. I admit it is horrible realisation, but I think inevitable one.

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

#515

Post by AnthonyMouse »

RHSeeger wrote: post #507
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Option 3 - You hire enough people to cover general demand, have surge prices to lower demand when there's not enough drivers, and charge prices for normal/lower demand that allows you to make sure everyone you have on duty makes at least minimum wage. And if you _can't_ find a solution that allows you to pay everyone minimum wage, then you don't get to do business. I can think of plenty of businesses I could set up t…

> Option 3 - You hire enough people to cover general demand, have surge prices to lower demand when there's not enough drivers, and charge prices for normal/lower demand that allows you to make sure everyone you have on duty makes at least minimum wage.

This is just a rehash of Option 1. The point of surge pricing is to get more drivers to drive during peak times. If you're instead using that money to pay other people to be idle then the average driver makes less money because part of what would have been their compensation is now going to pay someone else to sit around idle, and they lose the ability to make a higher hourly rate by working only during peak demand. Which in turn reduces the number of drivers available during surge pricing and there goes your funding source for hiring more drivers, so you're back to laying off lots of drivers who would otherwise have part-time work, but now also reducing the median driver's hourly rate.

> Not every business model is viable given the rules society has setup (to protext society as a whole)

Minimum wage laws in general have never protected anyone. If there is another job available to you that pays more than minimum wage and is otherwise on equally favorable terms, you would have taken that one regardless of whether a lower paying job is available. If the lower paying job is better, e.g. because it pays slightly less but you also have lower costs in terms of commuting distance or greater flexibility in hours etc., taking away that option "for your own protection" is patronizing BS.

This is why minimum wages are set at the level that only ~1% of people make minimum wage, because it minimizes the damage done by the law while still allowing opportunistic politicians to claim they've done something. Actually doing something is creating opportunities for people that have better conditions or pay higher wages so that it doesn't matter if someone is offering low wages because people aren't desperate to accept them for lack of alternatives.

Notice also that taking away alternatives can do more than just force you to take a worse one. It can make the worse alternative worse. Suppose there is a job with low pay but it's across the street from where you live, and another one with an hour commute each way, costing you $40 and two hours/day. You take the first one unless the second one pays significantly better, at least several dollars/hour more to compensate you for the gas and the time. Unless the first one is banned and goes away because it was $1/hour below the "minimum". Then not only are you stuck with the second one, they can lower their pay to the minimum when they would otherwise have had to pay more to compensate for the commute because you no longer have an alternative.

Price controls are bad.

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

#516

Post by TrapLord_Rhodo »

efitz wrote: post #447

Lately I have been trying to propagate type ideas: (1) corporations are not people. They are groups of people acting in concert under the direction of a small number of, or even one, person. They get legal immunities that individuals and unincorporated companies don’t. It is bat shit crazy to legally treat them as people for the purpose of “rights”. They don’t have morals (literally corporations are amoral entities).…

I agree with you, but not your solution in 2. Market share is shaky data to quantify at best, and you'd just incentivice software companies over manufacturing companies for tax purposes (Since software has lower employee count, and hardware software are going to extribly linked going forward)

There needs to be a way to reverse IPO companies as spin outs much easier, with some kind of government incentive to do so. It would unlock alot of value instead of causing it to be withheld.

Some examples of this would be google splitting out search, youtube, and AI products, with the datacenters and IP staying under alphabet.

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

#517

Post by Ekaros »

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.

I have been thinking. Maybe corporate fines should work like civil forfeiture. You do not attack the corporation, you attack the shares. You fine individual shares. And fines could be larger than value of the share. Next time it is sold the sale price goes toward the fine. And so does any dividend paid.

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

#518

Post by viraptor »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #491
viraptor wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Option three: They get enough drivers to cover most of the peak, and end up paying for some idle time otherwise. Just like almost every company with permanent staff. Alternatively option two with an explicit, upfront decisions who is actually part-time, so there are no surprises and the rules are known.

> Option three: They get enough drivers to cover most of the peak, and end up paying for some idle time otherwise. Just like almost every company with permanent staff. That only works when the difference in demand between peak and off-peak is small relative to the cost of idle workers. In this case it isn't. > Alternatively option two with an explicit, upfront decisions who is actually part-time, so there are no surp…

> one person gets 40 hours and one person gets 10 instead of each person getting 25 hours

If these are the upfront conditions, why is that an issue?

But the main issue you're getting closer and closer to is: uber's model doesn't seem to be profitable if they have to pay and employ with reasonable conditions. They don't have to be profitable though. We really can let them fail. The reasonable cities can then provide standard overprovisioned public transport.

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

#519

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Ekaros wrote: post #517
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #247

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.

I have been thinking. Maybe corporate fines should work like civil forfeiture. You do not attack the corporation, you attack the shares. You fine individual shares. And fines could be larger than value of the share. Next time it is sold the sale price goes toward the fine. And so does any dividend paid.

> You do not attack the corporation, you attack the shares. You fine individual shares. And fines could be larger than value of the share.

You're again reinventing corporate fines in a way that makes them problematic. You've not only dissolved limited liability, which makes investing in equities a rich man's game, you're proposing going after tens if not hundres of millions of Americans if a single Fortune 500 breaks a law. That's mechanically impossible.

> Next time it is sold the sale price goes toward the fine. And so does any dividend paid.

Poor people pay the fine. Rich borrow against their shares.

None of these problems exist with massive fines. None of them add anything, procedurraly or punitively, over massive fines. The idea that shareholders are going to do legal scrutiny when many professional investors barely read public filings is laughable. Re-inventing fines is rolling your own legal system when we have centuries of good law to rely on deriving from corporations suing each other.

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

#520

Post by cluckindan »

Aurornis wrote: post #178
cluckindan wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increase in money supply only causes inflation if the money is spent on purchases of items with inflated prices (say, ferraris instead of basic food items). When the basic food items become ferraris, people have no choice on that.

> Increase in money supply only causes inflation if the money is spent on purchases of items with inflated prices The economy doesn’t work like that. You can’t inject money but only have it apply to specific sectors. Everything is interconnected in the economy. If a lot of money comes into the market it will cause a lot of activity, changes in demand, new job openings that entice employees upward, increased wage dema…

Increased wages do not cause inflation. There are plenty of studies that show this.
Post reply on HN