Slashdot Mirror
Voting With Dollars: Politicians and Their Staffers Roll With Uber
The Center for Public Integrity, an anonymous reader writes, has conducted an analysis of the relationship between one interesting group of riders (275 federal politicians and political committees) and ride-sharing services like Uber. From their report, it seems this group "together spent more than $278,000 on at least 7,625 Uber rides during the 2013-2014 election cycle." That's a roughly 18-fold spending increase from the previous election cycle, when federal committees together spent about $15,000 on Uber services. It represents a veritable monopoly, too: Almost no political committee used Uber's direct competitors, Lyft and Sidecar, according to the analysis, and traditional taxi use declined precipitously. Bipartisan love of Uber abounds, with politicos of all stripes composing a de facto Uber caucus, voting with their money for a wildly popular but controversial company.
I don't understand the hate for people who drive without a license. I mean, I know people who have licenses and have had many accidents. And a lot of people I know who have no driver's license are good drivers. Why the hate, man? It's a free country you should be allowed to drive without a license or insurance if you want...
I think the point is people who have to jump through certain legal hoops to comply with laws, bylaws, rules and regulations of an industry don't feel too happy when any John Doe can offer the same service without having to do any of the above. The regulations are there for a reason, just like the driver's license is there for a reason.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Uber is cheaper than a real taxi. They have better customer service. The drivers generally drive in a much more polite way. It probably *feels* safer. But you're taking a huge risk of financial ruin if there is an accident. Likely *nobody* will pay for your injuries and you will end up bankrupt. But that risk is hidden. It's unlikely that most uber users are thinking about this possible consequence. Look how many automobile owners view liability insurance a something that the evil government makes them buy rather than something that protects them financially. See the same example in the US wrt health insurance. I was without insurance for about three months between jobs one time. Whenever I went out to do anything active (like play soccer or roller skate) I would think about the fact that, if I got hurt, the financial damage would be devastating. Ann Swidler uses this example in her Sociology classes. Imagine an airline that claimed they were half the price of anybody else because they didn't maintain their planes. Some people would chose to take this. But it's not allowed in the market. At some point, if uber isn't stopped, traditional taxi companies will end up going out of business. They have insane costs between medallions and insurance (Around 2k/vehicle/month). Then all we will have are cowboy uber drivers and we're back in the wild west. This is a classic example of why we need *enforced* regulations. When there are *unenforced* regulations, the honest businesses lose to the dishonest ones and that's a shame.
That is patently wrong. Once you get in the car, it and you have a million dollar commercial insurance policy.
So you hate Uber because it makes some people rich? At least you are being honest. You are right: people hate Uber because they see the Uber execs getting rich.
"So all the drivers, dispachers, mechanics, etc employed in the entire taxi industry are facing job losses."
Uber cars also need drivers, dispatchers, mechanics, etc. That isn't a reason to hate them. You pinpointed the reason in your first sentence. It is jealously because some guys in California are getting rich off of it.