Slashdot Mirror
How Uber Takes Over a City
schwit1 suggests Bloomberg's story on one aspect of Uber's corporate behavior that may leave a sour taste in the mouth of anyone who'd like to believe the Uber-vs.-the-Cartels narrative. The company hired David Plouffe, known for managing Barack Obama's rise to fame, and many others as well, to help them navigate inevitable and ongoing moves for regulation. The scale is impressive; according to the article:
Over the past year, Uber built one of the largest and most successful lobbying forces in the country, with a presence in almost every statehouse. It has 250 lobbyists and 29 lobbying firms registered in capitols around the nation, at least a third more than Wal-Mart Stores. That doesn't count municipal lobbyists. In Portland, the 28th-largest city in the U.S., 10 people would ultimately register to lobby on Uber's behalf.
And while the article focuses mostly on the example of Portland, the effort is ongoing and nationwide.
Lobbying doesn't immediately mean evil, you sophomoric children. Lobbying is how laws are changed, so it's what you do whether your goals are positive or negative.
Uber isn't a philanthropic organization, but nonetheless we should cheer them on, because how the Uber situation falls out helps determine what you are allowed to do with your car. You are being told that you are not permitted to use your car as you see fit, to make money, in a capitalist system in which it is essentially illegal to be out of money.
If you're cheering for the entrenched taxi services, you should know that taxi licenses do not protect you from any of the problems you think Uber causes. Taxis will come very late, even take other fares while "on their way" to you, or simply not come at all, and there is no recourse against them whatsoever when that happens. Taxi drivers regularly rape and/or assault passengers. Taxi drivers regularly take the worst possible routes, especially at times of day when it's difficult to get another fare, so as to run up your meter. Taxis are dirty and they smell bad. Taxis are often very poorly maintained, and I've often heard alarming thunks and rattles from beneath them that, had I heard them under my vehicle, would have kept me at home with a wrench in my hand.
Can anyone name one reason why "traditional" government monopoly-licensed taxis are superior to Uber? One reason which is not complete bullshit? Because so far, nobody has come up with even one.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You think an illegal immigrant is going to apply for a commercial driver's license as required by taxi companies?
Hahaha that's a good one. I had to use an alternate SSN with the CA DMV for a while because someone was pretending to be me... a much shorter, more Mexican version of a Mexican. He had a driver's license and apparent right to work. You think the taxi companies, who don't give a fuck about you because they don't have to because they have a monopoly, are going to do their due diligence? No, they're going to do the absolute bare minimum because they think you're just another asshole who needs ferrying, like everyone else, and protecting you is last on their list of things to do.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The problem is that it destroys the jobs of taxi drivers, but does not create new jobs.
Does it really? Or does it make using a taxi service a better value so that the usage of taxis overall grows? Do we really want to subsidize a jobs program for taxi drivers or is there a better way to employ those resources? While there is some clear disruption going on it's not at all clear that that is a bad thing. If you spend two dollars on a taxi ride that could only cost one dollar then you have effectively subsidized the taxi driver and cannot use that extra dollar for some more productive use. If there is some externality that would be a serious problem for society then that is a relevant concern but providing a subsidy to taxi drivers when one isn't needed is stupid.
A journalist calls this "the 'sharing of remains' economy", where the real jobs disappear, and only some small cheap tasks remain.
That's a nonsense argument because it doesn't consider opportunity cost. Saving "real jobs" even if they are inefficient means that you have capital allocated in a sub-optimal way. Rather than employing that capital (both human and financial) in an optimal way you waste it subsidizing obsolete business models. If you take your argument to its logical end most of us should still be working on farms where the "real jobs" were because improving productivity and capital efficiency would be a death spiral. Fortunately the real world doesn't work like that. Efficient allocation of capital in the long run benefits society.
Yes, Uber has one goal and that is make as much money as possible. They don't care about the Taxi companies, and in the end they won't care about their own drivers. They will make the plays they can now to capitalize as much as possible on their success to date. They might even agree to purchase licenses, boost driver requirements, etc. In which case they start looking more and more like the taxi companies.
My wife and I use Uber on a regular basis. We, and most of our friends and acquaintances, have switched to ridesharing platforms and have not looked back. The main reasons are:
1) Convenience - car to your doorstep in minutes, rather than 20 minutes after the 15 minutes you waited on hold. Immediate availability and prompt, easy service is probaby 90% of the reason we use Uber. Certain use cases are possible now that were highly impractical before, like requesting an Uber from the office at lunchtime and having it be there by the time you get out of the building. I don't live in NYC so street hailing is a long shot and phone dispatch is a long wait.
2) Ease of Payment - just arriving at your destination completes the transaction on your chosen credit card; no more lies about only accepting cash and dirty looks when the cabbie has to dust off the old credit card imprint machine.
3) Quality of Service and Ratings - I have had mostly great experiences with Uber drivers, who get 5 stars. I had one that was awful, he got 1 star and a report that he (literally) didn't know how to drive. The ratings seem pretty accurate. In cab world, it's a crap shoot, and the quality of drivers has been 50/50 at best. To be fair, none of the bad cabbies have been as bad as the one awful Uber driver I had. But I've had plenty of great Uber drivers that were better (personality, road knowledge, driving skills) than all but the best few cab drivers I've ever had.
4) Cost - at least in my region, Uber is not really competing on cost; that is to say they're often as or more expensive than a comparable cab ride. Sometimes, certain rides are a few bucks cheaper, but it's almost never a pricing slam dunk that would drive choice over the above reasons. The cost is always reasonable unless it's big surge, in which case I can choose another RS, a traditional taxi, public transport, etc. They don't pull any funny business with the cost, unlike many cabs I've been in--no games with meter vs zone pricing and haggling over a short ride that somehow costs double what's on the sticker.
For us, the Uber platform has just been a hands-down better experience. It's not a bunch of hoopdies offering cut rate prices, it's a fast, no-hassle experience for which we frequently pay extra.
Nothing posted to