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.
You think an illegal immigrant is going to apply for a commercial driver's license as required by taxi companies?
Methinks you're confusing "immigrant" with "illegal immigrant." But don't feel too bad. There are millions of bigots like you out there, so you're not alone.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
... just remember: sometimes you need lobbyists to protect yourself from government.
This is an example of it: a social app's userbase is trying to protect themselves from the rent-seeking taxi cartels.
The Uber vs the Evil Cartels has always been a pile of shit, designed to appeal to a certain kind of idiot who will drool all over it ... but it's a lie, and it's always been a lie.
It's systematically ignoring laws and regulations while going "wah wah, we're teh underdogs".
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Uber are just a bunch of self entitled douchebags, with a lot of backing who throw temper tantrums to insist they be allowed to not be covered under laws.
Fuck Uber.
No, the right fix is to take over the government and keep the bribes for yourself.
It's only common sense.
Uber isn't stupid. They know the existing transport monopolies are maintained due to political connections aka lobbying. Uber knows there is no way it will be able to upset this status quo without support from local politicians. That, unfortunately, means lobbying. Love it or hate it, it's how things get done these days.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
In many parts of the world taxis are private vehicles with a sign stuck on top, drivers hold their own licenses and companies act as advertising agencies and dispatchers. A recent trend is for one driver to join a company then keep their car running 24-7 as their buddies illegally act as taxi drivers in shifts, splitting the profits. This is an actual thing. Whether or not it's predominantly immigrants, illegal or otherwise, is another question mind you.
In France, it has been shown that Uber's drivers are mostly children from immigrants (in french, the politically correct term is "enfants issus de l'immigration").
Since most of them are jobless, it's a way for them to make money legally.
The problem is that it destroys the jobs of taxi drivers, but does not create new jobs.
A journalist calls this "the 'sharing of remains' economy", where the real jobs disappear, and only some small cheap tasks remain.
The two providers for this kind of economy are Amazon and Uber
Unless you have been in a serious accident in an Uber car and had to rely on whatever insurance was in place for treatment, you haven't really had the full experience yet.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You do realize as soon as you do something as stupid as using 'MURICAN' you utterly destroy any validity in your argument what so ever. You had potential, but blew it by being as ignorant as the opposing view.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Uber is 1000 times better for transportation than the taxi cartel
Why? Seriously, I haven't used Uber and the last time I rode in a taxi was years ago so I have no dog in this fight. Why did you think Uber is better? Better service? Better value? Or is just that they are sticking it to The Man? I'm legitimately asking because I just don't really see what is so amazing about Uber as a casual observer. Saying they are "1000 times better" is obviously hyperbole but what makes them better if indeed they are better?
If they are actually providing a better value then more power to them. I'm definitely for disrupting industries that need disrupting. If the only advantage is that they aren't the incumbent companies then that isn't an adequate reason to my mind to support them with actual dollars. It just not clear to me which is the case here.
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
True indeed, but also consider that in many of those parts of the world, the drivers are also stuck with having to grease the palms of some local poobah just to avoid having the wrath of the local constabulary come down on them.
Okay, it ain't that much different from how Portland works, but at least in PDX's case, the money is (well, mostly) passed along above-board, and it goes to the local government's coffers instead of some local sleazebag's pocket (well, mostly).
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
but that your argument relies on an assumed, and unjustified, premise.
It's not my argument. Here is the original article in french:
http://www.slate.fr/story/1034...
This in turn could lead to more taxi journeys, or more jobs in other service sectors, as people spend that saved money elsewhere
Yes, there is this theory about redistributing money, but I call that bullshit.
People who take a taxi are not the poorest ones.
When you take a taxi, it means that you can afford it (there is an amusing story about an INA director who spent 40,000 euros on taxis each year).
When you have no money, you use the public transportation (it's reasonably cheap in France).
It's easy to criticize the taxi drivers, because they are too expensive.
If you were in the shoes of a taxi driver, don't you believe that this system is killing your job ?
Right now, programmers and system admins are very expensive.
Let's imagine an Uber for our jobs in a near future.
I'm sure that you'll enjoy this service.
After all, this is called "progress" and "free market" !