Slashdot Mirror
Not All Uber Drivers Like Surge Pricing, Either
CNET reports that Uber's practice of surge pricing, which sometimes raises the ire of passengers, isn't universally acclaimed by the company's drivers, either. "[M]ost Uber riders," according the the linked article, "despise surge pricing," though it's not clear quite how that "most" is arrived at. From the piece: They've complained about running up bills totaling hundreds of dollars, and have criticized the company for using surge pricing during emergencies, like Hurricane Sandy and the Sydney hostage crisis. The San Francisco Better Business Bureau gave Uber the grade of an F because of complaints related to surge pricing. And New York lawmakers have even proposed legislation to put limits on how high fares can go. Now some drivers, like [San Francisco Uber driver Peter] Ashlock, are also having second thoughts on surge pricing."
On the other hand, what system would you propose to better reward drivers for working at high-demand times?
...
(I hope the sarcasm is obvious...)
Ezekiel 23:20
If uber is too expensive, just call a taxi?
I don't get the hate for surge pricing; it feels, to me, like a cry for education.
For example, an Uber where I live costs around half or less that of a regulated taxi. *Some* of my friends complain like crazy when the surge modifier is like 140% - not realising that it's STILL cheaper to have Uber around than use the old system. Then they suggest a "remedy" for surge pricing, that is basically moving back to something closely resembling the old system. Essentially, their proposals would result in a "constant 100% surge pricing" just to have predictable prices.
Surge pricing achieves two things:
1] Encourages drivers to work peak times in peak areas, increasing service.
2] Prices a scarce resource accordingly, meaning that people can choose an alternative (wait, don't go, use a different transport system) appropriately instead of just having a fucking LOTTERY of who gets the only cab available.
Surge pricing is good for everyone, and just about everyone I have ever explained it to has gone "Oh yeah I see what you mean". We just need to educate people.
That said, I am curious to hear of any legitimate arguments against surge pricing - anyone got any?
This complaint just doesn't make any sense. We are moving to this pricing model all over the place, even in traffic control situations. Tolls on bridges and tunnels and express lanes are often "surge priced" these days. The express lanes into Miami on I-95 are only a quarter most of the time. But during rush hour and other heavy traffic times the lanes bump up towards $10.
And those are fixed resources - so there is no way to get more cars through the tunnel or over the bridge. With Uber the raised prices will theoretically get extra drivers on the street - limiting the surge in prices and getting service to more people.
And as others have mentioned - if you don't like the policy, you have alternatives.
Uber should just raise the % the driver gets during these peak times, it's stupid they don't already do that because everyone wins.
Customer: has good experience with über when they may not have used it before.
Driver: incentive to work during emergency / high demand time.
Uber: increases the likelihood of attracting new / more regular users by acting like a Good Samaritan not a corporate greed machine.
"On the other hand, what system would you propose to better reward drivers for working at high-demand times?"
If we want to stick with Uber's claims about simply being an app that enables a market, there's an easy solution. But first we have to be honest about one of Uber's core claims: Uber is not engaging in any form of free market capitalism. Uber sets the rates consumers pay and drivers receive. Their is no market driven supply and demand in Uber's model. Sure, they can say "but... algorithms" and confuse people into thinking this is a pure form of free market capitalism. In reality, it's just an authoritarian scheme controlled by a few people at the top. Hell, they use their massive VC warchest to rewrite regulations in their favor - you know, manipulate the market.
For Uber to really to do market driven ride-sharing, they would simply provide a bid/ask platform for riders and drivers. Riders could post what they're currently willing to pay per mile/minute/what-ever-metric-makes-sense, drivers could post what they're currently willing to work for. Transparency on both sides as to price and other factors (e.g., location, number in party, etc) would allow each to adjust their rates according to current market conditions. That's how a free market for ride-sharing would actually work and provide a natural (invisible?) method to reward/incentivize drivers during surge times.
-Chris
what system would you propose to better reward drivers
Time and a half for the drivers, with no increase share to Uber itself during times of emergency or extreme demand (it is easy to justify an incentive to get the drivers to work during the crisis, Uber should be working anyway.). Any more would be (and is) gouging.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
You want to regulate pricing, so that you have a corrupt cartel which keeps competition limited and prices high?
Because that's what we had before Uber came around.
We don't need regulated pricing, we need competition. And that's what we have with Uber and Lyft (who compete against each other). What we need is a few more services like those, and then several apps which do for them what PadMapper does for the rental market, and aggregates them and lets you quickly find out which service will give you the best combination of fare price and convenience (e.g., a cheaper fare probably isn't worth it if you have to wait an hour to get picked up).
All this whining about surge pricing is silly. The pricing is not a surprise: Uber's app tells you before you ride how much it's going to cost. If the price is too high, don't buy it. Most of the time, Uber rides are far cheaper than regular cabs, and you get to ride in a much nicer vehicle. Without surge pricing, drivers wouldn't bother driving during certain times.
I've only used Uber a few times, but every time I used it, I was given an estimate of the cost beforehand. The pricing isn't a surprise.
Now of course, if you're in a bind and need a ride NOW, and surge pricing is in effect, you may have little alternative, but that's what you get for making yourself dependent on a for-profit company: when they have you locked in, they screw you over. We see this in the software world all the time, where the term "lock-in" is common. I don't think I need to elaborate on it in this forum. The same principle applies with Uber: if you don't want to get screwed, don't make yourself dependent on a for-profit company. It's very simple. Either get your own car, use public transit, or move to someplace where you aren't dependent on them.
Let the drivers set their price, then let the riders bid. IE make it an ACTUAL market. If someone wants to get out and drive during an emergency (or early morning, or on a holiday, or whenever), let him set his price as he likes. Riders see the price and how far away the driver is, and choose based on their situation. If they really, REALLY don't want to wait, then they can bid $30/mile if they want, ensuring that they get the closest driver (and they will pay whatever his rate is, up to $30/mile). If the rider is in no hurry, then they can put in a lower bid and wait for someone to get to them.
The problem here is the fact that the current price scheme is mostly arbitrary.
Surge pricing is a good idea; the problem seems like the amount is too much.
So during a surge.... instead, warn would-be passengers about high demand and offer them the chance to place an additional payment to "bid" for the next ride as a prepaid fixed dollar kickback, not an increase in fare or not additional $$ per mile travelled, but a payment for increase in priority ---- with bid taken into account, as well as total time spent in the queue, when deciding who is next in line to be matched
The passengers will then have to wait, and the bid will be taken into account before matching up a driver with riders.
Then, instead of the driver actually receiving the bid --- the bids are pooled and distributed to the drivers fairly based on their percentage of fare dollars collected for passengers moved per mile driven within the surge area.
This regulation that sets pricing has the effect of normalizing prices across market volatility. Surge pricing indicates what happens when that normalizing is gone and one is literally playing the market to buy one's ride.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Uber is an experiment at implementing a pure capitalist supply-demand model which causes surge pricing. I'm not surprised that liberal enclaves like San Francisco and New York can't stand this. Uber riders should understand this and seek out the best price by taking a regular taxi if that's what is important. Or wait until the surge passes. Its the exact same model for many toll roads where you pay 1 price during rush hour, but its cheaper later in the mornings.
How would you like it if your grocery store had "surge pricing"? Let's double your grocery bill just because you are shopping at the same time as a lot of your peers.
Or how about you doctor doing " surge pricing", so you pay double during flu season because there are a lot of others trying to see a doctor too.
Yeah, "surge pricing" doesn't look so good now does it? Perhaps Uber should do what every other fucking business does when they get a ton of customers: expand, hire more staff, and *shock* lower prices instead of gouge.
So? Why is this a bad thing? In fact, it serves as a daily reminder of what supply/demand forces DO! Here in Houston, our I-10 Katy toll has difference pricing depending on time of day. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns into real-time pricing based on traffic in response to real-world events such as a traffic accident and weather.
Life is not for the lazy.
And bridges serve as a daily reminder of what gravity DOES, but we're not clamoring to have them all removed, are we?
Bit less ideology and a bit more practicality, please? We stabilize that stuff for a reason.
Potholes are a daily reminder of what road wear DOES, and that's surely legitimate too, but it is a worthwhile convenience to have those repaired lest cheap and expensive cars alike lose an axle. And no one car's presented with the bill. That would be silly...
Because your ability to deal with a predictable outside world has value and affects your own ability to be consistent and reliable in turn.
The only time you want to play the market lottery with literally everything in life is if you figure your resources are (and always will be) superior to any possible thing that will happen to you. For most people, that's not the case.
Gravity and road wear are fairly constant forces (well, road wear is higher for bigger vehicles, and surprise, states usually tax trucks more as a result).
Public transit usually has peak and off-peak rates. The idea is that if you don't care when you make the trip, then you tend to save money by doing it off-peak. Then you're one less body on the standing-room-only train.
Many argue for electric rates to be demand-based so that people will conserve electricity during peak hours, or deploy solar/etc. It doesn't cost the same per-unit amount to produce 10x baseline power as 1x baseline power, so why should people pay the same.
And the same is true for taxi services. It doesn't cost the same per-unit to service 10x the usual demand as 1x the usual demand. At the normal rate many drivers would prefer to not deal with lots of crowds or work on their planned day off. If they're offered higher pay, they are more likely to elect to service the higher demand.
Uh, wrong. The rules for taxis predate Uber in almost every case. Uber made a business model out of breaking the law.
The reason rides cost less is because they're not paying for infrastructure (cars) and insurance. The reason cars are nicer is drivers aren't recovering wear and tear costs, which they'll be figuring out soon.
Besides, if taxi companies have all this insane profit from all these rigged high prices, all they have to do to destroy Uber is buy newer cars and lower prices, kind of like Wal-Mart does to get rid of competition. Hell, some other company can do it. Let's race to the bottom in yet another industry! Know who will suffer? Oh, yeah, the drivers, as usual.
Reform taxi laws. Where is the outcry for that? Or are you so useless you just want to break the law instead of changing it?
My doctor's clinic does charge more for evening or Saturday appointments.
I image that's so they can pay extra to the doctors who work those shifts.