Slashdot Mirror
Getting Over Getting Over Uber: Tim O'Reilly Does the Math
Susan Crawford yesterday published at Medium a critique of Uber and similar ride-coordinating services, in the form of a kind of paean to the American taxicab.
Though she didn't start out with negative feelings for Uber, Crawford writes, her sentiment has swung away from objections to taxis (such as that they seek unfair protection from competition) to an extravagant defense, though it comes with a long list of "shoulds": "[Cities] should be focusing on making their taxi services better," she writes. "Taxis should be more accessible to everyone. Taxi fares should be low, predictable, and uniform. Taxi geographies should be wide. Taxis should be clean, fuel-efficient, driven by trustworthy, well-trained drivers, and available for frictionless electronic hailing." Even with the flaws that list implies, Crawford's description of how well taxis work now is more positive than I've found to be true: "Their rates are regulated and set; their pricing is transparent and can be double-checked (just look at the meter, which is itself regularly tested); they look like a uniform fleet; they are subject to very strict licensing and safety requirements. With rare exceptions, they don’t employ surge/congestion pricing schemes."
Tim O'Reilly has written a response, calling Crawford's arguments "puzzling and unconvincing." O'Reilly dissects some of the math behind the business of driving others for money, as it applies to both conventional taxi drivers and "gig economy" drivers, as well as some of the qualitative effects of ride-dispatch services; surely some readers will take issue with his figures and examples, but they provide a plausible case for doubting Crawford's rosy picture of taxis and dark view of modern app-dispatched rides. O'Reilly writes: "Regulation is not a good in itself. It is a means of achieving public goods. And so far, it is pretty clear that Uber and Lyft (and in particular, the competition between them) are improving the transportation options in American cities. Regulators should be using the opportunity to revisit the old way of doing things rather than trying to make the new conform to outdated rules that no longer serve their purpose."
Tim O'Reilly has written a response, calling Crawford's arguments "puzzling and unconvincing." O'Reilly dissects some of the math behind the business of driving others for money, as it applies to both conventional taxi drivers and "gig economy" drivers, as well as some of the qualitative effects of ride-dispatch services; surely some readers will take issue with his figures and examples, but they provide a plausible case for doubting Crawford's rosy picture of taxis and dark view of modern app-dispatched rides. O'Reilly writes: "Regulation is not a good in itself. It is a means of achieving public goods. And so far, it is pretty clear that Uber and Lyft (and in particular, the competition between them) are improving the transportation options in American cities. Regulators should be using the opportunity to revisit the old way of doing things rather than trying to make the new conform to outdated rules that no longer serve their purpose."
...but then a taxi lobbyist dropped a big bag of Benjamins on my desk, and what's a blogger to do?
Taxis should be more accessible to everyone. Taxi fares should be low, predictable, and uniform. Taxi geographies should be wide. Taxis should be clean, fuel-efficient, driven by trustworthy, well-trained drivers, and available for frictionless electronic hailing.
Congratulations, you just described Uber, and now understand why it exists.
The only thing limiting availability of Uber in fact, is governments and taxi cartels you seek to improve... if taxis could be any of those things, why aren't they already since they have had decades longer to do so? If you think the "city" can make the taxis into those things, look around at the barley kept -up infrastructure and crumbling streets and answer the hard question of how they could do that one thing well when so many other things have been done poorly.
If wishes were horses I wouldn't need taxis OR Uber, but they aren't so I do
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Last May when my auto insurance policy renewed there were a few pages enclosed. Adding / detracting language from the previous policy. While not stating Uber or Lyft by name it was clear that the insurance company was writing them completely out of the picture.
say it again. It's not the service, it's how they treat their employees, e.g. by calling them contractors to get out of paying for their Health Care, Unemployment, tax and other benefits (as well as their commercial insurance and proper background checks). Right now Uber is externalizing all those costs. Either onto the driver or eventually society (since we more or less don't just let people die in a gutter in this country, yet...). Their entire business model falls apart as soon as those costs aren't externalized. Look at all the 'Uber for...' companies and how quickly they shut down when their told that they have to treat people who are a core part of their buiness as employees...
Uber is a race to the bottom and a sign capitalism is starting to break down...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I generally avoided Uber, but last year I needed a taxi to get to the airport. I called two different taxi companies, and neither one had any taxis available to pick me up. Uber came right away, and was cheaper than a taxi.
Generally it's easier to get an Uber than a taxi, unless you're right in the middle of a big city. And it will be a long time before traditional taxi companies get their game together enough to equal that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
then stfu, don't read the article, and go get a life. it's not as if you had a gun pointed to your head making you read this stuff.
"Regulation is not a good in itself."
I wish more people realized that. How many times have you seen people arguing, one side saying, "Regulation is bad!" and the other "Regulation is good!" It's one of the dumbest arguments ever, because both sides are wrong.
Some regulation is good, and some regulation is bad. If you want to know which is which, you need to actually look at the regulation itself.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Just because the Taxi cab drivers are being abused doesn't mean Uber isn't abusing their drivers. Here's a crazy idea: Why don't we protect _both_ groups of workers? Crazy? I know, right?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If you're smart enough to know a word like paean, surely you're smart enough to spell it correctly. It only takes a moments to check the spelling of a difficult word. You don't want to look silly do you?
http://grammarist.com/usage/pa...
This isn't most people's issue with these services - it's their treatment of their drivers.
BULLSHIT.
Uber drivers get a far better deal than your typical cabbie, as I've been told by any number of Uber drivers who got sick of renting medallions from your cartels.
Uber is beating the shit out of cabs, because cabs SUCK. All the astroturfing in the world won't change that simple and obvious fact.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The last time I needed a taxi was to get home from a meeting across town, 40 miles away. The meeting was over at 5pm and I called for the taxi just before that.
I called to check on them again at 6pm.
Then 7pm.
Then 8pm.
Then 10pm.
Then midnight.
At that point, I told them "Look, I've been waiting for SEVEN HOURS for someone to pick me up. It's January. The place I was waiting inside closed hours ago. I've been out in the 10 degree weather for five hours, now. If you can't get someone out here, I''m going to just call the other taxi service and see if they can help me".
The taxi service responded "Sir, you can't do that. If you call two taxi services, we will both blacklist you."
I waited.
I waited.
I waited.
At 5am, I called and canceled my service request, because it was going to take an hour to get home, an hour to get back for the second day of meetings, plus however long to wait for a fucking taxi to pick me up to GET TO THE MEETING AGAIN... so it was safer to just wait four more hours for the meetings to start, wearing the same gross clothes form the day before and on zero sleep and having spent the night on the sidewalk in 0-10 degree temperatures.
The thing is, that wasn't a unique experience Almost every time I have used a taxi service in two different states both in cities of 500,000 to 1,500,000 people, it has taken HOURS for them to show up. HOURS.
So you know what? Fuck taxi services. They're expensive and unreliable. They do NOT serve ANY public good. They can all fucking burn for all I fucking care.
Umm... I believe both sides of the House are controlled by Republicans. Obama is center-right by any real definitions. How much further right do you want us to go before enough is enough? You realize that extremism isn't a good thing, right?
And this is from a guy who doesn't really like Uber because I don't think a business should just be able to ignore laws they don't like - that's a bad precedent. Why is it okay when Uber violates the law but we get irate when Microsoft does it? That's not acceptable nor does it make sense. "Well, we like them and don't like the law so it's okay if they break the law." How about when someone on the right doesn't like the environmental protection laws and feels it's okay when BP dumps a bunch of oil into the Gulf? It's nonsense then and it's nonsense now.
Get the laws changed and then operate your business. Breaking the law to make money is not acceptable no matter who does it AND no matter how bad the law is. That's not civil disobedience, that's criminal behavior. Regardless of how you interpret the Citizens United, corporations are not people - they don't do civil disobedience, they just break the law when they operate unlawfully. There's no altruism here, just greed - and you're helping them.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Darn, beaten to the draw again. Obviously I need to take a lesson from Uber and embrace 24x7 agility at the speed of the interwebs and abandon my old-economy paradigms.
I wasn't sure if it was an alternate spelling, but - here's protip for timothy - I found this marvelous thing called a google where you can look things up.
At the bottom of the
In western europe for example, taxi are geographically widespread (for example in germany they are forced to take negative value fare in remote area), their price is regulated but uber is not and uber DO surge pricing. So taxi fare is uniform and predictable (low is a question of perspective). Taxi are driven by trustworthy driver , german regulation make sure of insurance (commercial) is there and there is a test in many country. Uber not so much. Taxi are accessible to everyone as over a zone some country imposes a minimum number of accessible handicapped taxi. All of those Uber does not really do. We even have in germany an apps on smartphone to hail taxi (at least in my region). Uber DO LIE on pretending there is driver nearby. Uber bombed with fake request their rival. Both of which would be a fraud in germany for example. take off the pink glasses in many countries in western europe Uber is not so great , it is only a newcomer which want to break laws to its disadvantage, laws mostly protecting consumer NOT taxi.
Now we know that US law are often corporate blowjobs (dealership, taxi medaillion etc..). But Uber is not so great either. What do you think will happen if taxi get deregulated ? Well i will tell you : the most common minimum denominator that's what will happen.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Oddly, I suggested a story on how Uber drivers are on strike right now at this very moment, and it mysteriously, inexplicably failed to go anywhere!
How could that possibly be? It's an Uber story after all :D
Uber drivers are on strike right NOW.
Did you know that?
I live in Chiang Mai Thailand. I suggest if you really really like the idea of a 'gig economy' then move here for a few months and see how that idea works out in real life. I don't think you'll care for it much as only a few live a decent lifestyle.
I think you need to look up the definition of astro turfing. Regulation is good if it helps competition I've never understood the medallion system, and it's not relevant for me.
Driving a taxi without a insurance is a big deal for me, since I move intraffic and my lost pay checks will be paid by that insurance. If a driver does not have a professional insurance that will not happen. The stats here says that taxi drivers have accidents about once a year if not more. When this is addressed by Uber then I have no problem with them operating in my city.
And what stops you from taking a taxi to get home if Uber is too costly?
Learn to love Alaska
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you're using the literal present tense, nothing.
After Uber have undercut the taxi firms and put them all out of business, the answer should be obvious.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It already is the case, if you havent noticed. Surge pricing kicks in at a time when taxis are impossible to find. I was leaving a conference, without uber (which was surge pricing), I would have had to take 2 buses to reach the airport, or walked which would have actually been faster than taking the bus. There were no taxis around, they were all taken by the ones that stepped out early.
"Their rates are regulated and set; their pricing is transparent and can be double-checked (just look at the meter, which is itself regularly tested)"
Oh how naive. The way taxis rip people off is by taking long routes and adding distance/time. That is specifically the scam that Uber avoids by route planning. If she thinks they are trustworthy just because they have a visible meter, she is an idiot.
I bet she wholeheartedly agrees to see all the recommended specialists every time she goes to the doctor's office, and makes sure to get as many undercarriage coatings as she can from the car dealer because their pricing is transparent too.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Taxi's can't offer guaranteed service at certain locations and times precisely because they do not use the author's dreaded "surge/congestion pricing schemes."
When your professional society conference lets out at the same time that the local sportsball team's game gets over, and everyone is headed downtown to eat, the taxi company runs out of cabs because they're all cheap and everyone takes one. Uber surges the price to match the market demand, more drivers come out, and everyone who wants a ride can get one.
Under the pure cartel taxi system, if you need to get to the hospital because your wife called and she's gone into labor early, too bad! All the cabs are taken because they're so cheap and the demand is so high. Under Uber's system, the price rises to match the demand and you can pay for a ride.
It's no different than when people decry "price gauging" after a natural disaster. Go ahead and keep gas at pre-disaster prices, and 100% of it will sell out. Then, if you MUST have it, say to run your generator to power grandma's oxygen machine, too bad! It was all sold for $2/gal to a bunch of people who panicked and drank it all up even though they really didn't need it. If the gas stations had surged pricing to match demand, they'd be more likely to have some left, and while it would be very expensive, at least it would be available for people who really needed it, instead of being consumed by people who merely panic-purchased because it was still cheap.
Uber's surge pricing system is a virtue of their business model, not a vice.
Oddly, I suggested a story on how Uber drivers are on strike right now at this very moment, and it mysteriously, inexplicably failed to go anywhere!
How could that possibly be? It's an Uber story after all :D
http://www.latimes.com/busines...
the drivers have four demands: that Uber increase fares by 60% nationwide, that the company add a tipping option to the Uber app, that the ride cancellation fee be raised to $7 and that the minimum fare be increased, also to $7.
I wonder how surge pricing works during the strike?
And yet, people keep claiming Uber is not a tax service.
If they're not a taxi service then drivers should be able to charge what they want without the company dictating the fares, nor have Uber take money from them for each ride.
Or isn't that how a taxi service works?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Except that price gouging is illegal...
Having a need for a service is only one part of the equation. You also have to ensure the service serves these needs equitably and safely and that part isn't really the consumer's job to ensure.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
People pay for your credit card info on the dark web too. If that shit matters to people so much why isn't it legal?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Furthermore, when taxi's go away you'll see Uber cars get unsafe real quick. Taxi's generally have to replace their entire drive-trains many times in the lifetime of the vehicle. Engine, transmission, differential if applicable. Not sure if the Uber driver is up for that kind of expense once it happens. More then likely it will be patched and car still used.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
In Sweden taxis were deregulated a long time ago. Or rather supply was. Anyone driving others for profit have to have a driver's license allowing such, but there are no limits to how many such are issued. Any company or individual can serve any area.
There are some requirements on cars driving for profit such as them having to have a certified taxameter, prices clearly shown outside the car etc. However you can charge any price you want as long as it is shown.
It all works fine. I never understood the need for other countries to treat taxis specially.
Well, I guess that's one way to look at it. *chuckles* Obama's pretty damned right leaning. I think he started with ideals, I really think he did. I'm not sure where they went but I could speculate. I'll leave that to the bubble-heads. 'Tis amusing that someone marked my post as troll. No, when I troll you'll know it. Just come out and say -1 disagree - I'm okay with that. I've got karma to spare and what's the point of karma if you can't spend it?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
What the author doesn't understand is that what she says taxis need to be is not accurate. Everything comes at a price. The beauty of a free market is it will tell you how much people are willing to pay for accessibility, predictability, uniformity, cleanliness, fuel efficiency, trustworthiness, and availability. There is absolutely no way for a monopoly taxi service to know these things. There is no feedback to help them adjust. Even Uber can't know these things. It is a process of discovery that needs to be constantly adjusted in a free market.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Uber basically wants to do the same thing as H1Bs except with local people. Basically we have a mass of people who are making a livable salary but as consumers we think they cost too much so we usher in Uber despite what the laws say. Sorry but that is no different then crying foul on Disney for spinning the H1B laws and having their domestic employees training the easier foreign once as they get kicked out the door. So before you say H1Bs are a bad thing again, look in the freaking mirror.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
This isn't most people's issue with these services - it's their treatment of their drivers.
I don't buy that in the least. The taxi cartels are what's driving the criticism. It'd be a whole lot less visible to the public otherwise. And let's face it. If there were sensible taxi markets in the first place, Uber wouldn't have the revenue stream to become such an alleged problem in the first place.
Innovation is great, exploitation, not so much.
It's a great talking point, but it's bullshit. The reason any workers are valuable in the first place is their exploitability. And if you don't like Uber's treatment of their drivers, then don't be an Uber driver.
Uber drivers are on strike right NOW.
Then they aren't Uber drivers. And as has been noted before, they aren't really employees of Uber in the first place.
Did you know that?
Nope, and I don't see a reason to care.
Rather than the nonsense of a "strike", the simple solution here is just not to use Uber's service - which would be a boycott. Uber does have competitors and a shift of business from Uber to these other competitors would hurt them. That's more effective than a strike.
Really? I had no trouble getting a car yesterday.
Facts have a liberal bias.
Kale should taste like bacon. That would solve the kale surplus problem. Next!
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Your story was more interesting than this one, if only because it's about an actual event in the real world as opposed to opinions, including mine....
Really interested to know why this comment got 5 stars since it
1) lacks any kind of support for it's assertions
2) its assertions fly in the face of what data there is (see my earlier post) and
3) basically amounts to saying nothing more than "fuck cabs! Cabs suck! Go Uber!" in just about those words.
Do I detect some form of biasing going on in the rating system here at... /. !!! My god. What has the world come to??!!!
Sure you do. It will be about the same as you and others paid last week at the same time. Or to save money you can go home before the surge or wait until after the surge. With a taxi, you don't get to choose how much to pay.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Umm, you seem to be translating "achieving public goods" in a way other than "achieving [multiple] public good". Y'know, like the Four Freedoms you mention. More than one public good (four, in fact).
Your privilege, of course. Makes you look silly, but that's your privilege too.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
As a worker, I have exactly one power at my disposal to try to enact change.
Which is another indication that these drivers are not workers for Uber. They can seamlessly use rival businesses (guess Lyft is the primary competitor). That's even more effective than not working.
Is that each user JOINS a ride sharing service. Every time a conventional cabbie picks up a fare, he rolls the dice: will this ride be the one that leaves his riddled, bloody body in an alley? Giving rides to people who have subscribed to your service is a huge security advantage.
Except that "price gouging" isn't really a thing, and anti-gouging laws cause more harm than good: They Clapped
Yes: that's what a market economy does and what it is supposed to do.
Look around the world and 20th century history. Socialists, fascists, and dictators all tried to impose regulations, redistribute wealth, and limit trade in order to "help" people, and their citizens usually end up destitute except for a small wealthy elite in government. European welfare states have anemic growth and massive demographic and social problems. It's states that minimize regulation and maximize the freedom of citizens to engage in economic transactions within the country and outside that do best. And they do best not just for the wealthiest members but for everybody, even when they increase inequality. The economy isn't a zero sum game.
Food and a cardboard box won't lure a lot of people to the US anymore. But the quality of life enjoyed even by Americans below the US poverty line certainly would: even much of the European middle class lives below the US poverty line.
And what are the shitholes people are trying to get away from? Are they cut-throat free market paradises? Of course not. People almost universally move from countries with little economic freedom to countries with more economic freedom. Go check for yourself if you don't believe me.
Of course, more regulation in the US like you propose would indeed fix this: it would turn the US into more of a "corrupt shithole", and that would certainly discourage people from wanting to come here.
Exporting jobs and importing goods is the way we improve wealth across the world; the global economy isn't a zero sum game.
You misinterpret the global economy as a zero some game, and then, out of your own greed and fears, use flowery phrases like "exporting prosperity" to disguise your own greed, selfishness, and irrational fears.
A Taxi company needs to set their rates such that they can repair damaged vehicles and purchase new vehicles when the old ones are beyond repair. Uber doesn't need to care about either of those things when setting their rates, because that responsibility falls to the driver. And the driver is probably using Uber as a secondary source of income, using a car that they already bought and are maintaining based upon the earnings of their primary source of income. So Uber is effectively exploiting a.. loophole I guess? ..in the system, pushing certain overhead costs onto the drivers, letting Uber undercut taxis.
Sounds fine to me because it is not just Uber, but the driver and passenger who are exploiting that "loophole". And if the driver wants to do something below cost, then who am I to care?
Did you even read my post? I'm a favor of workers rights. I want all workers treated well. It's that simple. Nice try on the traditional "It's just extra pocket money" crap though. Are you a shill for Uber? You've got their talking points down, and your skill at misdirection is excellent. Seems your talents could be used elsewhere though. The folks that stole the Election from Al Gore would love to have you.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Uber surges the price to match the market demand, more drivers come out, and everyone who wants a ride can get one..
Everyone who can and will pay the higher price, will get a ride.
For hire.
I want _all_ employees to stop being abused. The argument that it's OK for Uber to abuse employees because someone else does it is something like what a toddler says when they're caught stealing cookies. What I don't understand is how the hell an argument this ridiculous is resonating with people.
To be 100% clear, I want _both_ groups to be treated as employees. I want to put an end to the practice employers using the word "Contractor" to get out of the social obligations we have place on them. I don't care if you're Uber, a Taxi company, and IT service company or bloody part runners for an auto shop. If your business depends on those people and you wouldn't have a business without them they're employees. If they work they do is an ongoing part of your business they're employees. If you exercise significant control over their day to day work (how and when) they're employees. Enough with the bs already. If we're going to base 90% of our quality of life on employment then employers don't get to bitch when they're given obligations. Period.
I suppose we could also move to a system of single payer health care, basic income, increased and regulated food prices ( e.g. commodities regulation, not setting the prices at the supermarket, btw. Just wanna head off the "But Communism!" nonsense ), etc, etc. But doing that meaningfully isn't going to happen quickly. If we give up our benefits in exchange for the above the 1%ers will just give us neither of them. That's kinda their thing. What's that old Dilbert joke about saying Yes and then not doing it?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
With you daily Uber stories/ads. You suck cock for money. Whores.
There's a class of people whose most profound fear is that, somehow, somewhere, somebody is making a profit.
If they're not a taxi service then drivers should be able to charge what they want without the company dictating the fares, nor have Uber take money from them for each ride.
Uber drivers are free to do exactly that, just not when using Uber's name, infrastructure, and marketing. They have the complete freedom to find their own customers, offer the services they want to offer, and make the price be whatever they want.
though it comes with a long list of "shoulds": "[Cities] should be focusing on making their taxi services better," she writes. "Taxis should be more accessible to everyone. Taxi fares should be low, predictable, and uniform. Taxi geographies should be wide. Taxis should be clean, fuel-efficient, driven by trustworthy, well-trained drivers, and available for frictionless electronic hailing."
And competition is the way to achieve those ends. All those "shoulds" have existed for decades with no action taken. Suddenly Uber arrives on the scene and people are talking about how to address them.
Automation is rapidly replacing them. Foxconn is already starting. They're doing it slowly to prevent social unrest, but they have the tech to replace them all in less than a year. Stephen Hawking just pointed this out during an 'ask me anything' session on twitter if you want to google it.
Capitalism is a complex system. It's not going to break down in one place. Think of it as an airplane where you can loose an engine or two before it crashes. But sooner or later you lose enough engines. The crash is gonna suck for anyone who couldn't afford a private jet.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and if they turn down too many fairs Uber fires them. Also Uber is dependent on them for their ongoing business needs. Uber doesn't have a business without their labor. That makes them employees. Not contractors.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
if Uber wins. They can't compete. There are a tonne of regulations they must follow. They're background checks are much more thorough and costly. Their drivers carry much more insurance (as do they). They're legally required to take unprofitable fares. As has been pointed out multiple times Uber externalizes costs that Taxi cab companies face daily.
Also Right now Uber is in growth mode. They're spending investor money. That ends after the Taxi cab companies go away. They'll cut unprofitable routes and fairs. Maybe not directly (they won't want the bad press) but indirectly by either pricing those fairs so high they're not practical for the rider or driver or just plain letting the driver turn them down (btw, today if drivers turn down a lot of fares Uber fires them).
I'll answer your question with my own: If you live in the South, what's stopping you from shopping at an independently owned grocer instead of Walmart?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Just opened the app. I see about six uberx cars near me right now. Some strike...
All these Uber stories are just the same old arguments rehashed over and over again. It's not news anymore, please can we stop getting informed whenever anyone vaguely related to Uber farts?
If Uber is declared legal, there's nothing stopping 1,000,000 new "taxi" companies starting up. Unless we allow patenting "order a taxi ... on a phone (app)" as a monopoly.
The choice is between change and no change. The choice isn't a binary between Uber or Taxi. We'll have both for a long time, and after that we'll have so many that nobody will remember Uber. Second to market wins. They can wait for the first to pave the way, pay the costs of court battles, then step in and do it better and cheaper. And 1,000,000 will follow that.
Learn to love Alaska
In NYC I don't have any of these Uber-fixed problems. The problem I have repeatedly:
- I cannot communicate the destination to the driver.
- I attempt to, but the driver gives me no feedback.
- The driver types the address into a GPS from the 90s, distractely while driving, incorrectly, for example confusing S 4th St with 4th St, or 23rd Pl with 23rd Dr. Handing the driver a printout from Google Maps doesn't solve it. Cutting off the address, so the driver has to read the map and can't just type like a monkey, still doesn't solve it.
- The driver cannot find the destination.
- I name a landmark, "Bronx Zoo," and the driver unreasonably says "where's that?"
- The driver attempts to find his own way to the destination by memory and makes many wrong turns. He even turns off the meter apologetically, so he's not trying to scam me, but I'm still late, and it would be avoided by being forced to use a navigation app.
- The driver makes poor decisions about traffic that Waze or even Google Maps would have avoided.
It means, to take a cab and have it actually work, I have to use maps on my phone and give the driver directions. About half the time I can get where I'm going without doing this, but the other half the time there is a major fuckup like wrong turns or going to the wrong place or not knowing where the place is period until I tell him. This is a pain in the ass to do with your friends, because they take everything personally and get hysterical. Doing it with a stranger who is not in German efficiency-mode but is in insecure face-saving third world asia mode quickly becomes the most stressful part of my day.
The taxi industry is structured to screw over drivers as well as the public. Taxi drivers are not protected by Workman's Compensation and wrecks and stick ups are an ongoing problem. In my area the driver rents the cab and keeps what is on the meter. They may not get a single fare in an entire shift and if that cab breaks on the way out of the garage the driver is cheated out of the rental fee. The drivers also pay for the gas. A short four or five mile drive will tend to cost $20. without the tip. That drive may last only five or ten minutes. Drivers are setting minimums such that they refuse any fare under $20.. They also want to charge extra for using a charge card. The industry is a pit of corruption and the rides are absurdly expensive. I have been in other areas where the taxis were wonderful and the rates very low. But in south Florida the government needs to step in big time.
Uber drivers are on strike right NOW.
Bullshit. I'm looking at the app right now, and I'm seeing a four minute pickup time.
Anyone who doesn't feel like driving for Uber doesn't have to. Looks to me like plenty of people are willing to participate.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
No mention of Uber tracking you wherever you go with it's app on your phone?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I recommend reading the link. It beats my example of hauling generators and gasoline all to heck.
$8/bag for ice might be high. But I'm willing to bet that the yahoos in the story ended up exonerated, might even have ended up forcing the police to pay for arresting them and ruining their 'product' by allowing it to melt.
Why? Simple enough - add their expenses up.
They paid $1.75/bag. They didn't get it for the cents normally charged, they paid retail.
They also didn't produce the ice on site - they rented a refrigerated truck. Add that expense, as well as the gasoline.
They had to chainsaw roads clear - add that expense as well.
Consider themselves, well, as not just register monkeys*, but qualified chainsaw wielding drivers. The hours required to drive to the area.
$8/bag probably seems reasonable after adding all that up, probably with them earning darn near minimum wage.
*Nothing against those that run registers, but somebody with both a CDL and the ability to work a large chainsaw competently is a skillset that demands higher wages.
I don't read AC A human right
Drivetrains are not generally safety items. They're a reliability item, and I've seen plenty of taxis stuck by the side of the road after failing. The problem with an unreliable drivetrain is that if it fails while you have a customer, not only do you have to get another taxi to get them to their destination, you're paying for it.
Having to replace the drive train is due to the number of miles driven, nothing more, and it's generally not required as much as you might think, assuming regular maintenance is done, because drive trains produced today are far more durable than in the past.
Also, how do you 'patch' a drive train in an unsafe manner?
If uber vehicles become unsafe, well, then somebody will probably rise to compete against them on that metric.
I don't read AC A human right
The point is, no one is going to want to do expensive repairs on Uber money. And yes it does happen, a lot. The average cab has the drive train replaced three or four times. Transmissions are made with plastic parts these days, especially Dodge trannies, not sure how you can say they are more reliable. And it is a safety item, considering you may be left stranded in some undesirable part of the city. The safety part is more about having brakes and lights fixed properly. If you get in a car you aren't going to notice these things.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The point is, no one is going to want to do expensive repairs on Uber money.
Then they either buy a new vehicle if it's cheaper than fixing their current one, or they stop driving for Uber. Failing to complete rides because yours is defective quickly DQ's you from driving for Uber.
I'd also like a citation on dodge trannies being made from plastic. I already know that, used properly, plastics are stronger than metal, so some sort of citation that trannies aren't lasting as long as they used to would be nice.
My evidence is the climbing number of miles on the average car on the road. Vehicles are lasting longer than ever. Heck, warranties have climbed rather extensively since I was young.
I don't read AC A human right
So they dont take money from Uber in exchange for providing services as dictated by Uber?
Could have fooled me.
Regardless of what Uber likes to say, the people that work for Uber are employees, even as casuals and subcontractors they still have rights.
However this is a good demonstration why Uber is a self correcting problem and why you shouldn't get attached to them. Uber is losing money hand over fist WHILST they have lower costs because they're ignoring the rules that other transport providers have to follow. In order for Uber to make money they have to give the employees a smaller cut. As they have to be cheaper than legitimate, insured taxi companies this means that the amount drivers get is already small and making it smaller means that only the most desperate will be willing to work for Uber (and don't even contemplate how badly the vehicle is repaired because that comes out of the drivers diminishing cut).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
And what stops you from taking a taxi to get home if Uber is too costly?
The irrational hate of the taxi industry.
Yep, this is pretty much the only thing Uber has going in their favour.
People who hate the taxi industry need to believe in Uber. The problem is Uber's business model is unsustainable. They're already having to claw back the drivers cut because they're losing money hand over fist. This means the list of starry-eyed suckers... Erm... I mean drivers is reducing as it costs real money to run a car for commercial purposes (and I bet people think that running a taxi for 12 hours a day is as cheap as driving their runabout for 20 minutes a day). Ironically, this means you'll end up with the most desperate and unemployable, all the things Uberista's complain about the Taxi industry. Drivers that don't speak English, don't wash, cars that are in poor states of cleanliness and repair (did I get that right, I haven't read the Uber Shill handbook) are going to happen to Uber. "But that's the same as a taxi" I hear the Uber Shill nasally decry, well having lived in places with no taxi regulations where anyone can be a taxi driver... The difference is that a licensed and regulated taxi driver is far less likely to shove a gun in your face whilst stinking of whiskey (which in Thailand is actually made from cane sugar, so it's really Rum). Violence inevitably follows such an industry as oversupply makes it more cut-throat. Thats why western nations implemented taxi regulations many generations ago when jitney drivers would beat each other up in front of customers to protect their turf.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Violence inevitably follows such an industry as oversupply makes it more cut-throat.
Like the taxi driver in Germany I ran into. Ended up running away, literally, and hailing a taxi on the street. I went to the taxi rank at the Frankfurt train station, and the second in line was forcing us in his taxi, as the first taxi drove off to avoid the screaming lunatic behind him. Violent abusive taxi drivers happen anywhere, no matter how much regulation. There were what looked like 50 taxis there in the queue for the taxi rank. Infinite supply, regulated, and more expensive and abusive than the taxis I had taken the day before in Italy.
There are bad ones everywhere, and if I'd used Uber, it would have been easier to give a review, than to report a screaming taxi driver I was running away from while he threatened me. I didn't get his company or taxi number, as that would require going back.
And the US taxi regulations were part consumer protection (That's always the public excuse) but part anti-competition. I've never seen a place with medallions that had a sane means of increasing the medallion number as population grew. So most places with medallions have insufficient taxis for the demand.
Learn to love Alaska
A public good is a product or service , "stuff" for sale to the public . THE public good is the policies and practices *including but not limited to the buying and selling of stuff* the government puts in place to benefit people. Please tell me you can see the difference.
Look, you're holding the two - Uber and Taxi companies, to different standards.
Uber's approach is quite simple. Drop below a 4.3 or so out of 5 stars rating, and Uber stops offering you fares. If you're a taxi driver and a customer calls central about you, odds are you'll never hear about it, nor be affected.
One of the common things about Uber reviews - from people using the service, is that Uber drivers are much nicer and cleaner than taxi drivers. Ergo, Uber's filter system works. If you get a surly uber driver, odds are they're either new or having a really bad day. Cab drivers, meanwhile, can be that way every day.
I don't read AC A human right
>> It's not a clever "new business model" for a "new economy" if it can basically be described as making money by paying people less to do deliver the exact same service
>>>Yes: that's what a market economy does and what it is supposed to do.
Wrong A market economy is not meant to drive down wages and concentrate wealth. A market economy is supposed to incentivize, through regulation and laws, competition so that better goods and services are created for the same or less money. Big difference.
If you make everyone a slave, then you've driven down the cost of labor and therefore goods. That's not a market economy functioning to support the public good. It's a slave economy We fought a war over this. It's over folks, you lost. You're not going to sneak it in through the back door by calling it some for of "free market".
>>Look around the world and 20th century history. Socialists, fascists, and dictators all tried to impose regulations, redistribute wealth, and limit trade in order to "help" people, and their citizens usually end up destitute except for a small wealthy elite in government
Look into the past prior to the 20th century. Back backin time into the 16th and 15th and 10th and 8th and 2nd and into BCE and just keep going. There is one and only one "market' the market of the strong enslaving the weak. That's the "natural order" that humans create for themselves. A tiny elite owning, literally, everything. Raewald's wealth dwarfed Gates' wealth by orders of magnitude and he was just a the start of the English Bretwaldas. So also in Asia, and everywhere else.
It was that way up until the 19th and 20th century. King John's Magnacarta applied only to the nobles who forced it on him, not the vast majority of people who were defacto slaves or just slaves.
Only laws and regulation aimed at preventing the concentration of wealth prevent the concentration of wealth. You can say that the Nordic socialist nations are dying or whatever you want to say, but that's all it is, you speaking empty phrases that have no connection to reality.
Check here. Didn't take long to find it either. That said, Uber doesn't explicitly 'fire' folks any more. But then again neither did the fast food place I worked at as a kid. Just cut your hours/pay until you're basically fired. There's other nastiness they do, but you'll have to google to get the specifics.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
>>Exporting jobs and importing goods is the way we improve wealth across the world; the global economy isn't a zero sum game.
You misinterpret the global economy as a zero some game, and then, out of your own greed and fears, use flowery phrases like "exporting prosperity" to disguise your own greed, selfishness, and irrational fears.
Wrong You misinterpret the economy as a zero sum game. I think maybe you are aware of this unconsciously and therefore laid the accusation against me.Specifically, you turn it into a zero sum game in this exchange:
>> It's not a clever "new business model" for a "new economy" if it can basically be described as making money by paying people less to do deliver the exact same service
>>>Yes: that's what a market economy does and what it is supposed to do.
If that's what it's supposed to do, then you're saying it's a zero sum game. What I was saying is you create wealth by creating new products and services that people want: Here's what I said:
>>A real "new economy" with "new business models" is one where the wealth is increased across the board to everyone, one where we export prosperity itself instead of exporting someone's job or import someone to degrade the labor position of the incumbents.
And here's what you said when I said that lowering prices by driving down wages is how you create wealth
>>>Yes: that's what a market economy does and what it is supposed to do.
Just so we're clear on the difference in perspectives.
As to immigration, it shows how little you read the headlines when yo say people won't come here to escape their shithole war torn nations.
As to European middle class having less money than the America's poor, it's such a joke of a statement that it makes me believe you're capable of saying just anything your brain presents to you, evidence free.
Here is the median wages for Europe. The "dying socialist nations" are at the very top of the heap, as they always are. Unless you want to make the claim that America's poor earn more than 52k a year, you've got a problem with your argument.
On top of their earnings, they also enjoy free healthcare, dental, education, college and a vast array of social services that make America look like it never really quit it's slavery addiction.
That's a working economy- where freedom from poverty creates a virtuous circle of people spending money because they have it to spend and businesses creating goods and employing people to meet that demand.
I'm disappointed that when I argue with libertarians they're big on just provably false and in fact just made up statements and big on accusatory language.
Libertarianism basically has nothing to show for itself but the bank accounts of a few South American dictators and mass murderers like Pinochet which libertarian economist Milton Friedman supported and whose regime he contributed to. That and psychotic sociopaths / amphetamine freaks like Ayn Rand.
Libertarianism is basically a masturbation fantasy of sociopaths who dream of being left alone by government to inflict their will on everyone weaker than they are.
That and oh yeah, denying the fact of human caused climate change, apparently because upping the death toll of their policies out of the hundreds of thousands and into the hundreds of millions of a couple billion is less of a concern than to them than a few gas an oil barons be permitted to continue in the lifestyles they've become accustomed to.
Hey man, what's a little mass murder when it comes to making money with fossil fuels?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
How do you think better goods are created for less money? Primarily by reducing the main cost for producing the goods, namely labor. Therefore, you actually agree: the goal of market economies is to make money by paying people less to do deliver the exact same service
The "incentivize, through regulation and laws" is irrelevant and a fabrication on your part. Whether you believe that regulation and laws are necessary or not, they are clearly not part of the definition of market economies. And the regulations and laws you have been advocating are clearly anti-free market and clearly run counter to the goal of "creating better goods and services for the same or less money".
Yes, there were lots of monarchies, aristocracies, and other forms of totalitarianism prior to the 20th century, From Rome to today, the strong enslaved the weak usually either by making false promises of economic justice and redistribution, or through various forms of military power and protection. That is, politically powerful people abused their political powers to also acquire wealth, enslave people, and impoverish them. No major monarchy or aristocracy developed out of a free market system. To the contrary, monarchies and aristocracies generally lost their power because of free markets, as commoners became wealthier through commerce and then demanded more political power.
Coming from Europe, I assure you I have a much better idea of what the Nordic countries are and aren't like than you. If you want to know more, read "The Almost Nearly Perfect People", instead of living in your fantasy land. And coming from Europe, I don't want the US to turn into the same kind of dump.
Surge pricing is incredibly predictable. You know if you want an uber at prime time it will be expensive, at others times it will not.
FURTHERMORE, the app gives you an estimate if you want before you ever even order the car. With a taxi you have to hail them and ask how much... EVEN WHEN there are supposed posted rates which they are supposed to charge.
It's also quite uniform in that Uber doesn't change your fare based on race or skin color or gender, as cabs can and will.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
With you daily Uber stories/ads. You suck cock for money. Whores.
There's a class of people whose most profound fear is that, somehow, somewhere, somebody is making a profit.
Making a profit without paying tax on it. That class of people that are afraid of it are the class of people that are running governments, whether we like it or not.
Uber is a "fuck you, we are taking over and taking all the money" sort of bunch, which should be kept in mind even if those that they are displacing are as bad or worse.
I use uber very nearly every day, I took one home from the train station just this afternoon around 4pm. Arrived in about six minutes, which is a little slow for downtown, but it's also the last day of the state fair and the train was packed. On Saturday one picked me up at 5:30am within about 4 minutes to take me to the train station....While I was at the train station this afternoon, another uber picked up a lady and her 8 year old daughter on the same corner. I saw no taxis drive by the train station in that time, perhaps the taxi drivers were on strike as well?
moox. for a new generation.
That sort of idea of offering exclusive rights to offering a service dates back to King John is not earlier. Those governing make money out of it and those who buy the rights have a barrier to keep competitors out. I'm not defending it just framing the issue and pointing out why those that have paid to be inside the barrier are pissed off by others that do not have to wear the same costs.
Near where I am Uber has just refused a compromise deal where they have to pay tax - the same goods and services tax that every other company in the country has to pay on transactions. They seem determined to remain outside the law and just influence those in power to look the other way.
Why stop at that? Go to those disaster areas and loot - if the owners are dead you are not hurting anyone. Why travel when you can graverob at home instead? Your "it's OK to exploit people who can't find easy alternatives" may be what you see as "the American way" but only from the most amoral of the bunch in "Deadwood".
That is what an ambulance is for in places where getting things done counts for more than "small government".
So they dont take money from Uber in exchange for providing services as dictated by Uber?
The money comes from the customers they serve, not Uber.
However this is a good demonstration why Uber is a self correcting problem and why you shouldn't get attached to them. Uber is losing money hand over fist WHILST they have lower costs because they're ignoring the rules that other transport providers have to follow. In order for Uber to make money they have to give the employees a smaller cut. As they have to be cheaper than legitimate, insured taxi companies this means that the amount drivers get is already small and making it smaller means that only the most desperate will be willing to work for Uber (and don't even contemplate how badly the vehicle is repaired because that comes out of the drivers diminishing cut).
You rationalize however you want. Even if Uber is as incompetently run as you hope, it's still the end of most taxi oligopolies. Not everyone protects their taxi special interests as well as say, London does.
Other countries seem to have solved the "cabs are crap" problem without needing Uber...
That's one taxi driver. I can counter that anecdote with dozens upon dozens of great German taxi drivers, so I guess you are back to square one.
then stfu, don't read the article, and go get a life. it's not as if you had a gun pointed to your head making you read this stuff.
Wow, you Uber shills are getting pretty fucking aggressive.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
>>Therefore, you actually agree: the goal of market economies is to make money by paying people less to do deliver the exact same service
Wrong. You reduce labor by reducing the number of people you need to do a job through automation, product re-design or other increases in efficiency. Kneecapping wage earners is a road to nowhere but a nation of people who have no money for goods. You need to actually take an economics course,.
>>. Whether you believe that regulation and laws are necessary or not, they are clearly not part of the definition of market economies.
Wrong again. The very idea IDEA of a modern economy is a fabrication of the human mind. Before there were anything like modern "economies" there was warfare, booty and enslavement of the losers and in fact nearly everyone outside the ruling class. You need to read history. That is how the world was run for aeons.
Laws and regulations are what create modern civilization with anything you'd call an economy. Outside of that, it's pillage and plundering ala Ghengis Khan.
I deal with a reputable taxi company in Auckland. They do the job well. They have a large fleet. Why would I want to take a chance on unregulated randos? I guess if you have poor taxis where you live some guy in his car would possibly be better.
Only boring people are ever bored.
Nope. If all the checks on drivers worked 100%, then there'd be no contrary examples.
But there are, because they don't work. So why force them on others? Why complain that the main problem with Uber is that the drivers aren't vetted, when it doesn't solve the problem for Taxis?
Learn to love Alaska
So now we are going to witness the usual repartee, not to mention bull shit, of exchanges between the Libertarian Fundamentalists and reasonable people with absolutely no one changing their mind. I personally like Uber (especially the fantastic job they did no their app GUI), but also, being one of the "reasonable people", will side with those who favor government regulation and things like higher wages for working people, including Uber drivers. Libertarian fundamentalists do not believe one can provide regulations that result in better working conditions and higher wages without somehow reducing "freedom" (the freedom for those who own to acquire more wealth) or without reducing efficiency of the economy (part of the bull shit aspect of their so-called theory).
>>I'm sorry if you don't understand how cherry picking a few small, rich enclaves in Europe has nothing to do with my statement. Apparently, you also have trouble understanding concepts like gross/net.
This should pretty much settle this. The list of European nations by median wage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yeah, that hurts, I know.
So much for accusations of cherry picking.
You just say shit that has no basis in reality but makes you feel good. This is typical of libertarians. Strong on strong ideas, short on facts.
I think its genetic. Libertarians are essentially predators and hate with every fiber of their being anything that tells them they can't act on their predatory instincts. That would be Government and Laws.
Since you've posted fact free and in fact opposite of reality statement after statement I really don't hold out much hope for you; you'll spend the rest of your life snarling and frothing at civilization's progress, which is more or less inevitable.
Since that was the second post to which you stooped to name calling and character assassination,please, let me return the favor.
The libertarians I've known are basically Asperger's syndrome, coke-addicted, amphetamine freaks who spend all their time (re-re-)reading Ayn Rand (who was all that and more ! ) and talking about the Austrian school of economics as though those economists hadn't stated that *no set of real world facts or statistics could ever count as evidence against their theories because such real world evidence would invariably be tainted by the impure environment of an at least somewhat regulated economy.*
So much for science.
But please, I feel like I'm keeping you from bursting an aneurysm in response to some other part of the real world which has enraged you to the point of an apoplectic fit.
I wouldn't want to do that.
As you were.
>> To the contrary, monarchies and aristocracies generally lost their power because of free markets, as commoners became wealthier through commerce and then demanded more political power.
Gawd you have no idea about history whatsoever. A serf who attempted to work a neighbor's land because the neighbor offered him a better deal was killed outright. There is opening for "market forcces" to take over. If "market forces" were able to take over, then why didn't they do it for the first two thousand years. If it's such an inevitable powerful force, why does its appearance and rise coincide with democratic government and not before?
The fact is a few rich people - nobles and barons, kings, the upper echelon of the military effectively owned fucking everything even into the 1700s and 1800s. Then democracy started in France by violent overthrow of the King. That's when things started to get better for people and that's when fair laws regulating the economy began to create something other than an "economic" world composed of intrigue, murder, theft, piracy, and the other forms of raw power.
The people who write the books that tell you that the market created democracy and a fair economy and the rule of law are all coke addicts. I can prove this. I can prove it using the same type of evidence you've presented here to support their theories.
Shit, I can prove anything using your methods. All I have to do is think it and wish it and *poof !* it becomes reality.
Saaaay.... maybe there is something to this libertarian smack after all.
That sort of control is what an employer gets, not an informational based contracting service that only seeks to link buyers and sellers. If I want to sell something on ebay I put my price up. If I decide to keep my item because nobody will pay my price then Ebay doesn't get to tell me to sell it for less just because they want their cut of the fees. Uber sets the price. They also exercise control over your choice to accept working for that price. That's what we have traditionally called 'employment'...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I doubt this person ever lived in "europe" for the same reason I doubt anyone lives in "north america." Europe is a continent you douchebag, if you were "from europe" you would have stated the nation you were "from" in europe.
Well either you're a knowing and deliberate liar or you have the shortest memory for your own claims on record. Here's your original claim:
"As to European middle class having less money than the America's poor, it's such a joke of a statement that it makes me believe you're capable of saying just anything your brain presents to you, evidence free."
European middle class has less money than America's poor.
Not only is this false, it's not even true that the European middle class has less money the American middle class. Actually, they have as much or more.
In true libertarian fashion, you're such a crackhead for your pet theory you're continue to argue for it even if you have to engage in the classic rhetorical lies- moving goalposts , ignoring valid counter arguments of your opponent, presenting evidence -free unsourced broad statements as facts.
Libertarianism is somewhere between a drug and a religion to its adherents. It's a disease to those who are susceptible to it, as you are. Really it's turned you into a POS that people just ignore, as I will now do. WHen yo argue, you lie. You change goalposts You make broad statements without supporting facts. You grossly misrepresent your opponent's speech (I never said civilization began 2000 years ago, I said slavery is the natural order of man and it's only enforced laws and regulations based on democratic ideals and nothing else that stops us from going back there).
You're truly the worst sort of online troll. Please continue to have.... the life you're having
Yeah now you're making the arguments the Luddite's make. That machinery will replace workers and leave them disadvantaged (unemployed or underpaid).
Fact is, when robots replace people, people shift to programming robots, maintaining robots, designing robots etc.
One the one hand we have the libertarian-cocaine theory of fucking everyone over, driving them into poverty wages and sneering "that's the free market" and on the other hand we have a system which is deliberately designed through public education, displaced worker education packages and other means to create a virtuous circle of greater productivity / cheaper goods / greater economic participation and better distribution of wealth.
The choice is ours. Thankfully sociopathic libertarian scum compromise only a few percentage points of the population and they control exactly no nation or government.
Once we understand more about genes and how they give rise to distinct patterns of human social orientation: pro-social vs anti-social , egalitarian world view vs predatory world view, we'll be able to identify the anti-social genes and correct them either before or after birth.
You're the last of your kind; we're going to ride you into extinction.
Fuck yeah, let's do away with regulation and laws because that's worked out so well for us the first couple thousand years of human civilization. If the "free natural market unregulated by laws" were going to spontaneously spring forward with its abundant blessings, then it would have when there were no laws under Ghengis Khan or in Somolia anywhere else on earth in which there were, literally, no laws.
Fucking idiot.
Actually Adam Smith would have puked up at the libertarian agenda. The only reason libertarian coke snorters can claim him is because he's not around to tell them to go fuck themselves. Ditto Jesus and the Christians.
No I think Ross Ulbricht pretty well embodies libertarian ideology and of course practice. Yep no laws, no regulation just people exchanging money for goods. You know, goods like oh I don't know, very very dangerous drugs and illegal firearms and of course - contracts for assassination !!!! Yeah Ross was into that, wasn't he. Typical libertarian - all about freedom and freedom from coercion until someone pisses him off then that person needs to die- literally, while the libertarian bemoans the lack of integrity people have.
Yep a libertarian paradise for sure, where every libertarian is left alone and is free to do as he pleases without "the goddamn goob'mint" getting in his way.
Libertarians are murdering, drug dealing fucking scum.
That's a straw man. We're talking about "regulation and laws" with regard to the free market. Saying that I should be able to sell you raisins at a price we freely agree on and without getting taxed isn't the same as saying I should be able to shoot you without consequences. Nor does the absence of government-issued regulations and laws translate into "anything goes".
Human civilization is a lot older than 2000 years. And throughout most of that time, there have been extensive economic restrictions and regulations. Many of those restrictions and regulations were motivated by the same naive economic views you have. It was only during the Renaissance that we finally figured out that a lot of those regulations are actually harmful.
There were, literally, laws under Ghengis Khan. In fact, they were quite strict, as far as laws go.
Somalia turned into the current shithole under European imperialism, US foreign policy, monarchy, dictatorship, Islamic fundamentalism, and socialist rule, all systems that imposed strong restrictions on both economic and non-economic freedoms.
And while the Somali national government is clearly dysfunctional and impotent, that doesn't mean lawlessness; Somalis still live under local law and government, subject to local taxation, corruption, and restrictions. Nevertheless, while Somalis are still fairly poor by our standards, after their national government collapsed, life in Somalia has improved much faster than the average among African nations. So, even anarchy beats socialist government. (But, again, libertarians aren't anarchists.)
>>Saying that I should be able to sell you raisins at a price we freely agree on and without getting taxed
Let me complete the sentence for you, .. is the same as saying there's not government since there's no taxes and since there's no government there's no law. Like it or not, taxes are the basis for civilization, including taxes on raisins.
If socialist rule is so bad , why are the richest nations also the most socialist?
nations whose income is more than US
norway
\sweden
denmark
'finland
all highly socialist nations. So actually, their money, which they just outright have more of, goes further than American wages out of which comes health and education and other services which are paid for in those nations.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166...
Once you start figuring THAT in the US is really pretty far down the list, far below Canada and France and Germany, all highly socialist nations also.
So the socialist nations in the EU are far better off than the US but do you concede? No, like the Black Knight in Monty Python, you fight on!
Your original assertion, that the poor in the US are better off than the people in Europe. Now that's a total joke. Some guy making 7.50 an hour 15k a year (much less just a year ago b4 they raised the minimum wage) OR LESS is better off than the vast vast vast majority of people in Europe. Such a joke,. You have no idea what poverty is and what it means to be poor in a nation without any meaningful social services like the US.
Yet you fight on, in true libertarian fashion !
Please, don't take out a contract on my life, don't Ulbricht me man; I know how much sense that sort of thing makes to libertarians because, you know it's a kind of freedom, but really, just because you've been humiliated online is no reason to go FULL libertarian, FULL Pinochet, Full Milton Friedman, FULL Ross Ulbrecht and start plotting someone's murder.
I mean, really!
You're wrong. So sayeth the stats, so sayeth people who have actually lived in both places, so sayeth anyone and anything not specifically and toxically dedicated to distorting reality.
Nowhere did I say that there should be no taxes at all. I merely illustrated that rejecting taxes on market transactions is not the same as rejecting all laws.
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland are not "socialist", they are small Nordic welfare states. In terms of economic liberty, they are comparable to the US.
Norway is wealthy because it has oil and isn't in the EU. Sweden, Denmark, and Finland are significantly worse off than the US economically.
Historically, both the Nordic countries had higher degrees of economic liberty, which was important in the rapid post-WWII growth of their economy. Once they were wealthy, they strongly increased social spending, something they could get away with also because of demographics. More recently, they have been reducing that trend again because because it's not sustainable.
In terms of economic liberties they rank about as high as the US.
Furthermore, per capita social welfare spending in the US as percentage of GDP is one of the highest in the world, according to the OECD:
http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OE...
In absolute terms, that makes the US per capita social welfare spending much larger than any other nation.
What you point at is a Gallup poll of self-reported incomes. The US is sixth on that list among 131, which is hardly "pretty far down". However, that list is gross, self-reported income, which is really the wrong thing to compare. What you need to compare is disposable income compared by PPP$. The only European nations that do better than the US are Norway (oil money) and Luxembourg (banking and tax haven).
Even if you do that, you're still not making the right comparison. Both the US and the EU are integrated free markets with mobility of capital and individuals. The fact that Luxembourg is doing well needs to be balanced against the fact that Greece is not. So, what you actually need to compare is a ranking of US states against a ranking of EU member states, or all of the US against all of the EU.
In different words, you are using the wrong statistics and you don't understand the statistics.