Slashdot Mirror
Uber In Retreat Across Europe
HughPickens.com writes: Mark Scott reports at the NY Times that Uber is rapidly expanding its ride-hailing operations across the globe but some of Uber's fiercest opposition has come in Europe, where the culture clash between the remorseless competition of the US tech industry and the locals' respect for tradition and deference to established interests is especially stark. In Frankfort, Uber shut its office after just 18 months of operation spurred in part by drivers like Hasan Kurt, the owner of a local licensed taxi business, who had refused to work with the American service. Uber antagonized local taxi operators by prioritizing its low-cost service, and then could not persuade enough licensed drivers to sign up, even after it offered to pay for licenses and help with other regulatory costs that totaled as much as $400 for new drivers. "It's not part of the German culture to do something like" what Uber did says Kurt. "We don't like it, the government doesn't like it, and our customers don't like it."
Uber also pulled out of Hamburg and Düsseldorf after less than two years of operating in each of those German cities. In Amsterdam, Uber recently stopped offering UberPop, in Paris and Madrid, Uber has been confronted by often violent opposition from existing taxi operators, while in London, local regulators are mulling changes that could significantly hamper Uber's ambitions there. Uber's aggressive tactics have turned off potential customers like Andreas Müller who tried the company's Frankfurt service after first using Uber on a business trip in Chicago. Müller said he liked the convenience of paying through his smartphone, but soon turned against the company after reading that it had continued operating in violation of court orders and did not directly employ its drivers, who are independent contractors. "That might work in the U.S., but that's not how things are done here in Germany," says Müller. "Everyone must respect the rules."
Uber also pulled out of Hamburg and Düsseldorf after less than two years of operating in each of those German cities. In Amsterdam, Uber recently stopped offering UberPop, in Paris and Madrid, Uber has been confronted by often violent opposition from existing taxi operators, while in London, local regulators are mulling changes that could significantly hamper Uber's ambitions there. Uber's aggressive tactics have turned off potential customers like Andreas Müller who tried the company's Frankfurt service after first using Uber on a business trip in Chicago. Müller said he liked the convenience of paying through his smartphone, but soon turned against the company after reading that it had continued operating in violation of court orders and did not directly employ its drivers, who are independent contractors. "That might work in the U.S., but that's not how things are done here in Germany," says Müller. "Everyone must respect the rules."
It's what sets Europe apart from the oligarchies and part of what the city slickers want to get rid of in the UK.
Who would have thought?
Here in Belgium (Brussels for me) lots of people used Uber, even after the threat to close them down. Its cheaper and more convenient than the expensive and slow taxi service. Most everyone I know has used them at least once and everyone (in my circle) was not happy with them pulling out of Brussels after threat of legal action.
I think if you talk to anyone who isn't a taxi driver or associated with the police, you'd find they like Uber and are not happy with the monopoly of the taxi service on this industry.
Of course, Belgium is well known as a 'fuck the rules' sort of country. But we're also the seat of the EU so the irony is not lost on me about this story.
Still, most people would have been happier if our fucking governments had found a way to work with Uber instead of just bowing over to the taxi unions.
Biassed much? This has jack shit to do with the "remorseless competition of the US tech industry and the locals' respect for tradition and deference to established interests".
It has to do by following the rules. They keep saying that they are not a taxi company, while they are. They try to get around all different kinds of laws, especially labour laws and that is not a good thing to do in Europe.
The thing I see is that when they follow the rules, they are NOT cheaper than the traditonal taxi companies.
So what "remorseless competition" means is actually "illegal operation of a business". It is like calling Corleones way of selling insurance "remorseless competition of European family businesses".
Uber is welcome if they play by the rules. They tried and did not make any money.
Do understand that in many places you can just become a taxi-driver by getting the correct papers. Not everywhere there are fixed limits or medaillions.
What the taxi companies should take away from this (and other places as well) is that people like the ease of use, especially in payment. People like the cashless society. There are options for taxi-drivers. I pay with my bank card if possible and that is something that is widely accepted.
The App is also a nice thing and I could see a role for Uber (or others) there. Set up a system where multiple companies can join so you can get a taxi easily. e.g. something like http://www.pizza.be/en/ where people can order from many different places in Belgium.
Do that on a European or even worldwide manner and you are golden.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
A socialist pipedream in which college education is free.*
Good luck paying off your college loans, and your children's college loans, suckers.
____
*Free because college graduates pay back more in taxes to the government in 6 years than the cost of their education.
I think they are not succeeding in countries with well established and (maybe) good quality taxi services. This is not the case for Bucharest. Here the taxi drivers are guys with no education that would not get a job otherwise. They always expect tip and can become violent if this is not provided (especially to women). They smoke even if you ask for a non smoking cab and some of their cars are pitiful (I don't expect leather but I want the heating to work). Uber imposes some rules on cars and you can rate drivers (and the rating is actually used by Uber as opposed to taxi firms). This makes their drivers act nicer, the cars are better and the whole experience is better. And not having to deal with cash money and tip is cool also.
You take comparable issues, people not following rules and the reaction by the authorities is also similar, they will try to prevent a recurrence.
So what did you want to say?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Forcing people into dept so they can get an education. This is just another scheme by the rich to keep the poor down.
once you guys learn the meaning, spelling and pronunciation of "über".
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
The problem is that not everyone is in equal opportunity to invest. To some families/individuals, the cost of college in the US is trivial. To others, it's hugely prohibitive. This imparts a bias in which it's far easier for a certain segment of the population to pay for college than another (much larger) segment, which discourages the latter from attending college, which discourages a large portion of those who would actually be good at a particular career from getting the background and degree that they need to pursue it - leading to said positions being filled by less qualified individuals who simply came from personal (or more often, family) backgrounds with more money.
That's not to say that individuals from poor families can't reach success - far from it. But in this regard money is like the difficulty setting on a video game. Sure, someone who's really skilled may still beat it on the hardest setting, while someone who is lousy at the game may still lose on the easiest. But playing the game at a particular difficulty setting is going to skew the percentage of people who succeed at it. The "high scores" - the job market - is based around those who won the game without regard to what sort of difficulty setting they played at, and so naturally it's going to be skewed toward those who played at easier difficulty settings, rather than being an accurate list of who is really best at the game.
Beyond the base economic issues of wanting your nation's workers to be able to reach their maximum potential rather than having potentially brilliant scientists and engineers working retail, there's also the issue of happiness. Because people tend to work harder at jobs that they enjoy. But if someone gets locked into a particular career path that they don't enjoy or aren't good at, high costs of tuition (as well as a lack of a "safety net", such as universal healthcare) make a career change a hugely, often prohibitively costly endeavour. Where tuition is cheap and a safety net stronger, people who realize that they've headed down the wrong career path are much more likely to switch career paths and find one that they actually do enjoy and are good at, rather than being unhappy and unproductive for decades in the workforce.
Safety nets and universal tuition do have a cost, don't get me wrong. But having workers in the wrong career and not having people meet their potential has an even bigger cost.
Shiny New Australia.
*Free because college graduates pay back more in taxes to the government in 6 years than the cost of their education.
OK, I've heard of a lot of statements regarding our college graduates, but this bullshit takes the cake.
Why? Well because technically you need a fucking job in order to actually pay taxes on it.
This never would have happened if they had just kept an arm's length apart ;)
Shiny New Australia.
This is about Uber pissing all over labour and transport regulations and getting in serious trouble because of that. ... ... sort-of-dependable here in Düsseldorf. ... idiots.
And competing against dependable and solid public transport networks.
Well, OK, scratch that
If only Rheinbahn could sync their online, offline and station timetables, that would be a huge plus
There's also a cottage industry of ride-sharing going on in Germany for quite some time now (roughly a decade) with platforms such as mitfahrgelegenheit.de or blahblahcar.de covering some interesting parts of the market that Uber tries to target. In terms of ride-sharing Uber is actually quite late in the game by German standards.
As for transportation and labour laws: I took a taxi just this moring because I'd've been late with the tram & bike combo I usually use. The ride took approx. 16 minutes and costed 22 euros, tip included. The car was a Mercedes (almost all Taxis are Mercedes in Germany), the drive has to have a special training and "Personentransport" (it's what you think it is) drivers licence, he gets paid - not very big but he can live - and is tied in to healthcare and all the other stuff every citizen enjoys in Germany.
Bottom line: With public transport and the occasional luxurious taxi ride when time is short I see not that much of a market for Uber. And as for them getting legal flak for not following regulations - that's a thing I'm quite OK with.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
The state makes an investment in educating it's population and it gets increased revenue from having a workforce that isn't made up of unskilled cretins. Crippling GDP is a pretty stupid way to save money.
I wonder, is their retreat due to a genuine disinterest by the populations of those countries or simply by anti-competitive practices by those countries "established interests"/governments? It almost sounds like at least in UberPops case that the general public was happy to use the service but the taxi companies/drivers "dissatisfaction" resulted in blocking traffic, government lobbying, destroying Uber cars and attacking their drivers. No doubt that Uber is a company that is more than anything interested in profits, but why people are ascribing different motivations to various established taxi companies across the globe is beyond me. Let them all provide their service and allow the public to decide which deserves to survive.
http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/...
Yeah, poor "innovators".
Look, here is what really happened:
We have existing taxi services that are actually quite good and regulated to the advantage of customers (for example, by law a taxi cannot refuse to drive you just because it's close by and he would prefer to wait for a higher fare customer).
My hometown, Hamburg, is mentioned, and for all my life my experience with taxis there is that it is easy to get one, they are clean, drivers speak good german and know the roads, fares are transparent and fair and for years before Uber appeared, there were already Apps that allowed you to order a taxi to your current location with a few clicks.
I don't know the situation in the USA, but over here not many people even saw the need for something like Uber. If you "disrupt" something that works reasonably well, you are acting destructively.
Maybe Uber is cheaper, but it is not as transparent or fair with its various surcharges and basically auction system. I'd rather know I will spend 20â to get to the airport than leave it up to chance and maybe today I'm lucky and pay only 15 - or maybe 30, who knows? If you want cheap, most of Europe has pretty good public transport (from my house to the airport: just over 3â and only 10 minutes longer than by taxi).
And then Uber came in with arrogance and hubris and basically said "fuck you all" not just to the taxi companies but also to regulators, police and the law. Sorry, but we here don't share the american "all government is the evil spawn of Satan" attitude. Sure we bitch about tax laws and we think our politicians are corrupt, incompetent imbeciles, but we also value the rule of law and wouldn't want to live in the wild west. We don't think companies and people who break the rules are innovators, we think they are assholes.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
... what a complete and utter bullshit: "... where the culture clash between the remorseless competition of the US tech industry and the locals' respect for tradition and deference to established interests is especially stark"
Maybe it's more that in Europe countries have not been taken over by commerce to the degree that has happened in the US. Maybe that NY Times reporter baby could buy a passport and take time to visit some European countries once.
Indeed, when you want to do a business in a country, you obey simple rules, nothing more, apparently Uber has issues with that, and perhaps that attitude is typically American, who knows.
That arrogant crap company is doing the same here in Indonesia; simply ignore laws and court orders, hoping they can strong arm local and national governments into compliance, disgusting!
We are proud of our social accomplishments and we do not like people who mess with it. Especially, when they think they do not need to work inside the law. It might be acceptable in the US to fuck the law and the people and make profit from it. Here, we do not like it. And frankly enough international companies are doing it. Therefore, we fight against that. Even though our governments are not really into it. Even though, they encouraged some companies to pay some taxes and accept the local laws.
......
You hate the politicians for letting corrupt corporations bribe them? But that's the only way you become a politician in the US, if you don't have corporate backers or are not already spectacularly wealthy (which is pretty much the same thing) then you can't afford to run for a congressional or senate seat. The whole US system has been taken over by the corporates now and it pretty much sucks as a result.
Try living in a Western European or Scandanavian country instead and be amazed at how much happier everyone is. Free education, free health care and a descent social safety net should be the goal of any truly civilized society.
His head is not in his arse - you might want to check yours. Leaping to conclusions (as you appear to want to do) is not a sign of a well-functioning brain.
You're holding humanity back as you've always been doing. The rest of the world is subsidizing your grandiose socialist pipedream.
Stop being a cry baby just because this shit is legal in the US doesn't mean it's legal in the rest of the world
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Most of the natives that died as a result of Europeans arriving in Americas died because of infection. This does not make it good but it is not a killing you make it be.
As for US Americans and their corporations and political elites destroying all the their EU counterparts being better - I have serious doubts. Take Merkel for instance and you will find a ruthless bitch that destroys all that stands in her way (of staying at power). Morals are used here only as a means to that end. The only advantage European countries may have is the size of the country which makes removing of elite leaches a bit easier - it is still damned difficult anyway so that is rather theoretical. You take TTIP&CETA perspective and you will see that actually what happens is that international corporations are undermining the state and societies skimming them all and destroying if need be (in the sake of free trade and spreading of 'liberal and open' society of course).
In principle it is the the old conflict between power that be and the rest and which is fought over and over again with front lines that are not always clear marked. Uber is a good example of that. There are clearly no benefit for people in northern Europe of having it - the services it offers are already available, the taxi services usually good enough. The only real advantage they offer is unified service like in McDonalds so that especially business travelers have their lives made a little bit easier. That advantage is more than offset but pumping the profits outside of respective markets (to some tax heavens usually). How that benefits local societies is not quite clear to me and is (in my view) justified only if services provided benefit from centralization which they do not here. There are services that benefit from such centralization of services however - search machines are one such example (it does not mean there should be only one of course).
That's what I see.. There is obviously a problem with the widening wealth gap. Why are we ushering in companies like Uber and calling it progress? At least the 'monopolistic' taxi industry provides a living wage. We can't get rid of all our living wage jobs and then complain there are no jobs, and I for one want jobs for everyone. Those taxi drivers are the ones we should be protecting and defending if we want our society to work and we're shitting all over them. Maybe they're not perfect, but if you see the forest for the trees, they're more perfect then Uber.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I think after two attempts they noticed that it doesn't work.
The US are still in the learning phase.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Cabs are not needed as often in European cities because of the lush public transit systems available, and are in general a convenience, rather than a necessity. You might take a cab to the airport because you have luggage, but the alternative is a five-minute walk on safe streets (before the "refugees" came, anyway) to a tram or Metro stop, rather than having to beseech some car-equipped friend for a ride.
Because taxis are a non-critical part of the city experience in Europe, they compete on service. No grimy cabbies who don't speak the local language, and they know the city.
I've taken a fair number of taxis in Rome over the past 5 years..
There's a flat fee from the airport to anywhere inside the Wall (maybe inside the GRA?): 50 Euro. If you book ahead, that's what everyone (non-taxi hire car) charges.
If the weather is terrible and you're out in the suburbs (outside the GRA) and want to get into town, there can be quite a wait for the radio cab to show up. Partly it's demand/surge, partly it's just that bad weather makes bad traffic, and Rome has pretty bad traffic most of the time.
Out of, say, 20 taxi rides, maybe 1 or 2 seemed a bit "out of the way" or wound up with a higher number on the meter than I expected. Those might have been just because the traffic was so bad, and the driver was trying to find a different route: these were both "outside GRA to inside the wall" trips, and the main radials (Via Salaria, Via Tiburtina) were packed.
That's how Europe actually does it. We all invest in your education so you can provide the advanced services like medical that we all depend upon. We don't get money back, but affordable healthcare.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Has anyone here met an Uber driver who is making a comfortable living driving for Uber full time? I haven't.
All the drivers I've spoken too are doing it for extra cash or barely scraping by.
This is my problem with Uber and the so-called sharing economy. The future looks like multiple part-time jobs and low pay to me.
Uber may ultimately fail, but that doesn't really matter - something else similar will take its place, and the only question is one of how long the process will take. There is a strong parallel between Uber and Napster. In both cases a disruptive technology was used to render existing scarcities obsolete. Those vested in the status quo fought back, but continue to lose ground - the market 'spoke' in the way it always does, but in these cases the incumbents didn't like what the market was saying.
Napster is dead, but online sharing of music and videos is here to stay. Uber may die, but if it does then other services will take its place, and will be with us for a long time. Then, something else will come along to replace these services, and there will be hand-wringing and protests against the loss of the 'traditional' services. It's the way of the world.
And the true elites - the ones who could heat their mansions by burning thousand-dollar bills and still be obscenely rich after a few decades - just love these controversies. It keeps everyone's attention off of the fact that without extreme wealth concentration, everyone in the entire world could enjoy a decent and comfortable standard of living and quality of life while working cooperatively to limit population growth and reverse global warming. Yes, maybe it's time to cue the John Lennon song 'Imagine'; but the true and vast potential of humankind needs to be pointed out and acknowledged and encouraged more.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
>
I walk to a street corner, flag a taxi, pay with cash - there's no record in anyone's computer systems about where I went or when.
You may be trolling, but I'll bite anyway. Do you also wear a mask and elevator shoes, and alter your gait, so the images from all those video cameras you passed on the way can't be quite as easily identified? Also, did you leave your phone behind, or at least pull the battery?
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
You're holding humanity back as you've always been doing. The rest of the world is subsidizing your grandiose socialist pipedream.
Stop being a cry baby just because this shit is legal in the US doesn't mean it's legal in the rest of the world
If that were true, and it's not quite established that it is, all that would mean is that you have more shitty laws than we do. You've had more time to create them. Legality has never been the same as morality or even common sense, and is often not aligned with the will or good of the people, so your argument ("the law says so") is stupid.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"they're in blatant violation of taxi laws in the u.s. too and just hide behind semantics..."
In the US this is a selling point for Uber, because here everyone hates the taxi-monopoly laws except the cab companies. Even our cabdrivers hate the fact that, unlike Uber drivers, the company has no connection with the customer and it's murder roulette every time they pick up a fare.
So, assuredly, non-advanced services education are not provided for free, right?
Because it would discourage a potential doctor from studying medicine if they could also get free education for becoming an artist.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
It's at least three.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Donald, is that you?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If that were true, and it's not quite established that it is, all that would mean is that you have more shitty laws than we do. You've had more time to create them. Legality has never been the same as morality or even common sense, and is often not aligned with the will or good of the people, so your argument ("the law says so") is stupid.
Find me a law that isn't shitty they are all written from the point of view that in order to stop a minority of people doing something we have to make it illegal for everybody. As for laws in foreign countries being shittier than ours I'm sure that holds true from the point of view of citizens of most civilized countries where the police actually get prosecuted if they shoot dead an unarmed civilian who was trying to surrender. However, that's not true for my country ( https://www.google.co.uk/url?s... ) or yours.
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
I didn't realize an industry was a monopoly. So then there's a pharmaceutical-monopoly? Nice one Potsy and you can stop dick sucking ubber.
Exactly!
You said the same as the parent.
Poor kids can get an education, but it's much harder for them than it is for rich kids.
About correlation between poverty and parents perceived value of education, well, I can't think clearly on a empty stomach, can you?
In the US our pharma monopoly, which is government-enforced by a long series of laws passed by the best paid lobbyists in the history of the world, is a much bigger problem than municipal taxi monopolies.
Nonsense. Tuition in the US is free for the poor: there are sufficient grants to cover poor students who earn a place in college by performing satisfactorily on entrance exams and by demonstrating solid work in their high school years. The actual problem is twofold: first, that many poor children, like their parents before them, are not sufficiently intelligent to pass those exams or not sufficiently diligent to perform well in school; and second, that the parents do not value education enough to encourage their children to go to college. The two problems are not unrelated.
Still blaming the poor for being poor, eh? The corollary would be that if everyone worked hard and was smart enough there would be no poor; everyone would be rich and successful. Is that your position? Under our economic system, do you think that's possible? Would McDonald's employees be driving Bentleys if they were smart and industrious enough? Or would there simply be no McDonald's employees? Or is your argument just rubbish?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Then your grandfather was an intellectually lazy bigot.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
With each post your perplexing signature makes more and more sense. You are so incredibly apt to lump all kinds of disparate people together under one simple label, to judge away and ascribe whatever motive you want to their actions. No wonder you are so confused about nearly every topic you discuss here.
When I would ask my grandfather what the difference was between the U.S. and Europe, he used to tell me that America was made up of the descendants of the European people who were willing to work hard and take the risk of a better life in the New World. Europe was made up of the descendants of the European people who were too lazy or frightened to leave the Old World.
What I don't understand is why they don't value money over absolutely everything else. What's wrong with these people?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Good job, Mallory. Keep it rolling. We have to convince the slaves that responsibility for workforce development is not on our backs, else there won't be a flood of college-trained workers for us to pick from. If people stop getting self-directed college education, we'll get a labor shortage, and you know what that means: we have to take up entrants, train them, send them to college, pay for it, and then give them fair salaries and good benefits so they don't leave for a better employer. That would be horrifying; they're supposed to be serfs, not human beings!
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Then your grandfather was an intellectually lazy bigot.
We have a number of them over here.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
oh......wait.....
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The two problems are not unrelated.
As you prove so well.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
People like having drivers with proper insurance and training, and so don't particularly like Uber trying to get rid of those protections for the people. That's the issue. Taxis in Europe generally work far better than the US, and so Uber's muscling in on a working system is not seen as the act of a righteous hero, but of an asshole hell-bent on ruining it for some quick money.
You might want to correct the summary...it's Frankfürt, not Frankfort.
Just another day in Paradise
Yeah, that's what the B ark inhabitants said that to themselves.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
With every post you paint a picture of a scared person lashing out at a world they don't understand, constantly looking over their shoulder for a ghost that does not exist, while using the threat of that ghost to screw everyone over until they are as scared as you are.
Having done a fair amount of genealogy, I'd say one of the biggest factors for coming to the US was having very little to lose.
Successful people tend not to pick up and leave everything and everyone they know. It's the people who didn't see a future in Europe that came to America - because of the local economy, or because they were raised as farmers but had no land to farm, etc.
...where the culture clash between the remorseless competition of the US tech industry and the locals' respect for tradition and deference to established interests is especially stark.
Bias much?
Uber is playing fast and dirty, but 'deference to established interests' is hardly any better, esp when they're just using the state to back their own anti-competitive shenanigans.
And there are no victims so easily plucked clean as a population that is legally unable to defend itself. In European societies you have to hope the police are everywhere, because that's all the protection you have.
Yeah in the USA the women would pull their guns out and start spraying bullets everywhere.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Actually, the original Europeans who came over here were tired of getting the short end of the religion stick, and wanted to be the bullies who got to define what religion was right.
That and Australia still was undiscovered...
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Yeah, because having monopolies on shit jobs that drive up costs and drive down QOS makes everything better?
Sure you can get a free education to become an artist.
But why would you want to study something your can't monetize? Unless of course you think that you'd be a great artist (hey, what artist doesn't?), and if you're this delusional, the world might be better off with you as an artist than as a doctor.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why is Uber welcome in the uk?
Black taxis (the iconic meter driven type) here are prohibitively expensive.
Minicabs are incredibly unreliable and can have very dodgy drivers.
Ubers provides the following: credit card payment, instant booking and availability checking, ourney planner and destination address sync with the driver's GPS, A rating system for drivers and passengers.
They are also Available in areas where black taxi service doesn’t exist or is incredibly infrequent.
They offer extremely cheap prices for most journey types compared to black taxis/ minicabs.
Neither is being in denial. There are enough eye witness testimonies of north africans who didn't speak german so unless all these witnesses are liars I would suggest its you who needs to check out his brain function.
For reorganization of debts, not liquidation. San Francisco is the epicenter of the sharing economy.
No, it is not. Apparently you do not understand the relationship between education (not necessarily university) and the economy. Educating citizens advances the group as a whole. It improves the economy and increases wealth. I thought this was well understood, but apparently not. I'm too lazy to go look it up, but there at least used to be an approximation of this effect by measuring engineers per capita.
It's not the paradigm itself, it's that there's a lot of shady employers out there who want to call their employees "contractors" simply to shift all the risk - and none of the benefits - to them.
If you can afford to pick your jobs, good for you. Most people do whatever is available, and that means anything that makes it easier to screw them - such as getting called a "contractor" rather than an employee - is a threat and gets treated that way.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Meanwhile you're just another comfortable pseudo intellectual liberal idiot who has no clue about real life. I would pity you and your kind except you're the reason for a lot of the problems in germany and the rest of europe at the moment.
I don't think Tesla would agree with you. My family history also does not jobe with that narrative.
I think the greatest reason to come to the US was greater opportunity, not some sort of forced migration of despair.
Yes, the willingness to embrace opportunity can be enhanced considerably by having no ties to cut, but if you look at a number of immigrants, they had some things going for them elsewhere, but they had a limit to how far they could go in Europe. Rightly or wrongly, the US represented nearly unlimited opportunity for those who could make a go of it. It was not easy to grasp that opportunity, but except perhaps for becoming President of the United States, there's nothing a that a naturalized citizen could not do.
Europe of that time was very different from today, with a still powerful aristocracy in most places that was not just a bunch of people with ornamental titles. This tended to limit opportunity considerably for those not of the proper class. Some people were quite able to live happy lives under that situation, but all opportunity eventually led straight having to deal with the landed and aristocratic classes.
Certainly, the people who didn't leave Europe had their reasons, and calling them cowards is ridiculous. If there was a bigger mass migration *from* Europe, it is quite possible that the opportunities would have opened up much closer to home for Europeans.
Jamestown pre-dates Plymouth by 13 years and had nothing to do with religion.
Yes, the freedom of being out from under the thumb of the established churches did make it easier for fringe groups to come and set up their own little theocracies, but that period is actually a fairly small portion of the colonial period. Once the colonial governments were put under Royal administration, they simply ended up as areas with a very Puritan culture, but not a particularly religious governance. No more so than most governments of the time, really.
There are issues, but in general a capable person can and will make a decent living in the US. Denying that is kind of insane. One of my friends immigrated from Romania, has a 9th grade education and is a multi-millionaire because he owns a trucking company that he started working at as a mechanic for pennies an hour. He was granted no special protections or help from the government, he did it through hard work. Many poor are victims of a bad situation, but at least as many are victims of their own laziness. It's not a game of absolutes. No matter what system we have we will have poor that are unwilling... Recognizing that and accepting that is key to actually helping those that are being victimized.
Rich kids are guaranteed higher education, if they want it.
Poor kids have to work at it.
My only problem with this is that the Rich kids don't have to work for it.
Creating educated people does not create jobs for them by default. It just means you have very qualified unemployed people.
Yes, there is a relation between national education levels and productivity, but only if that education is pointed at productive enterprises. As much as I loved my history studies, if I wasn't someone with many years of tech experience, I'd have a lot more trouble holding down a job.
The problem with tuition in the United States right now is twofold. Colleges and Universities are increasing student services, and much more importantly, state government money is being diverted from education to pay for mandates for things like Medicaid and other entitlements. Unlike the Federal government, the state governments are more zero sum in their budgeting process, and state governments are constitutionally responsible for education.
If you want to seriously drive down tuitions, the state has to have the money to pitch in again, and you may need to drastically cut back student services on campus.
Additionally, it may well make sense to not make a college degree a prerequisite for every job under the sun. The US used to have a lot of jobs that did not require more than an apprenticeship to make very good money on.
Yeah, that's great. Of course, tuition is only a small part of the charges for actually attending a college or university.
if that were so, then why do the nations of Europe typically rank pretty high on various like the economic freedom index, simple freedom index, quality of life, longevity of life, economic security, personal safety/security, etc?
oh right.
you're just ignorant.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
It depends on the time period, and which group of people you're talking about.
When the Irish came over during the famine, they didn't come for "greater opportunity", they came because their local economy was a disaster and they were starving (thanks to the asshole British). They were then mistreated and abused in their new home, but at least there was work for them and they could eat.
When the Puritans came over, they came because they were a bunch of wacky religious nuts who were unliked by the local populace in Europe and they wanted a place to practice their silliness without being hassled about it. At that time, there was no "America" as a nation, it was unsettled.
When Tesla came over, America was a rising industrial power in the midst of the Gilded Age, so for someone really smart and technologically-inclined from Serbia (not exactly an industrial power at the time), it was certainly a "land of opportunity" relative to his current home. It wasn't like he was sailing off to some undeveloped continent full of tribal natives.
-1 Stupid. Europe is subsidizing its own "pipedream". No one is forcing you to buy BMWs and Mercedes and Mieles.
I think there's a lot to criticize about European policy (like the idea of the Euro, with countries as different as Germany and Greece trying to share a monetary policy), but there's just as much to criticize about the USA, where they bail out "too big to fail" banks and give their executives huge bonuses for driving the economy into the ground.
*Free because college graduates pay back more in taxes to the government in 6 years than the cost of their education.
OK, I've heard of a lot of statements regarding our college graduates, but this bullshit takes the cake.
Why? Well because technically you need a fucking job in order to actually pay taxes on it.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
How US students get a university degree for free in Germany
By Franz Strasser BBC News, Germany
3 June 2015
While the cost of college education in the US has reached record highs, Germany has abandoned tuition fees altogether for German and international students alike. An increasing number of Americans are taking advantage and saving tens of thousands of dollars to get their degrees.
More than 4,600 US students are fully enrolled at Germany universities, an increase of 20% over three years. At the same time, the total student debt in the US has reached $1.3 trillion (£850 billion).
(Hunter Bliss, South Carolina.)
Each semester, Hunter pays a fee of â111 ($120) to the Technical University of Munich (TUM), one of the most highly regarded universities in Europe, to get his degree in physics.
Included in that fee is a public transportation ticket that enables Hunter to travel freely around Munich.
Health insurance for students in Germany is â80 ($87) a month, much less than what Amy would have had to pay in the US to add him to her plan.
To cover rent, mandatory health insurance and other expenses, Hunter's mother sends him between $6,000-7,000 each year.
At his nearest school back home, the University of South Carolina, that amount would not have covered the tuition fees. Even with scholarships, that would have totalled about $10,000 a year. Housing, books and living expenses would make that number much higher.
Research shows that the system is working, says Sebastian Fohrbeck of DAAD, and that 50% of foreign students stay in Germany.
"Even if people don't pay tuition fees, if only 40% stay for five years and pay taxes we recover the cost for the tuition and for the study places so that works out well."
EVERYONE can pick their jobs. I don't know, at least in the US, where anyone is forced to take any particular job, no guns held to heads, etc.
Not every country has the incredibly high welfare standards of the US. /sarcasm
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Sure you can get a free education to become an artist.
But why would you want to study something your can't monetize?
It happens here in the US all the time! And often paid for with loans. Which can't be paid back, because there are only so many jobs for many of the useless degrees that state-supported colleges offer these days.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Median cost of 4-year college education in 2012-2013 was $35074. http://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/d...
This is a five year payback period. http://economix.blogs.nytimes....
This is the lowest it has been for many decades. Guess what else costs more today? Bread.
Several accounts of cruelty and murder include Spaniards testing the sharpness of blades on Native people by cutting them in half, beheading them in contests and throwing Natives into vats of boiling soap. There are also accounts of suckling infants being lifted from their mother’s breasts by Spaniards, only to be dashed headfirst into large rocks. Bartolome De Las Casas, a former slave owner who became Bishop of Chiapas, described these exploits. “Such inhumanities and barbarisms were committed in my sight as no age can parallel,” he wrote. “My eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature that now I tremble as I write.” Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedia...
Whether they killed all of them intentionally or not isn't really an issue because they proved to be absolutely inhuman by the ways they intentionally killed the ones that didn't die from disease.
We're talking about the same nation which only got involved after Pearl Harbour?
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
That's an interesting article. I agree with one of the comments:
When Bernie Sanders went to Brooklyn College, tuition was free. Now tuition is significant.
Students who come from wealthy families are more able and likely to get a college degree. Once they graduate, they still have all the benefits of a wealthy family.
If your father is a lawyer, you graduate law school and use your father's connections to get a job. But people who work their way through law school have a hard time getting a job. I know lawyers and the difference is striking. One guy from a good family graduates Harvard or Yale and goes to work for a top corporate law firm. Another guy from a working class family graduates Fordham and goes to work in immigration law or criminal practice.
Uber hates regulations.
They say they welcome regulation, but when it happens, they whine and cry, then pack up and leave.
They say they have proper back ground checks for drivers, proper insurance, and safety checks for the cars.
In reality they do a public records check on drivers which is far less than what a police check does. They encourage drivers to use their personal insurance for Ubering and risk cancellation and being sued into oblivion when an accident happens.
The safety checks are nothing more than a cursory glance done at an oil change place, rather than a real MOT check done by a real mechanic, the same used if you were buying a used car.
The whole system is a house of cards built on suckers - drivers who work with uber risk their financial well being in an accident, scams by Uber to rent a car to you if you don't and charge you exorbitant to do it. Drivers are suing them in California to be classed as employees. Riders who risk themselves in an accident to save a buck on a trip and cry when Uber screws them with surge pricing.
Uber is gambling that self driving cars will be available before the they run out of venture capitalists willing to fund another year of operations.
"Every security scheme that is based on secrets eventually fails." - Steve Jobs
How's that different than a cab company? They treat their customers like shit too. In fact, most people (in the US) who use both Uber and cabs say that their experience with Uber is a lot better, because their experiences with cabs are so miserable.
Game consoles and phones are very inexpensive and last years. Rents, mortgages, medical care, and education are expensive and are ongoing expenses.
Of course you'll buy your children a $100 game off craigslist even if you can't afford $900 a month on rent.
"It's not part of the German culture to do something like" what Uber did says Kurt. "We don't like it, the government doesn't like it, and our customers don't like it."
Once Uber has driven its competition out of business, anyone will be able to offer a service like Uber, because the barriers to entry will have been removed.
Yes, that is exactly what we see in other comercial areas such as
* On-line Book selling (uh I meant selling of nearly everything)
* On-line auctions
* Search engines (uh I meant news integrator, mobile OS vendor, and whatever else)
* Social networks
In all these areas, after the first guy opened the market we see the business spread evenly over more and more companies with none coming near a monopoly which it could potentially abuse to e.g. make experiments on its users.
It works on and off for the US, so no reason to give it up yet.
I'm glad that mentalities like yours are on their way out.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
Uber does not represent progress. Say it with me, Uber does not represent progress. Uber is regressive for drivers. Repeating the drivel that Uber is progressive or or represents progress is deceiving. Are they a disruptive technology? YES. we can agree on that. Does it better the world ? On the assumption that Uber is always cheaper, the drive to shot term cost savings for long term pain, transfer of risk, lowering of quality of both service and life for the service providers has never worked well. Look at many department stores and small city downtown cores since Wal-mart started its march across north america. Are you better served? Are the staff? Are you the prices you are paying actually lower, or are they lower only until any competition has been driven away ? Driving labour rates down to export profit from the country does nothing positive. The transfer of insurance and health risk onto the driver instead of the taxi company is insane.
While I will agree that taxi drivers decades are diminishing, it won't be Uber that takes them out, it will be driverless cars.
If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
So? One of my best friends is a Harvard corporate lawyer for a public utility and hates his job.
Do you disagree with the data and sources provided and which part? I shows that college education is less expensive now (payback time required) vs any time in at least the past 40 years.
That's Yanks for you - turn up late, eat all the food and demand all the attention. In that respect they are just like my mother-in-law (badoom tish)
It's possible to infect people intentionally. To take a totally hypothetical example that I completely made up, by supplying them with blankets that had previously been used by smallpox victims.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Spot on!
It's not the paradigm itself, it's that there's a lot of shady employers out there who want to call their employees "contractors" simply to shift all the risk - and none of the benefits - to them.
Thing is, at least in the USA 'most' cabbies are also considered contractors by the taxi companies. They actually have to rent the vehicle, pay a fee to the dispatcher to get fares, and rent the medallion in areas that require them.
I don't read AC A human right
Luckily for Australia we got the criminals not the religious extremist nut jobs.
Yes, I disagree. It shows that college is associated with higher income, but not that college causes higher income.
It's consistent with the alternative hypothesis that (1) today, for the most part, only students from wealthy families can afford to go to college. (2) People from wealthy families tend to make more money than people from low-income families.
I'd be very interested in data that shows causation. Then we could for example sort it by fields of study to find out which fields of study were most effective in raising income.
Association is not causation. That's an important principle in social science (or any science). Economists keep ignoring that.
One thing to realize is that the situation is different in every area. $1M medallions is NYC and a few other spots. For example, I understand Uber is operating more or less completely legally as a black car service in NYC, while it's breaking the law(at least technically) in others. In a number of cases, insurance for example, Uber has adjusted to become compliant with laws.
I'll admit that I use NYC a lot in my Uber examples myself, because it's the most research I've done.
One thing to realize about the taxi companies complaining about rules and regulations - they lobbied for a lot of them themselves to better help keep the market to themselves. See 'regulatory capture'.
In the end, an easy to use rating system(where you're dropped if you go below ~4.3/5) seems to do more to ensure driver 'quality' and performance than all the rules and regulations Taxis face.
I don't read AC A human right
If you don't take a taxi to the airport, how do you get there? Just curious. I know my family normally tries to have somebody drop them off, but if that isn't available, a taxi seems to be a good backup.
I don't read AC A human right
What's wrong with it? It encourages conservation and more drivers coming out and working. I've heard people talk about people who only ever drive for Uber DURING surge pricing.
The alternative is likely more people NOT getting rides.
I don't read AC A human right
I disagree. You can compare across time, and so it is perfectly fair to say that the majority of people are filthy rich (compared to our ancestors 10,000 years ago).
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
"Even if people don't pay tuition fees, if only 40% stay for five years and pay taxes we recover the cost for the tuition and for the study places so that works out well."
And that's without counting the macroeconomics of it -- the students can be considered as tourists or an export of education, it is jobs created and foreign money coming in, besides an opportunity to influence world culture and attitudes.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Eh, I consider Uber a bunch of techno criminals but "murder roulette" it really isn't. Maybe "insurance roulette" but I'm pretty sure you have about the same 1:6000 chance of dying in an automobile wreck every time you hit the road in an uber car just the same as if in your own car unless you have some solid data that you would like to share with us to convince me otherwise.
Your boring life really is of no interest to anyone in the U.S. You can quit doubling back on your walking routes as well because I'm sure no one is following you and the tinfoil on your head looks real dumb.
I said that the medallion drivers are playing murder roulette, because unless you luck out with a credit card transaction, it's basically an anonymous cash business. If a Yellow Cab driver is found dead in an alley, his next of kin have no way of knowing who the customer was. Uber customers are known to the company, call the cabs through an app, and are picked up and dropped at times that are logged. The thugs and drug operatives who prize the 'anonymity' of the traditional taxi experience prefer the old system.
Do you have a valid refutation? It's all over the news now that German women have to worry about this kind of thing. We don't have this problem in America; there's no women in Times Square NYC being raped by hordes of North African men.
While I do not expect complex answers from simple carbohydrates, did you at any point consider explaining why you disagree with his statement rather than just making a dubious assertion about the popularity of such opinions?
Ah, gotcha, my mistake.
No ever respects the poo.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
You could always just increase taxes.. And regarding the education level needed, everyone knows that unskilled labour is becoming more and more of a rarity. For an example when my mother was young she worked for a while with soldering circuit boards in telephones, nowadays this is done by robots and there's a looooot of unskilled work that has been replaced in this fashion.
That's not getting involved, that's standing on on the side and commenting loudly.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
"In Amsterdam, Uber recently stopped offering UberPop" Yes, this is true, but the rest of the sentence should probably read: After courts told them twice to stop.
Americans are, to put it mildly, obsessed with autos as a means of transport. In Europe, we have public transport that is often better (more efficient) than an auto. Taxis (in Amsterdam) where I live, are mostly used by tourists. Local people hardly ever use them because (well, mostly we travel by bike) the public transport option is far cheaper and just as efficient. No worry about parking, for example. And no long walks from the public transport stop to your destination.
What Uber is doing is not unlike opening a Kosher restaurant in Amman.
~_~ Not tonight, dear, I have a modem.
But it's not Europe's loss, though. Many parts of Europe have excellent taxi service - great cars, knowledgeable drivers, good training, adequate insurance. All Uber brings is an app, surge pricing, uninsured drivers, and worse-trained drivers. I know it might be hard for you to understand, but some countries didn't fuck up taxi services like the US seems to have done.
When I ask my grandfather, he says America was built by the descendants of the poor and misfits from Europe who went to the New World in the hope they could have a second chance at life.
I'm not american, I'm british and I've lived in mainland europe. Sorry, you were saying?
I think you really missed the boat on this one. Merica is about a lot of people working really hard *for you* so *you* can be rich. Sucks if your the worker however.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
They can walk around alone in public just fine. You should stop confusing your fantasies with reality.
That is absolute nonsense. Start a business in the EU and you can get all sorts of grants and sweeteners. The American status quo seems to be "the workers getting screwed over again" with your terrible amount of days off, poor health care, pathetic welfare, etc. You can keep it, seriously.
You got all of that because I pointed out your argument was based on emotion and ignorance and not fact? Again, you're really not doing yourself any favours here. With each post you show the world just how small-minded and scared you are.
Your claim makes no sense, but then that's to be expected from xenophobes - you and your ilk don't exactly have a great track record of "logical thinking".
Bullshit. You don't need to know how it works, you just need to know that it does.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Everyone can pick their job, but not everyone can afford to pick their preferred job. There's a difference. You are arguing that he's wrong because you misunderstood him.
Learn to love Alaska
The thing with that business model is that the laws against slavery made that business practice illegal, and it was the cab companies, and others that got the laws against slavery repealed or modified to allow debt working.
Because of abuses after slavery was made illegal, it was illegal to make a worker rent his tools from you, and things like that. Such practices were used to re-enslave the recently unslaved. But slavery is back, in the form of mandatory employer fees. Gotta pay your employer to be able to work for them, and hope to make it back with tips. Cabbies sound like strippers.
Learn to love Alaska
FTFY.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Putting aside the run-on sentence, are you saying that murder and robbery should only be a bit illegal?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Emotion? Try reading the facts about what happened on NYE in Cologne. Or maybe keep your head buried up your arse where its nice and warm eh?
These don't exist in many countries. Not all the world is as dysfunctional with taxis as the US.
Yeah, I am sure the owners taxi companies respect their drivers and their rights. Give me a break.
Ooooh! The American media says so! It must be true! I'm beginning to realise why you keep making these ridiculous claims - you are failing yourself by not educating yourself, causing you to repeatedly make a fool of yourself. Hint: if you want to dispel the "uneducated American" stereotype, stop posting.
So you have absolutely no excuse for regurgitating demonstrated falsehoods and acting like a gibbering xenophobe. You should know better.
Err..it has been that way since the dawn of time...
Who said life is fair and that everyone gets to do the job they "want" or would make them happy?
Sounds like the generation of everyone getting a trophy, and having their self esteem constantly propped up by having no losers, is hitting the workforce....?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
So the answer is NO, you *don't* have a valid refutation.
That story is all over the international news, BTW, not American.
So, DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT HAVE A VALID REFUTATION???
If not, then SHUT THE FUCK UP.
You're either a fucking moron or have some kind of evil agenda.
You think Der Spiegel is "American media"?
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
Here in Montréal, Canada, there is a class action suit getting organised following outrageous fees being charged to customers on New Year's Eve (300$ for 20 min ride). They are also in trouble with municipal and provincial authorities because they are operating against the law, taxis are regulated and require permits in Québec. A taxi licence cost upwards of 200K$, so you can guess that taxi drivers are not to keen on Uber...
That's why Europeans hate Uber, IMHO.
Easy fix: jail the Uber execs.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Nobody said life was fair. But people have said that, all else equal, more fair would be better. Why do you want life to be less fair?
Learn to love Alaska
The thing with that business model is that the laws against slavery made that business practice illegal, and it was the cab companies, and others that got the laws against slavery repealed or modified to allow debt working.
True.
I just bring it up because people are like "Oh, Uber is taking advantage of it's drivers by having them be 'contractors'!" When in reality, it's still better than most cab drivers are treated.
At least with Uber, the drivers are actually providing their own tools and setting their own hours, which makes them a step more like a subcontractor for a construction job.
I don't read AC A human right
Yeah, rub it in, why don't you?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
When the Puritans came over, they came because they were a bunch of wacky religious nuts who were unliked by the local populace in Europe and they wanted a place to practice their silliness without being hassled about it. At that time, there was no "America" as a nation, it was unsettled.
Puritans came here because they weren't allowed to force others to follow them. They didn't come here to find religious freedom, but to fight it.
And the Irish, Chinese, and others often came over to America because the US was so speparate from the world that a famine in Ireland had nothing to do with the US. Or instability after the abolition of slavery in Russia had no effect on the US. Before globalization, the US was still the new world. You couldn't just fly across the ocean in a few hours, so problems at home were generally limited to local areas, and the US was insulate from local economic problems across the oceans. Not because the US was the best, but because it wasn't where they were.
Learn to love Alaska
Yeah right, that and the trillions you stole from almost every other continent.
Anyone remember the "brain drain" that used to occur when foreign students came to the US to study and settled down to live, meaning we got a lot of the smarter people from less developed countries? Looks like Germany is doing that, partly with smart US citizens.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Jobs aren't something that the job fairy sprinkles out randomly. A healthy economy will find jobs for people who can work and do useful things. If the workforce gets more people college-educated, jobs will appear for them, and they'll make more, and since this is not a zero-sum game the country will make more as a whole, and collect more taxes at the same rate. (This is true for a healthy economy in the long run. An unhealthy economy won't do that, and even in the healthiest there's going to be a good deal of lag.)
We've eliminated some of the skilled apprentice fields. I used to see ads for tool and die makers all the time. Currently, we generate gcode for CNC mills to to pretty much what they used to do. The replacement jobs tend to be more technical, and call for college degrees.
There are still apprentice-based fields, like plumbing, and that isn't going to be eliminated for a long time, but the jobs are fewer.
The school district I live in has a lot of different high school programs to provide different high school educations for different people. It takes a lot of busses to get them around, but I think it's worth it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The US government is one of the oldest on Earth. Since the Constitution was signed, France went through rounds of monarchy vs. republic, Germany turned into a country and went through a monarchy, a shaky republic, a totalitarian regime, and now seems to be a nice stable democracy. I can't think of a country besides Britain that hasn't had a radical change of government since 1792. (Sweden?)
In addition, the US government has a law system where court decisions can make laws, so we've not only had longer to make written law, but we've built up a vast repository of individual little laws that can conflict between jurisdictions.
So, if you don't like laws, the US has been in a position to produce more than almost any other country.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Brazil? Mexico? I believe that all the English-speaking countries of the war were in WWII before Pearl Harbor.
The US was waging an undeclared shooting war with Germany at least as early as September 1941. We didn't do real well at it at first, to be honest, but we tried. The war was waged by the Navy only, which is probably a good thing considering the state of readiness of the Army's Ground and Air Forces.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The worst of the laws is probably the ones forbidding the US Government from negotiating with pharma companies from a position of strength. Most advanced companies negotiate much lower prices, since the pharma companies will accept them rather than lose all that business.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Much like we seem to be doing in our schools these days...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
An interesting case in point: my brother was just prescribed Harvoni, a new drug which costs $120,000 per fill, on his state's medical plan. I'm sure that if the government were allowed to, it could negotiate a better price.
Puritans came here because they weren't allowed to force others to follow them.
Well, that's kinda what I said. A small minority group trying to be pushy and force others to follow their religion usually results in them being treated poorly (for good reason, people don't like assholes). So they needed to move someplace where they could be the majority and be assholes all they wanted.
It is a little disturbing how we romanticize the Pilgrims in our history books.
We romanticize everything. The south mentioned promotion of slavery as the #1 reason for seceding. Also mentioned was hating states rights. But not a single article of secession mentioned wanting stronger states rights as a reason to secede.
But these days, people still assert that protecting states rights was a reason for the war.
And the puritanical puritans are not remembered as such. Yet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The first Black American pilot is unknown and unremembered. Possibly because the segregationist USA refused to allow him to serve as a pilot, so he fought for the USA under the French flag.
We refuse to acknowledge things, and romanticize others, to paint a rosy picture of the past. Another reason why old people are conservative. They have lost their minds (mis-remembering the past, and wanting to go back to the simpler times that never existed).
Learn to love Alaska
The price gouging model you mean. This is old, really old, not even the previous century the one before the eighteenth century. You drop the prices to put all competitors out of business and then you ramp them up, way way up when ever you can and once competitors are out of business the price stays up permanently and of course what drivers are paid also drops. Other business opportunities you can guarantee will occur, regional extortion, either pay an under table contribution to the company or face a permanent regional price hike. As for new competitors wait till they have invested enough, whilst you hold up your inflated prices to build a war chest and then hugely drop prices to put them out of business and as per 'FLEXIBLE' pricing rules raise them right back up again, which is why price gouging is against the law as being an anti-competitive practice.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Sure, it's a stupid fucking waste to pay $55k/year for Critical Queer Trans Women's Studies. You're ignoring the fact that there is a predatory industry in higher education that promises people better lives and suckers them by equating themselves with the other institutions which DO give better lives through higher education, but are in fact a for-profit money-making industry.
The fact that there's actually a $55k/year industry which teaches Critical Queer Trans Women's Studies is the fucking problem, not the hundreds of thousands of people who are trying to better their lives and live the American dream.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
There are clearly no benefit for people in northern Europe of having it - the services it offers are already available, the taxi services usually good enough.
This is such BS. If the taxi services are good enough, then peoplewouldn't user Uber. If Uber comes along and they don't offer as "good enough" services, then it won't stay in business. Or at least people are free to choose between the two. You are far beyond reality if you think that Uber didn't provide an amazing extra value of what standard taxis provide. Now, taxis are desperately trying to catch up, the way Blockbuster tried to catch up with Netflix back when it was renting out DVDs by mail. It was too late for Blockbuster, but the taxi unions have the force of government and corruption behind them to stay in power instead of competing by providing better value.
There are many examples of the "evil" or at least detriment of free trade, but a wholeheartedly and objectively better service (Uber, and the unmentioned Lyft) which is winning in free markets is not an example of evil. It improves the quality of life of the common person who wants transportation. Oh, and I certainly bet it doesn't in some places - but if it doesn't, it's not like Uber is using the power/force of government to interdict its business upon society.
Sorry if this all sounds biting, but it needed to be said. It just irritates me to no end that Uber and Lyft are some evil corporation trying to make a buck by undermining laws. I NEVER use a taxi anymore because the quality of transportation in so many ways are so inferior. Taxis don't give a shit if you call and need them soon. There's no guarantee that they will be there, no map that says where they are, and no verification of their service before or during the transportation. Have you ever heard of someone getting attacked by ab Uber driver? Yes, you have - there was a famous case in India. There was ONE incident which made worldwide headlines. Do you realize how many times people get attacked in Taxis, or their lives are endangered? Do you think my friend who was robbed at gunpoint ever made headlines? No, you didn't. I personally have had a $20 bill stolen out of my hands by a taxi driver. Yeah sure this is all anecdotal evidence, but it really happened. That shit doesn't happen in Uber or Lyft. They provide a service which is cash free, safe(r) due to the electronic monitoring involved, faster, and cheaper.
So yeah, I'm really pissed that people say it's just a taxi service without paying their dues. It's not - it's a revolutionarily better transportation service and has improved so many people's quality of lives.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
What exactly is the "shit" you speak of? At least in the US, Uber and Lyft are miles ahead of service and value to transportation than taxis. Do you mean safety standards? It's certainly safer to use an Uber instead of an anonymized taxi, it's cheaper, and the safety record (i.e. crashes, robberies, etc.) is better.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
I can see your argument, but I don't think it practically applies here. If Uber drivers are suffering in respects to their rights as compared to taxi drivers, then why don't they just become taxi drivers?
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Your concerns are valid. However, you probably have no concern for safety, such as a small young female might. I've known a girl who was robbed a gunpoint when she pulled out a $100 bill in a taxi. It was anonymous, there's no record, etc. I personally had a $20 pulled out of my hands when myself, a male, and another male, were arguing about how to split the fare. Fucker just took it and ran. I'm sure there's tens of thousands of more stories you've never heard because taxis are anonymous.
Now, on the other hand, it was international news when an assault on a female happened in India by an Uber driver, where there was a complete record of it, and the driver was arrested.
So, I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Uber is not a 'tech' company any more than pizzahut is for having an app.
Uber comes from Silicon Valley, its culture and its employees there are interbred with other large tech companies. No, the drivers aren't, but in its soul I'd say they are a tech company.
because idiots like techies think its 'great' for some unknown reason.
As an American techie, I can explain. I've lived in 3 major US cities. Getting taxis are the worst fucking experience in the world here. Let me clarify, it's not always that way. In fact, I'd say 90% of the time it's not. But then again, 90% of my dealings with Comcast are fine too, but I think they're awful in customer service and the majority of society agrees. Uber (and Lyft, which I think is also awesome), has provided an amazing service that solved so many of the problems of using taxis.
Some of those unknown reasons you were asking for from an idiot techie: The map which shows you where all drivers are (I can even switch to Lyft to see if the competition has better availability in the time frame or better surge pricing when that happens). The fact that you can request one and they come to you within minutes, unlike Taxis where you never fucking know when or even if they will come. The ability to rate drivers. The fact that they're cheaper. The fact that they're WAY better drivers than most of the immigrants who are taxi drivers in the US who learned to drive in a different country (no disparagement to immigrants meant, but driving in Ethiopia isn't the same). I've gotten out of a taxi in NYC with my heart pounding because I was so scared of the way he was driving. The fact that they're safer, because unlike anonymous taxis who can rob you or rape you, Uber is tracked (and you can even broadcast a message to your friends when you start your ride). Many times they'll provide water and gum for you. The fact that if you leave something in the car, you have the ability to use the app to inform the driver/system and have them return it to you, unlike not knowing what taxi you were just in (happened to my friend who left a cell phone once, we gave him a nice tip for his trouble; I and many other people I know have left something in a taxi, never to see it again - one time we got a cell phone charge for $100 for calls to Kenya a month later).
Have I missed any reason why they're so much better?
And remember, you don't have to use Uber. If you hate them, you can always call a taxi.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
It's not - it's a revolutionarily better transportation service and has improved so many people's quality of lives.
I had a good laugh at that.