Slashdot Mirror
Uber Accused of Cashing In On Bomb Explosion By Jacking Rates (thesun.co.uk)
After a bomb exploded in Manhattan, leaving 29 injured, people leaving the scene discovered Uber had doubled their fares. An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes The Sun:
Traumatized families caught up in the New York bomb blast have accused Uber of cashing in on the tragedy by charging almost double to take them home. Furious passengers have taken to social media to slam the taxi firm in the wake of the blast... Uber reportedly charged between 1.4 and 3 times the standard fare with one city worker saying he had to pay twice as much as usual. Mortgage broker Nick Lalli said: "Just trying to get home from the city and Uber f****** doubled the surge price."
"Demand is off the charts!" the app informed its users, adding "Fares have increased to get more Ubers on the road." Uber soon tweeted that they'd deactivated their surge pricing algorithm for the affected area in Chelsea, "but passengers in other areas of Manhattan said they were still being charged higher than normal fares." One of the affected passengers was Michael Cohen, who is Donald Trump's lawyer, who tweeted that Uber was "taking total advantage of chaos and surcharging passengers 1.4 to 1.8 times." And another Uber user tweeted "I'm disgusted. People are trying to get home safe. Shame on you #DeleteApp."
"Demand is off the charts!" the app informed its users, adding "Fares have increased to get more Ubers on the road." Uber soon tweeted that they'd deactivated their surge pricing algorithm for the affected area in Chelsea, "but passengers in other areas of Manhattan said they were still being charged higher than normal fares." One of the affected passengers was Michael Cohen, who is Donald Trump's lawyer, who tweeted that Uber was "taking total advantage of chaos and surcharging passengers 1.4 to 1.8 times." And another Uber user tweeted "I'm disgusted. People are trying to get home safe. Shame on you #DeleteApp."
how many times will the press run this identical story after an incident?
Take a taxi?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Supply and demand. Market is efficiently allocating scarce resources. Price increase will increase supply providing consumers with more of the scarce resource. It's a thing of beauty really.
After a bomb exploded in Manhattan, leaving 29 injured, people leaving the scene discovered Uber had doubled their fares.
People called an Uber driver *into* a disaster area and/or potential terror/war zone for a ride home and are pissed that the rates went up? Hazard pay people. And private companies w/o public supervision can do whatever they want. If you don't like it, take a taxi or the subway, or fucking walk. First-world problems for sure.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Uber is exploiting people by using them as cheap labor. They need to be forced to pay them a living wage......... except when I need a cheap ride.
Uber drivers all leave Hell's Kitchen (aka Chelsea) to get surge rates in rest of Manhattan.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
so what's the problem?
Hey Cohen, tell that cheap bastard Trump you want fantastic, amazing limousine service
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Headline should read "Uber Increases Driver Pay to Help Meet Emergency Demand."
You have no idea what market failure or profiteering look like, do you?
The higher price is is only fair way to reallocate the scarce resources.
The higher price may very well have caused people to pool more people into one vehicle or brought more drivers into the area.
If a central planner had determined that Uber must charge half the normal rate in this, the effect would have been opposite: people could now afford to take a whole vehicle for themselves and it would discourage drivers from moving into the area. The intent of the central planner is good and visible, but his lack knowledge is causing hidden harm (like the typical leftist politician).
But you've completely mischaracterized what happened. Uber didn't raise prices to take advantage of a terrible situation. Rather, a terrible situation triggered a surge in demand, to which Uber's algorithms correctly responded. A lot of people suddenly wanted rides, and Uber used it's algorithm to activate more drivers. That's not a market failure, That's the market "magically" solving the problem, efficiently and effectively. Regulation would have interfered with the response, as iikely did Uber's reaction and artificial price clamping. People likely waited much longer for rides than they would have if Uber had just let things play out.
How would you make the uber drivers go into an area they don't want to go into, if it isn't by offering them more money?? Armed police?
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Yeah, why would you, as an Uber driver, work in a much more risky environment if there's no additional pay? You barely make profit as it is and these assholes are whining about paying extra in chaos?
The market wasn't efficiently allocating scarce resources.
It wasn't? Somewhere there is an eager cadre of volunteers standing by to drive their personal vehicles into the aftermath of a terrorist attack while expecting no more than the usual pittance for their trouble?
No, there is no such thing in my world. Perhaps you live elsewhere and such things exist..... I can't speak to the that. Uber mobilized drivers by providing an incentive. Result; the entitled shitheels that are complaining today had their lilly white First World asses rapidly ferried away. Total success for all involved, whether they appreciate it or not.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Allocation of scarce resources by price is not market failure. This is of particular importance during unusual circumstances.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
That's just showing a complete lack of understanding how Uber works. In case of emergency like this one, would you rather pay more for your fare, or wait indefinitely because there are not enough drivers? Those are the only two options. I personally would prefer pay more.
The way of getting more Uber drivers is to pay them more to incentivize them to come to work. If there is a sudden rise in demand, there will be a sudden increase in price.
This whole discussion is absurd for someone who has lived in a socialist country. If you keep the prices constant no matter what is the demand, it only results in empty shops. You can't cheat the market forces.
How would you make the uber drivers go into an area they don't want to go into, if it isn't by offering them more money?
Uber could cut into its 'billions of profit' and take a small hit by increasing pay to drivers while not passing the costs to customers. Instead they pass the full surge costs to customers and rake in even more profit because of it. They have chosen the least moral option as Uber does at every opportunity.
Without Uber you wouldn't have had a ride at all. If you don't like the pricing try waiting for a taxi
Without Uber you would use a taxi. A taxi service that has fixed rates. I've never lived in NYC but I pass through about once a year. I've never had to wait for a taxi. Hailing a taxi was once on the list of manly things every boy needed to know in order to call himself a man. It takes a minor bit of self-confidence to stick out from a crowd of walkers and say to random drivers 'Hey, come over here'. If not using an app is too difficult for you, then you need to take a serious look at your life.
Kind of ridiculous for drivers who are scraping by to be offering charity to riders who might be much better off. I guess you could also ask the riders to "donate" but this is getting needlessly complicated. No one criticizes the police for collecting large sums of overtime off of tragedy, despite it being their job to prevent it
America has gotten full of people spouting bullshit economic dogma.
FIFY
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
This is why the government regulates these services in the first damn place. Because once you step outside of an overall civic transportation solution, you're an opportunist.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
"the market trumps basic morality"
No one says that.
The market only trumps wishful thinking.
You have no idea what market failure or profiteering look like, do you?
This is not a "market failure". When supply is constricted, prices should go up so the rides go to those who need them most. There are two choices: higher prices, or some sort of rationing. The higher prices are always better for sellers, and usually better for buyers as well.
> resulting in outcomes that are actually negative to society
How exactly is denying people the option of getting a ride better than giving them the option to get a ride for $40? Those are the two choices - you either have a bunch of additional drivers work due to the higher pay, or you have them not work. Or would you FORCE people to drive toward the dangerous area, if you were king of world?
Let's consider what riders would prefer. Would riders prefer to not have a ride at all (because drivers stay home or drive in safer places), or would they rather pay a rate high enough to get a driver to come? We know that riders would prefer a higher rate than no ride at all, because they did in fact choose pay that rate, when they could have chosen to not get the ride.
> you find other means to deal with the situation up to and including the national guard.
The National Guard was ordered deployed to Louisiana on Friday, August 26, 2005. On September 1st, five days later, they arrived at the Super Dome. On September 3rd and 4th, they evacuated the people waiting in the Super Dome.
Personally, I'd rather pay an extra $20 than wait five to seven days for a ride out.
The US government is designed to be *fair*. It is not designed to be *fast*. Uber is fast.
In NYC we have strict rules governing our private hire vehicles because they're viewed as a necessary good and an extension of our public transportation system. They have to transport anywhere in the city and they have to accept a dispatch to any neighborhood.
You are literally discussing things that have no applicability in NYC. If people want to do business in NYC and make money off of our roads and our customer base, you adhere to our rules or you can screw off.
There was literally no additional risk and you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
When supply is constricted, prices should go up so the rides go to those who need them most.
You assume that those with the greatest need also have the most resources? I'll let you explain how that's supposed to work.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The OP worded it badly shouldve said "so rides go to those who value them the highest"
(Un)fortunately you choose to live in a capitalist society. While it is a good system, it has its flaws, and the biggest one is that resources go to those who will pay the most for them. This is just an example of those wonderful words "market forces". Amazingly this is one of the times where everything is working as it should. Unfortunately that is a bad result from a moral viewpoint.
But devils advocate:
If they kept normal pricing and that only attracted 1000 drivers, but 2000 people need rides how do you propose to choose who get them? First in will not give any more of an equitable outcome, some of those who need it most will still miss out.
If surge pricing meant they attracted 1200 drivers to the area, is that not a better solution as only 800 people are left "stranded"
I'll let you explain how that's supposed to work.
Sure. When there is a shortage, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO LOSE. That is what "shortage" means. So let's consider two scenarios.
Scenario one (presumably your solution):
The government imposes price controls.
Some random people get the rides, mainly those willing to queue the longest.
Other random people walk home in the rain, or take the bus or train.
The drivers get screwed out of higher pay.
No additional drivers are incentivized to get in their cars and offer rides.
Scenario two (my solution):
The markets sets the price.
Rich people and desperate people get the rides.
Poor people walk home in the rain, or take the bus or train.
The drivers (who tend to not be wealthy) get higher pay.
Additional drivers turn off their TV, hop in their cars, and cash in on the bonanza.
It now turns out, that with the additional drivers, the prices don't go up all that much, and most people get rides after all.
Both scenarios have losers, but the market scenario has fewer. Poor people lose in both (by either earning less, or paying more), but they do better with market pricing.
Markets aren't perfect. They are just better than the alternatives.
yes, but Uber's excuse was to raise prices to get more cars on the road fleecing people. Why didn't Uber just lower their cut they take from the drivers if they are so socially aware?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
the market trumps basic morality
No, you're completely missing the point. The point is, the market was able to create a moral outcome (lowering the shortage of drivers) by using market incentives (pay drivers more so there will be more drivers).
Would it be more "moral" to leave the rates alone, allow the shortage of drivers as-is, and have more people standing on the sidewalk unable to get an Uber ride home?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia