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?
When demand increases the rates increase. This is done by software, not some evil Mr. Burns figure at Uber.
It's an algorithm. The more in demand the product is, the higher the price.
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."
A lawyer complaining about being shafted? How ironic...
Take a taxi?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
On twitter.
Uber NYC @Uber_NYC 18h18 hours ago
Surge pricing has been turned off in the #Chelsea #explosion area. Allow extra time for drivers to navigate due to road closures. Stay safe.
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. . . .
... the actual value of a cab ride increases considerably. That's not manipulation, it's actually more valuable to have a car take you the same distance when you don't have the alternate choice.
Meanwhile, any Uber driver that had a bit of flexibility and could jump and make a bit of cash. And in the process, help relieve the crush of people that are stranded by shutting down a system used by more than 50% of commuters.
The wisdom of shutting down our world for each boo-boo remains undecided ...
Demand = Supply.
It's magic, as long as you have some way to keep it balanced.
Stupid headline driven sensationalist journalism.
--Q
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.
There were multiple bombs. If there were multiple bombs in MY city, I wouldn't be driving downtown back and forth in it, one or more of the other bombs might blow up. Even if there had just been ONE bomb, it isn't like you know that.
It seems reasonable that the contractors would want extra compensation for the risks they were taking to their life and property. Even soldiers get combat pay, and they have a full time job, not a series of gigs.
Not to mention Uber artificially lowers the price increases during high demand, so if the algorithm was allowed to work properly match the demand and supply curves those people would be looking at 20-30x increases... minimum... not 1.4-1.8x.
- These characters were randomly selected.
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
Apparently, people would rather wait a long time for a ride home from some horrific event, than let market forces solve the problem of the sudden surge in demand. The problem is people viewing their needs in isolation, instead of in the greater context. If someone didn't like the price, they should forego the ride and let someone who wants it more than them to have it.
Aww poor little Mikey... Unbridaled capitalism isn't quite as nice when you're the one negatively affected, is it?
In other words, you think that in times of crisis scarce resources will miraculously materialize to meet the increased demand. The only problem with Uber's surge pricing algorithm is that they do not have a sufficiently robust competitor to make sure that it is not pure profiteering (that is, that the price increase reflects the actual demand increase).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You have no idea what market failure or profiteering look like, do you?
Why are they "accused" of jacking the price? "Described as" jacking the price would be a statement made in a moral society. In case any one forgot, Communism is the immoral social order. It's based on a lie that those who don't contribute, but "organize", are more competent at figuring out what is the appropriate cost of things. So when they don't understand why demand is surging (as it is in crisis), shortages are universal because those who can contribute cannot recoup their costs by increasing the prices. In Capitalism, a surge in demand creates a bubble of supply by willing contributors and the price quickly collapses when the demand is met. And the reason this happens is because prices increase. If there were more people in need of rides than willing drivers, a price could be increased until everyone able to give a ride would be willing to give rides (even those who would never consider doing so otherwise).
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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).
Last night when this happened the news was pretty much silent, or at least "understated" to put it mildly.
As for the "surge pricing" people are dumb and don't understand economics. What kind of dumb shit thinks you should pay the same rate during a time of high demand? I'm actually embarrassed for those whining about this. It's pathetic.
Trump's business playbook?
You don't understand the playbook.
The playbook isn't "treat others as you wish to be treated," or "expect to be treated as you treat others." It's "you treat me well and I shit all over you."
And just how do you suggest the algorithm could be improved to determine the difference between people leaving the area after a bombing and people leaving the area after SantaCon or a pillow fight flash mob or a BLM protest?
So far as I can imagine, it would have to be capable of monitoring and interpreting the news media in order to know, in real time, if people are leaving the area because of an attack, or some benign reason. That's a much more difficult AI problem than supply vs. demand in an area; especially considering that you must also to prevent false positives ID-ing hoaxes, false alarms, or other such trolling as real emergencies.
Imagine all the people...
Price is information about where demand meets supply. If an emergency arises and prices are not raised, it doesn't driver the extra suppliers to resolve the problem. If prices are raised, those who would not consider giving rides otherwise, would do so for profit. This resolves emergencies faster. Forbidding to increases prices in emergencies is immoral. It prevents the aftermath of the emergency from being alleviated as soon as possible.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
You keep saying that, and each time it's just as silly. Why would an Uber driver work in a more dangerous/chaotic situation if there isn't extra money in it? They'll just stay home, to avoid "profiteering" lol, and you can walk your ass home or wait for a taxi. Good luck.
I fail to see the down side to this kind of "profiteering". That's how markets worked. If they quadrupled their prices or more I can see a problem. But this is a case of price rising to create supply. If the price doesn't rise supply won't rise to meet it and then there won't be any available taxi's out of town. Higher prices are the lesser of the two evils.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
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.
Wait, because people whine on twitter about paying more money (which they can afford) you think this is a market failure? Literally everything you're saying is idiotic on about 3 different levels. Can you name someone who died because of this? Who was injured? Can you actually name anyone who was harmed in any way beyond paying more money than they usually do?
There was no market failure, just you running around and shitposting about "profiteering" every chance you get because of the optics of it. Nobody cares, and posts on twitter, contrary to popular opinion, are not "news" or a "big deal".
That's the argument that war profiteers make.
And in countries in which they are allowed to make it, the population suffers less. In countries where they are not allowed to make it, mass starvations occur because of lack of the basic necessities needed to fix the destruction that war causes. Using "profiteering" as a negative is immoral -- it causes deaths, hunger, and unnecessary human suffering.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Shouldn't he have been cheering Uber on, since what they were doing is pretty much following Trump's business playbook?
Following that playbook, the lawyer would have declared the ride unsatisfactory and not paid the driver.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
How do they write an algorithm to predict whiny moralizing?
Here's a prediction: giving in or otherwise rewarding whiny moralizers will cause more people to whine and moralize about everything, all the time. The algorithm can then predict it to happen 100% of the time.
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
As far as I understood things, Uber's system automatically raises prices based on surges in demand. There's no human intervention involved.
So getting all upset at Uber for this is pointless. Yes, most companies like to give people some financial breaks in times of disaster, like cellphone companies waiving fees for residents in flooded area or areas hit by tornadoes. But Uber can't really do anything about the computerized system working as designed and re-calculating rates based on usage, as soon as an event happens like the bombs going off.
Maybe they'll decide to issue those people credits in the coming weeks? Who knows? But people getting all angry and deleting the app seems stupid to me.
Terrorism? We heard immediately after the incident that it wasn't terrorism, and every AP story thereafter seems to be reinforcing that angle.
Besides, Uber would probably only have to hire just a few extra people to monitor the news worldwide and enter a command to temporarily prevent rating spikes in emergency situations in a localized area. No need to figure out some complicated automated algorithm to do this.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Go look in the 20 other posts this asshole has in this story, from context you can pretty much gather what he thinks it means.
You're neglecting the fact that New York has a law against price gouging which means Uber charging "surge pricing" during a disaster was illegal to begin with.
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!
Right...so forcing all taxpayers to shoulder the costs of deploying the national guard is more reasonable than expecting those who want a ride somewhere to pay for their ride. Got it.
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.
They don't expect items to magically appear to get people what they need. They do not care what people need or whether needy people get it.
It's about exploiting emotional situations to divide people against each other or against a designated enemy. Then you can lead the divided people to fight against their neighbors or to hunt a witch or whatever. Leaders get power and advance their agenda. The led get nothing (at best).
Every comment on this story that says the market trumps basic morality deserves a -1.
Slashdot has gotten full of people spouting bullshit economic dogma.
Regular taxis do this also but just lie about it and claim that they don't. I was stuck right after the aftermath of the Boston Marathon Bombing and the taxis were charging $100 to $200 for what was normally a $15-$20 ride. The only major difference is that Uber is open that they do this, and the direct impact is clear: more drivers get on the roads as the prices will bear it. Pretending that regular cabs don't do this in emergencies is just silly.
Pretty obviously the surge pricing is needed, just as the message says to get more cars to an area - but also in addition as another poster noted, these drivers are driving into a potentially hazardous area...
Yet people are rightfully irked that in times of crisis the private car they hired is all out of Grey Poupon and a little more expensive than normal.
So what can Uber do to make everyone happier about this?
Since these events are hopefully somewhat rare, what Uber could do is to recognize times of crisis after the fact, and refund people's money to non-surge level pricing. But even more importantly, the drivers would get not just surge pricing, but 1.5x the surge pricing in payment.
This would make people happy because they wouldn't be paying a ton to leave a crisis area. Also this would REALLY mean more cars would head to the area as drivers knew they would collect a bonus on top of the surge so they'd have some motivation to head into a potentially risky area. It would cost Uber very little and provide a ton of great PR.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There's a lot of hate directed at a company who has yet to actually displace Taxi services in a given area. Maybe next time Uber should take a stand and decide to completely shut down in an affected area out of respect for their drivers who have to drive around in the chaos and as a reminder to the general population that Uber is a choice. Don't like it, don't use it.
18/September: FUCK UBER. Price gouging bastards. #boycot #deleteapp #neverusingagain.
19/September: Wow taxis are really expensive! I wish there was less regulation and a free market alternative.
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
"Mortgage broker Nick Lalli"
was unharmed.
Uber didn't increase the rates because there was a bomb. Uber doubled the rate because nobody was traveling to the city, only away, so to get more drivers to make the one-way unpaid trip into the city to get a fair, they were paid for the empty portion by the person who wanted the ride.
The Uber rates aren't driven by disaster, but ride requests. This wasn't an evil plot, it was effective capitalism. If we can't tell the difference between capitalism and evil, that says something about both.
Learn to love Alaska
How about "not trying"? Uber and their drivers aren't under any greater moral imperative than anyone else to go into a potentially unsafe area to get people home.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
A market failure is when there exists another conceivable outcome where an individual may be made better-off without making someone else worse-off.
If there were price limits, the supply of Uber drivers would not rise to meet the demands of riders, this those who did not get an Uber would be made worse off by the lack of Uber rides. So to have market failure question you would have to prove that the loss of a ride by people who truly need it is less bad than the loss of consumer surplus of those who would otherwise get a ride under price limits.
I just had to pay 3x Uber prices to get to the airport of a Eurpean city at the end of a big conference - it was worth it because the taxis had a one hour wait, and I was likely to miss my flight...
Year in, year out you tell me how much taxis are overpriced (which they need to be for overcommiting and having a fixed price), and after ruining Taxi companies while singing hymns to the free market about demand and supply, you complain that rates go up when the demand peaks?
It's not like Uber said "we will make money from these bombs" it's more like "demand goes up, since people like to get away from bombs and price goes up".
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.
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
They did. Uber doesn't make a profit, they have massive losses (it's losing about $200 million per month). Thus cutting into that profit means taking a negative chunk away - which means INCREASING their revenue and trying to reduce their negative losses. Exactly what would happen when they surge price.
And yes, the insanity of a company that has never turned a profit, and is losing nearly $5000 per MINUTE (60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year) is still worth $70 billion and climbing, is not lost on me...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
Define "terrorism" and define the entity to make the call whether an "incident" is terrorism or not. Was the OKC bombing "terrorism"? It was generally not described as such. How about a riot? Civil unrest, or terrorism? Seems like a vague and self-serving criteria to base things on. Being able to figure it out later is not the same as knowing it at the time. 9/11 was a "horrible event" that was even thought an accident at the time, so what do you do in such situations?
There is no algorithm that can evaluate that in real-time. So to require that would be unreasonable.
Learn to love Alaska
Scarce resources shouldn't be given exclusively to the rich. Why does a rich person deserve transport out of the city but a poor person not?
Fixed pricing would distribute the resources more or less randomly, which is a lot more fair.
If there's already an alternative to paying Uber's high demand rates, then what's the problem?
No, they don't. The point of surge pricing is to motivate more drivers to appear; that is, to help riders. If they keep prices low, it just means that fewer people will get rides and drivers get less.
So, why do you hate drivers and passengers?
In times of serious emergency, Uber could gain considerable goodwill if they'd offer rides for no/heavily reduced fares. The driver would receive bonus pay and the passenger would get a reduced-fare lift. I mean, these events are rare, it's an opportunity to not fuck people over. They'd gain customers and make the drivers proud.
Act like the US healthcare system, but in reverse.
That's the argument that war profiteers make.
Depends how they're profiteering on the war. If they're selling arms to both sides, then it's reallocating resources away from thugs.
When there has been an act of terrorism or war that is NOT the time to increase prices to maximize profit.
Typical caveman thinking. It may not be time to maximize profit, but it is time to raise prices so that the service is there when someone needs it. Uber's surge pricing creates more supply. There's a fair number of drivers who will only go for surge pricing.
What happen here was a market failure which is economic self interest resulting in outcomes that are actually negative to society. Uber was maximizing profit and there are times when that is unacceptable behavior.
What market failure? That's how markets are supposed to work. It's only the idiots who are fine with withholding critical services in desperate times so that some business isn't making a profit.
You have to decide what's your priorities are: making sure Uber doesn't make a profit or making sure that people who desperately want a ride can get one. I think the latter is the correct priority.
A market failure is when there exists another conceivable outcome where an individual may be made better-off without making someone else worse-off.
This is particularly true when one considers the conceivable outcomes of non-market approaches. Non-market approaches have the same failure modes, but they tend to have them worse.
Yes it is.
Yes, and that is as it should be: the product is scarce so its price goes up. The gas station gets a windfall, just like they sometimes have unexpected losses when nobody drives or gets gas for other reasons.
Uber doesn't have any "extra profits": they are losing money.
The surge pricing is primarily going to drivers, drivers who decided to actually go into this area to drive people. Do you want to take away the money from drivers?
The distinction you're trying to draw is bogus. If you can afford to take a $50 Uber, you already aren't poor, and you can also afford to take a $120 Uber (or bother to car-pool with someone).
Fixed pricing would primarily result in fewer drivers bothering to come to a disaster area, and it would discourage people from sharing rides: both bad outcomes.
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.
What is the problem supposed to be here? If Uber doesn't raise rates for the customers massively overconsuming their product, then they'll lose a lot of money. And really what's supposed to be the big deal about a factor of two increase in rates? It's not that much.
In that case, I submit you have e moral obligation to go to New York (at your own expense, of course) and give them a ride yourself. Unless your morality allows you to exempt yourself from doing exactly what you expect Uber drivers to do.
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.
And you're misrepresenting (intentionally, I suspect) how Uber's algorithm works. Going into surge pricing when demand is high and supply is low is how Uber "activates more drivers". The higher rate means more money fro the driver and incentivizes them to work in the high demand / low supply area.
Even in the military, where "greater than average chance of getting killed" is part of the job description you signed up for, you get extra pay for hazardous duty such as combat, flight, or submarine.
Imagine all the people...
The "free" in "free market" does not mean free of regulation, it means "open to all". eg: all markets, (free or otherwise), assume that property law exists and is enforced.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I think that Uber is making the wrong decisions in these disaster scenarios. At least if you have an algorithm that responds to demand, you can stand behind it and say "this works as it is supposed to, and is designed to get the most number of people rides as quickly as possible". Once they start turning it on and off (when people complain), it starts to feel a lot more arbitrary and less fair.
Uber drivers are starving.. therefore bombings shall continue.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The problem was a lot of innocent people in a potentially dangerous area. The market didn't fix that. If anything it caused it (terrorists aren't terrorists for the sheer giddy joy of it. They're either loons who lack medical help or desperate people who've given up on life).
The "market" managed to airlift a few well off people out of harms way while ditching the poors. When socialists talk about market failures this is exactly what we mean. And don't give me some B.S. about limited resources. It's 2016 and a major metropolis lacks usable and safe public transportation for it's working class. That's not a resource problem, that's a human one.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
that there wasn't a safe way out of the Hazard zone outside of calling an Uber driver. A city like New York ought to have enough public transit to get people out and enough cops to respond to something like this to keep that public transit safe.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You'd almost think all the heavy regulations on cab services and politics behind public transit was a ploy by the auto industry to sell more cars.
> 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.
The problem is that nobody believes you acted selflessly (activating more drivers) while you profit it from it (higher volume, higher prices = more money for Uber), they're not mutually exclusive results. If I was in charge of their public relations I'd keep the surge pricing, declare disaster areas a 0% commission in real time if possible and retroactively refund any commission taken so far. You'll lose money but there will be a lot of non-disaster surge pricing that won't be affected.
Then send the PR problem downhill, ask all drivers that benefited from the surge pricing afterwards if they're willing to abstain from any of it, most won't whatever they give subtract it as a flat percentage from all the surge charges. That way everyone gets a little and word gets out that no, Uber is not trying to profit here. What you got charged is what the drivers wanted to take the job and it went 100% to them.
For the drivers who do abstrain swap the cash for "good Samaritan" points and make them count for something, like prioritizing them for more profitable rides until they've recovered roughly what they lost. That way you get them to help you make this a PR win without actually costing you anything, spreading the cost of the forgiven charges across your general business.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It's more because the people who buy cars want some space on the road to use them.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to not understand this?
There's not some sitting in Uber HQ with his hand on a knob that controls the surge amount. Surge pricing is based on an algorithm which is based on the ride data. It has no idea about terror attacks or other disasters.
Allocation of scarce resources by price is not market failure. This is of particular importance during unusual circumstances.
In many jurisdictions it is considered price gouging to raise prices of certain goods and services during emergency situations. Can you imagine what would happen if, knowing that a hurricane was about to hit, Home Depot start charging 10x as much for the materials people needed to safely secure their homes against damage? I'm not saying that price gouging laws apply in this situation, but it would not surprise me if they did.
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.
I see a lot of claims of "surge" pricing creating extra cabs.
No, you don't. You just can't read. Or I should say, cannot understand what you are reading...
Uber raises prices when cars are in high demands to create a lure to get more drivers to an area. It's never a guarantee but statistically if you raise the price you pay drivers (all of whom are independent people driving on whatever schedule they like) more of them will come to take advantage of the extra money they can earn for the same work...
I mean, you CAN understand why someone might drive across town to earn $50 when they wouldn't for $20, right? Right?
Then again, you probably have never worked a low end job and actually can't understand that... sigh.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Über was free also. Who was first to offer the free ride (and the other followed)... that's the question.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
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"
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?
You ask for volunteers just like we do for most disasters.
Are all the cops volunteers who work for free?
Are all the doctors volunteers who work for free?
Are all the funeral homes going to work for free?
Are all the people who clean up and fix things working for free?
Are there ever enough volunteers?
So why are you picking on Uber?
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.
Correction. It's an INSUFFICIENTLY SOPHISTICATED algorithm. Fixed that for you.
Correction. It's an algorithm that DOESN'T DO WHAT YOU WANT IT TO DO. Fixed that for you.
People are upset because uber benefited from other people's suffering. Of course that happens all the time in some areas, like medicine, but for example companies are usually not allowed to charge extra for disabled people, and a funeral company would be criticised for charging terrorism victim's families more because of "demand".
In some cases it's too protect vulnerable people, in other cases it's just because it's a dick move.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Would riders prefer to not have a ride at all or would they rather pay a rate high enough to get a driver to come
That presumes a false dilemma of exorbitance or nothing. They would prefer the lower rates.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Stop saying "Trump"!
Where said windfall precedes them going out of business due to unchecked gouging.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
So here we have a situation in which supply and demand are balanced by a computer program and in a so-called capitalist nation, it is somehow considered an unfair advantage. Could this be an admission that we really are living in a socialist society.
> Uber's algorithms responded but I would argue there was nothing correct about their response. At MINIMUM Uber should donate any extra profit generated to help offset the costs to the victims and/or refund the extra charges to those who sought out their service.
This is something that would be determined after the fact. For the first hour or two nobody knew what was actually happening, and sure as shit nobody was telling the Uber server farm about it so how is their system to know it's profiting off "terrorism"? For that matter as of this posting the authorities still haven't labeled it a terror attack.
I would be happy if someone shoved a rusty pike up your ass, but I don't give a shit about Uber.
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)
With the closed software model of Uber, with only black-box testing possible by spending a significant amount of money, we don't know if a third scenario is not being played - one which harms both drivers and passengers for the benefit of Uber.
Or if today close to Scenario 2 is being played, but due to tendencies of such markets to slide towards monopoly - worse scenarios won't be played once we allow mind-share monopoly to one or two companies with no recourse because we establish way too much precedent to never audit algorithms that affect "company operations", affecting the economy as a whole due to lack of options and an enormous entry barrier.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Except that this is a market failure in the sense that the market is not fair as the customer and the supplier do not have access to the same amount of information about the state of supply and demand. That is, Uber can jack up the prices basically at any point and use 'increased demand' as a blank slate excuse for it and customers have no way of telling if this is indeed the case. If I'm buying a product and it's out of stock I know no-one else is currently getting it either so if the price goes up I can know for sure it is because of increased demand.
Uber can basically dictate the price, and we have no way of telling which combination of factors their algorithms are using to come up with that price. We already know they've been guilty of using the phone's battery level to affect pricing. It's very likely they also have databases on just how much each customer has usually been willing to pay.
So this being the case if you and me both ordered a ride at the same spot on the exact same time to the same destination, with me being a heavy user with a low battery and you being a first time user, the prices we might get for side ride might differ wildly, even though the product/service being offered is exactly the same and costs exactly the same to produce.
To me, this goes against the core principles of free market, because this is equivalent to the pharmacy charging me more for pain meds if they know I'm in extreme agony, or the store charging me more for food if they knew I was starving.
I want to be clear that I have nothing against Uber raising prices when it is actually the case that demand is high. I'm just saying there needs to be more oversight and transparency to ensure that they cannot manipulate the price in ways which are unfair to the consumer under the pretense of 'high demand'.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
And someone who can afford a $120 Uber can afford a a $300 Uber and someone who can afford that can afford $500.
How many more drivers did Uber get as a result of the price hike?
That is, Uber can jack up the prices basically at any point and use 'increased demand' as a blank slate excuse for it
Nonsense. Companies do not need an "excuse" to raise prices. They are expected to set prices to maximize their profits.
Uber can basically dictate the price
Baloney. Only monopolies can dictate prices, and Uber is far from a monopoly. If they arbitrarily raise prices, their customers will switch to Lyft, or go back to Taxis, or take the bus, or buy a bicycle. If raising prices would increase their profits, they would have already done it.
Bad choice of word from me there yeah. What I meant is that if in the example I gave the price for my ride is 35 dollars and yours is 20, the customer does not have access to all the information that has been used to set the price, nor does he have access to what other users are being charged for the same ride. This is what currently tilts the market in favor of the provider, be it lift or uber or any other.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
... is how you run a business (in this day and age, anyway).
Can't find much trace of it, but the optimal solution in this case would probably be surge pricing, but only in the immediate area of the hazard. Drivers who are willing to face the hazard would get the hazard pay, and they could maximize the hazard pay by getting as many people as possible outside of the risk zone as quickly as possible, taking them to the edge of the safe zone and turning around to pick up more.
Actually, they should have an evacuation mode beyond surge mode to pack the cars as much as possible. The surge pricing would also help pay for extra computing power to help plot optimized evacuation routes as the drivers in the hazard zones pick up full loads of passengers on their ways to the border.
Outside the high risk area, hazard fares might or might not be in effect. Probably yes, but that is just the normal market mechanism and it is justified in the usual way, by the need to attract more drivers into the area that has a flood of customers.
Anyway, it seems as usual to be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, but none of the "insightful" comments offered a natural hook. More disappointing, there weren't any "funny" comments. At least not visible and modded that way.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
When demand increases faster than supply, prices increase. That's Econ 101. Sure, it's kind of shitty to do in response to a disaster, but Uber did reverse the automated price increase in the area, which de-shittifies the situation. It still makes sense that drivers, who are generally human and humane, would need to be offered extra money to go pick up someone on the other side of the city instead of helping those who are trying to get away from an explosion.
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.
There is a long history, including in this country, of imposing rationing during and immediately after wide-spread emergencies, even if a form of congestion pricing has to be paid to induce enough people to work in the afflicted area.
Really? Do you have the source code ?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
While there is always *some* restrictions on businesses even in a free market (child labor in the West is not allowed for instance), those restrictions normally do not involve price-settings on a private company running a for profit businesses in the free market.
In this instance, it's just a matter of demand and supply. As other have pointed out, it does not make sense to complain about this. People not wanting to pay "3 times more" could just as well ordered a regular taxi-service.
And if that regular one still asked more money: what are they complaining about?
Imagine, then, that Uber didn't exist. Then all people wanting to leave with a taxi would need to pay that regular taxi-service, who asks even more than Uber.
So... why is this a topic? why are they complaining? there is NO logical grounds for it. Whether they have to pay higher prices to uber due to higher demand, the fact is and remains that without Uber, they would need to pay *even more*. So shut the fuck up, I'd say to those whiners.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
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 have driven Uber. Surge pricing is more (IMHO) about cutting demand than increasing drivership, especially in this scenario, which I would assume is analogous to the surges at bar closing or event closing times. Take this incident as an example. Suppose you were driving in Manhattan, saw the surge in Chelsea, happened to be nearby, went there, and got a rider. Are they likely to want to go 5 blocks*? No, they would be likely to drive some distance, maybe 30 miles or more away, to get home, to get to a relative's house, etc. So you drive them where they want to go. Now you are some distance away from the surge. Do you stay where you are and take rides there, or do you turn the app off, and dead-head back to the surge location, taking a chance that the surge is over when you get back? I have found that for event related surges, that basically never makes sense, you might as well leave the app on and take rides in your new location. On the other hand, I have had many riders say that they didn't call for Uber or waited for the surge to be over after a high surge in an area, so I conclude that surges cut ridership more than they increase drivership.
* And, if the first guy goes 5 blocks, the second will want to go 20 - 30 miles. Either way, you rapidly get taken far from the surge location, even if that location is pretty wide-spread.
its only better for buyers if youre only concerned about buyers wealthy enough to afford the raised prices, and not about those with the greatest need, and thus can buy the limited supply, while those not well off enough get screwed.
better for the buyers?
what kind of monkeys*** are you living in?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
congratulations you just described market failure, that thing you insist doesn't exist.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
No one says that.
then you haven't been reading the same thread as everyone else.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to not understand this?
There's not some sitting in Uber HQ with his hand on a knob that controls the surge amount. Surge pricing is based on an algorithm which is based on the ride data. It has no idea about terror attacks or other disasters.
Then perhaps the whole basis of Uber is flawed?
The fact that you can make money from something does not necessarily make it acceptable. Slavery made lots of people lots of profit until the "evil government" stepped in with anti-free market laws making it illegal.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
If only travellers had access to some form of transit that had well-regulated fare structures in place to avoid the supply-and-demand effects of Uber's surge pricing.
What a world it would be if people had another option!
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.
So we should go with "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? I really don't think that's going to increase the supply of Uber drivers when there are a lot of people looking for a ride. Do we threaten the Uber drivers with jail if they decide they don't want to go to work when there are more passengers than cars? Seems it should work better to offer them a little more pay. You catch more bees with honey than vinegar, as it were.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
"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?"
In germany taxi can be driven by anyone there is no medaillon, insurance is special but open to eve4rybody havign a taxi driving license. But you have to answer yes to all taxi call, even if it means going to an area you don't want to AND failure to comply can lead to license removal.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Market value also represent the earning potential future. Which is why despite being very profitable a company which announce less profit for the future despite still being positive will drop in value, and a company which lose money but has a potential gigantic future market will still be highly valued. Heck look at amazon. So aprt of the action value is representing the value of its assets but aprt of it is a gamble on nwhat it will earn in the future.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Not having to pay more during a period of high demand isn't basic morality. A fucking taxi is not a human right, what the hell is wrong with you people lol
Take a fucking bus.
Only if we are talking about a one-off transaction with an isolated hermit.
Around my area it is common knowledge that Uber is cheaper, faster and more reliable than the taxi companies. This may not be true in your market, but it certainly is here. People talk. When everyone meets up after work and has a couple of extra drinks, they discuss how they are getting home. They share stories about how that cab company never showed up. Or about how they used to take a taxi, but Uber was half the cost so now they always Uber it.
And they also share stories about how that Uber driver was creepy. Or how they couldn't get the app to work right. Or how they had trouble getting their car last time so they are going to drink less so they can drive home.
Knowledge is a big part of the market, this is true. And we've all made bad decisions based on incomplete information. But Uber and Lyft are more transparent than other similar services at the moment of sale, even if they are not guaranteed to be transparent or egalitarian. Like Amazon, they could offer you a better price than me. But at the moment of purchase, I know how much my ride is going to cost. If I hire a taxi on a meter, this isn't the case. I can make a guess based on posted rates, but it will be just a guess. And people talk about their Uber rides. If Janet is paying less than I am, there's a good chance I'll figure it out when we call Uber at the same time as we head home. And maybe I'll be annoyed enough that I jump to Lyft.
affecting the economy as a whole due to lack of options and an enormous entry barrier.
The most effective barriers to entry are the ones erected by government regulation (often at the behest of incumbent corporations). Companies are rarely able to erect those barriers themselves without compliant government bureaucrats. As an example, when Uber and Lyft left Austin, TX, 5 other ridesharing companies showed up to take up the slack (two of the dedicated to Austin).
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
That described Amazon for quite some time as well.
The ability to raise what seems to be effectively unlimited amounts of capital for business expansion has really changed the world. I'm no economist-historian, but I'd wager that as recently as the 1970's there wouldn't have been the ability to grow businesses this fast, this globally while losing money. In fact, I suspect that simply losing money for a couple of years would have killed off any startup. People had a different performance metric until recently. The late 90's introduced the exponential growth potential of internet based businesses and changed people's risk/reward calculations.
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
Really? Do you have the source code ?
I have to agree with GP on this. No one needs a source code to understand this but rather observe the behavior of the app in different situations (unless you have no programming concept). It is an algorithm. Uber set up an arbitrary number of requests within an area. If the request number goes up and passes the setup number, a surcharge is applied. There would be different level (e.g. multiplier) for request numbers.
If Uber intended to jack the price up because of the event, they would have to hire some people watching news on all places and adjust the ride price accordingly. Why would they need to pay extra to those people while they could simply quantify the requests within their program?
Anyway, if anyone doesn't know, Lyft have exactly the similar algorithm as well. And I believe all other share riding apps have the similar algorithm too.
I don't care for Uber, Lyft, or any share riding apps. I feel that their business model is ethically wrong. It is similar to a class action where the money actually goes to corporations and their drivers get something which is just enough to keep them going (or a bit more if they work very hard).
Take a CAB if you think Uber's pricing structure is unfair.
Isn't that the whole point of Uber? To give people a broader *choice* in what service they use to get from A to B?
Uber has a notion of surge pricing that comes into effect anytime that a demand for its services exceeds some threshold, and that is just part of how Uber operates. Because of the nature of how demand for such services works, it is characteristically more likely that such surge pricing will occur at times when it might appear exploitative due to the pressing need for travel services that is inherently part of why demand is exceeding supply in the first.
I could understand being upset about this if some evil mastermind in the company were sitting behind a desk waiting for these kinds of crises to come up and then going and adding insult to injury by raising prices at these inconvenient times, but that is not how surge pricing works, as far as I understand it. It is, to the best of my knowledge, just determined by an algorithm that only takes into consideration the demand rates for its services.
But hey.... I'm sure that people would rather think that somehow the raised prices is about them personally.
Honestly, it just makes a whole lot more sense to take a taxi if you think Uber's fluctuating pricing structure is unfair.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It's pretty simple. There are people all over the city willing to pay for Uber rides and if they all pay the same amount then the Uber drivers will be distributed equally. However after the terrorist attack the people near the site of the bombing were willing to pay a higher than average price. As a result the Uber drivers will have an incentive to to service those people close to the attack. This results in more Uber service being directed towards the site of the attack.
Now look at the alternative.
A taxi driver gets paid the same amount no matter what the conditions are. There is no incentive for a taxi driver to prefer a ride near the attack over one some place else. In fact given the reported possibility that there may be more bombs in the area, a rational taxi driver would prefer to take on a fare away from the site of the attack for the sake of personal safety. The result is less taxi service available at the site of the attack.
Price fixing is a nice simple idea, but it's almost never the solution.
Allocation of scarce resources by price is not market failure.
No, it's moral failure.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
What you mean is, higher prices are better for rich buyers.
It is self evident that if you're a billionaire you're likely to prefer to pay rather than wait your turn.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
When there is a shortage, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO LOSE.
Here in the UK after the Second World War, the government imposed rationing and higher taxes. Everybody lost out to some extent, but at least there wasn't mass starvation or a civil war.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Uber needs a new 'no surge' option.
You can opt for not paying the price but drivers can choose to pick up surge fares before normal fares.
That way you can be a cheap prick and wait for the fares to die down or you can pay the extra 30-50% to get out of the area immediately.
A smart company would spin this in such a way that prices across the board gradually rise 50%, and then this would be the 'uberCheap' option that is as cheap as the old ass uber. That way there is no PR hit for 'paying more to leave earlier' it's instead 'pay less and wait a little longer' - even though it's the same fucking thing, people are dumb.
Besides Uber rants, wasn't there a time when ***only*** yellow cabs were allowed for taxis? I remember in 1990s traveling to NYC particularly at airport there were signs that only yellow cabs are allowed taxis, everyone else is forbidden so don't jump into those cabs.
Was it back in 1970s that cabbies were able to make a lot of money? Kind of like waitresses back then when they didn't have to declare tips as taxable income? Though the movie is fiction, watching Taxi Driver few months ago what stood out was the character was making a lot of money spending all his awake time on the road. In reality was it like that back in the days? Few other items that caught my interest was in beginning where Robert DeNiro character interviews for a cab driver job, manager asks for a chauffeur license which he has (I'm wonder that is something just don't simply get at a moments notice but maybe thats too much to explain in the movie). Another was the manager was reluctant to hire DeNiro but when asked about military service, DeNiro replied Marines Corps. Manager, "yeah, I was also in the Marines." (in other words, "You're hired!")
there is also this "cab medallions" worth big bucks. I could never figure this out, it seems everyone has strong opinions but little knowledge (typical of internet posts). It seems it has mythical aspects like what is said back in the days of tax rates at 94% but nobody ever paid that amount because in reality there were loopholes.
mfwright@batnet.com
Governments should favor local companies to protect their economy. It looks like Austin has developed their own ride sharing companies in absence of Uber and Lyft. Meanwhile, Uber is short-changing their fees to US drivers so that they can subsidize rides in other regions where they are not dominant yet. Basically, it's taking money out of the US economy and dumping it elsewhere.
Gosh - didn't an article run in /. last week about having a Computer as a Manager? I know I read it somewhere.
This idea that "Uber" raised rates is false - who is "Uber?" The Computer Algorithm did it - there was unlikely any humans (initially) involved. Uber did it -- "they" are automated. This idea that people believe there's some person in a dark room controlling fares with a click of the mouse is humorous.
But hey - the algorithm did it's job. Raised rates to get more drivers on the job (although wasn't that also disproven a few months ago?). Anyhow- supply and demand in action. People could walk. Or take a regular (regulated) taxi. I'd suggest the metro but understand that might feel unsafe in a trying time like this.
Besides, Uber would probably only have to hire just a few extra people to monitor the news worldwide and enter a command to temporarily prevent rating spikes in emergency situations in a localized area.
You mean like:
Uber soon tweeted that they'd deactivated their surge pricing algorithm for the affected area
Guess they already did that.
Those with "the greatest need" aren't taking a frickin Uber. They're in an ambulance or on Life Flight. Everyone else has the same level of "need."
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Just because people are stupid doesn't mean capitalism is bad. By analogy, let's say your dad has stage 4 cancer and has an operation to extend his life. The operation is going well by then he dies on the operating table. You might, under the same stupid and misguided logic of your own assumptions listed above, declare that the medical profession is evil. It doesn't make it so, but I am sure you could convince a bunch of people to follow you in this idea if you put it on the Internet with the proper heart string pulling emotional appeals. There's even a ready-made fertile audience of recently discredited anti-vaccers just itching to support you in your unfounded attacks on the medical profession. Regardless of the level of support, it doesn't mean that calling something evil makes it so.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Governments should favor local companies to protect their economy.
This is called "protectionism". Governments have been doing it for centuries, with generally poor outcomes. Hundreds of books have been written about why it is a bad idea, so there is no need to repeat all the reasons here.
Congratulations, you are halfway towards understanding the absurdity of your statement "Scarce resources shouldn't be given exclusively to the rich. Why does a rich person deserve transport out of the city but a poor person not?" when talking about a factor two price hike.
I doubt they got a lot more drivers, but they probably kept a whole bunch of existing drivers from simply packing up and heading home.
Erm. No, you've missed their point. 91 degrees has shown that by your logic someone that can afford a $50 Uber can afford a $500 Uber.
That's clearly bloody silly. Ergo, your argument is bloody silly.
Someone that spend an hour's wage commuting can afford (or make the sacrifices needed) to spend 2-3 times that amount to get home on an unusual day. That doesn't meant that they can afford to spend their whole day's wages to get home.
Surge pricing very clearly favours the wealthy. When I was working in a bar $120 was a week's wages, I'd have walked several miles rather than pay that. These days it's less than a day's wages; I can afford it. Do you really think I'm so much better a person now that I deserve transport but I didn't 20 years ago?
The higher price is is only fair way to reallocate the scarce resources.
No, not even close. It's one of the easiest ways, but that has fuck all to do with fairness.
For example, an algorithm could easily determine the surge in demand, associate it to the social media coverage of an incident and implement a 'multiple pick up to same approximate destination' policy in which everybody gets charged 2/3 price but has to share.
That would dent Uber's profits though. Oops.
Surely the drivers are making increased profits, so it still qualifies?
First: It's fucking Uber, they can do what they like to. We know they are doing shit.
Second: If you rely on Uber, you're left alone if anything happens. Don't rely on Uber alone.
Third: When everyone wants to get away, there IS surge and many people will be happy to pay twice the price, just to get a ride before somebody else gets it. If Uber limits the price, there will not be more rides available.
No, you missed the point. 91degrees claimed that raising the price from $50 to $120 means that (I'm quoting) "exclusively the rich" can afford them. That's not true. The sharp distinction he was trying to make simply doesn't exist. Yes, if you "can afford" a $50 Uber ride under normal circumstances as regular transportation, then you are in a category of people who can pay several times that amount in an emergency, even if it hurts you; you don't have to be "wealthy" to make such a painful but exceptional expense.
Wealthy people can afford more expensive things more frequently, whether it's regular taxis, surge-priced Ubers, or private helicopters. So what? That doesn't change the need to allocate scarce resource through pricing based on supply and demand.
There are many things that wealthy people buy or use regularly that I personally only use rarely (e.g., satellite messaging). Rather than whining about the unfairness of it all, I'm happy that wealthy people are establishing the market and helping drive prices down. You should be too.
91degrees claimed that raising the price from $50 to $120 means that (I'm quoting) "exclusively the rich" can afford them.
No. You claimed that. 91degrees pointed out the fallacious logic that led you to this conclusion. You missed his point so I re-iterated it in simpler terms for you.
I'm not sure how much more basic we can make this, sorry.
if you "can afford" a $50 Uber ride under normal circumstances as regular transportation, then you are in a category of people who can pay several times that amount in an emergency
What if you're struggling to pay the $50 in an emergency. "How much does an Uber cost?" "$50" "ok, I can make that work; I just wont take the kids out on Sunday"
$120 is suddenly a scary shock.
That doesn't change the need to allocate scarce resource through pricing based on supply and demand.
Only if you're a total cunt that believes the almighty dollar must rule everything. Other people like to think there are better approaches available.
I'm sorry that you seem to have trouble interpreting natural language. For example, "birds can fly" and "penguins are birds" are both true statements, but they don't imply that "penguins can fly". Natural language uses fuzzy concepts and relations.
True, lots of people think that, and they also think that they are morally superior. You can look to Venezuela or East Germany to see what happens when you put these people in charge: corruption and shortages.
*Designed*. Where the Constitution is the design document. Laws made by representatives of the citizens, open, fair trials, etc.
Since then, various administrations have stretched the Constitutional language considerably. The current administration declared that *because* the elected Congress declined to pass the change to immigration law that the executive wanted, that therefore authorized the executive to rewrite the law.
Still, the government has public hearings, open bidding for contracts, etc. Uber doesn't hold public hearings before they adjust their policies.
Ok, look. Come down to the village I live in, I'll buy you an all-day breakfast at the local cafe and while we eat I'll teach you the basics of reading comprehension.
Because right now it's pointless holding a conversation with you when the basic timeline of the posts in this thread all by itself proves how terrible your level of understanding is.
Incidentally I've been to East Germany several times and wouldn't recommend its system of governance at all. The world is not binary, there are options in between the extremes. If we have coffee after breakfast I can talk you through that clearly difficult concept too.
Check out the numbers. A rate increase of 60%-80% in the required areas during highest demand does in fact increase the number of drivers willing to serve that area. That makes perfect sense - I have a full time job, so I wouldn't normally drive for Uber, but I thought about driving just a few hours per week during peak demand.
Since a higher rate gets more drivers offering rides in an area with lots of people wanting rides, it means more people get rides. When there are more people wanting rides than there are drivers, fewer drivers actually means some people aren't served. That may not play well with the ideology you wish for, but it's fact. It's not a "false dilemma", it's a very factual one. Not a fiction imagined by Marx, but real numbers.
"exorbitance" you say. We're not talking about rates going up 10X. Not even doubling. If the typical market-negotiated value of a certain trip is $20 during a time of low demand, I'd say that $35 is about what I'd expect if I wanted a part-time driver to drop what they are doing and drive toward danger to come get me. It seems quite reasonable to me.
Indeed there are "options in between the extremes". Price fixing invariably leads to shortages and corruption, but you can choose to engage in price fixing for only some goods (US) or for everything (East Germany). Personally, I want as little price fixing as possible.
Normal human beings have no trouble understanding the meaning of a statement like "If you can afford to take a $50 Uber, you already aren't poor, and you can also afford to take a $120 Uber (or bother to car-pool with someone)."
You believe this. You don't have much evidence - except some rudimentary black box testing, but you believe.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
The most effective barriers to entry are the ones erected by government regulation
And yet, the fact remains that which no one outside of Uber knows which scenario is being played out here.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Interesting. I've read down this far. This isn't the only posting that's questioned this, but it seems that no-one is willing to answer it appropriately.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
I don't like the way you painted whiny moralizers with such a broad stroke. Its not fare.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
"a few extra people to monitor the news worldwide and enter a command to temporarily prevent rating spikes in emergency situations"
What is your plan to provision enough drivers for the load?
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
The problem isn't understanding that statement, the problem is that it's wrong.
Therein lies your increasingly large issue.
You seem to be assuming that there's automatically enough ambulances in a disaster like this. If not, it's going to be better to transport the less injured by other means, and they should still get priority.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This provides a moral outcome in cases where the cost is approximately the same per rider. If you make half of what I do, you may need a ride more than I do and only be able to offer $30, while I offer $40, which is a smaller amount of what I'm paid. I pay less (in terms of how much I have to work to get the money) and get priority treatment.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You're looking at it selfishly. Try looking more at what benefits a society as a whole, or in this case, what benefits the most people.
I pay less (in terms of how much I have to work to get the money) and get priority treatment.
What if, instead, you have twice as much money because you worked twice as hard. Would it be immoral to offer $40 because you have more in that case? Or would you compare each others' current funds and the person with the least amount of money should be the only one allowed to bid?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I've been in situations where I could spare $50 for something important but not $120. Your statement makes sense only if wealth came as a binary attribute: poor or not-poor.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Quite the opposite: 91degrees argued as if wealth was a binary attribute. I pointed out that if you (ordinarily) can afford to take a $50 Uber, then you can (occasionally, when there are emergencies) afford to take a $120 Uber. That is, 91degrees' view that poor people could afford $50 Ubers and "excluslively rich people" could afford $120 Ubers is absurd.
What product is being overconsumed here that's costing Uber a lot of money?
Rides. Let's look at the earlier post:
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.
Just because some ignorant AC asserts that a major cost is a "small hit" doesn't make it so.
Even if you're providing something people want, if you can't make a profit, your business model is going to fail.
Exactly the argument for surge pricing.
If you take $50 rides as a matter of course, then you almost certainly can afford a single $120 ride. However, some of the people were presumably intending to use mass transit out of the area, which was disrupted, and some of them likely could afford $50 but not $120.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I don't make twice as much money because I work twice as hard. I make more money primarily because of my genetic makeup and upbringing, and I can't take any credit for that. I don't feel guilty or anything, but the fact is that from some moral points of view I don't deserve to make as much as I do. There's lots of people who work harder than me and earn a lot less money.
I'm also not going to feel guilty for buying more stuff than the person who was less fortunate in genetics and/or upbringing. However, in an emergency situation, I don't feel like I should be treated better because I have more money. People at that time have immediate needs, and I'd rather see those tended by some priority other than how much they can afford.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
People at that time have immediate needs, and I'd rather see those tended by some priority other than how much they can afford.
We're not talking about people injured needed a ride to the hospital. Just a bunch of people that need a cab.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
OK, but then Uber surge pricing isn't "exclusively for rich people". Certainly, surge pricing makes Uber unaffordable for some people, but for many regular riders, it remains affordable enough in an emergency.
They don't necessarily need a ride to the hospital (although there's likely not to be enough ambulances available in a case like that). Some people just need to get home by a certain time, likely because they have children and there will be consequences if they miss the time. In attacks like that, public transportation gets disrupted, so someone who was counting on getting to their kids by subway might have no alternative but Uber, and if prices go way up it's bad for them.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Rides. Let's look at the earlier post:
And again, what is so costly about rides for Uber?
Let's note that we've moved on from asking what service Uber provides to how much it costs. And to answer that new question, they pay for drivers and infrastructure.
...and? I don't care about that other AC. You said Uber will "lose a lot of money". I'm asking YOU why you think that.
That happens whenever you pay more to run a service than you get (which let us note is Uber's normal state of affairs already, they aren't pulling a profit yet). Note that the AC advocated that Uber pay its drivers a lot more while keeping the price to riders the same. Of course, that's going to result in a massive and fast money drain just like other cases where that has happened.
No, that's an argument that maybe Uber should raise baseline prices. If they're going to "lose a lot of money" every time a demand spike happens, it sounds like they aren't making enough during normal times to prepare for a rainy day.
Nonsense. Your comments indicate you aren't thinking. Surge pricing means that is no longer a rainy day for Uber.