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?
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.
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
Aww poor little Mikey... Unbridaled capitalism isn't quite as nice when you're the one negatively affected, is it?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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"
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.
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
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
the dangers of blindly following algorithms
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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).
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.