It's objectively better to have Uber and not regulate it than to regulate it and not have it. And make no mistake, that is the choice that is being made here.
How is that "objectively better"? What's the limit on regulations that, in your opinion, should be removed if they threat Uber capacity to make money? Or there is no limit?
If you don't like Uber's terms, just don't drive for them. If you only feel like it's worthwhile to do so when the fares are high enough - wait until they are, if enough people agree with you, then the fares will rise on a permanent basis.
I completely agree that is really independent. And that is what leaves one of the sides completely unprotected. At one side you have Uber that has a big business (that can mean a lot of investors around the glove), lots of money and lots of drivers. It can decide unilaterally to increase/reduce prices as it is better for them. At the other side you have a lot of drivers competing for a small part of the pie. They cannot change anything else than stop working for Uber, and that has a negligible impact on the big company. The only way to compensate for that is for drivers to create an alliance that allows them to actually be able to have negotiation power. And THAT is what the government does with regulations and taxes. They are representing the citizens that want a better quality service, they are representing the citizens that want to drive for Uber and have a fair pay.
Isn't reasonable to let consenting adult citizens to enter into a long term agreement to provide companies, employees and consumers with fair negotiated norms? Why is Uber allowed to bring capital from as many investors as they want while the drivers should not be allowed to organize themselves?
If at any moment they feel like stopping and looking for other work, they're totally free to do that. So on the one hand, Uber does set the prices and has lots of leverage because of that - but on the other hand, they are pretty beholden to the drivers, because if they set the prices too low, they won't drive. And that might sound a little hollow, until you remember that in most places they aren't even profitable - even though of course they could be if they were willing to lower rates enough. But they must not feel like they have the leverage to do that. Which, IMO, is pretty strong evidence that they don't have undue power if they can't even get themselves a decent margin yet.
I guess from my perspective, when a relationship between two entities is, to this degree, transient, transparent, and independent, it's really hard for me to feel like one of the parties is being exploited to a degree that requires government intervention. If people didn't feel like being an Uber driver was benefiting them, they simply wouldn't do it, or they'd only do it when there were large surge pricing premiums available.
That's a really big assumption and non-obvious.
Uber is currently subsidizing ride costs with VC money. Uber can succeed in driving a lot of taxis/ride services out of business before the VC money shuts off and it implodes leaving people without ride services.
Airbnb can improve the efficiency by moving more people through unused housing. However, that can take away from long term rentals, and also brings problems with it like vermin (bedbugs, etc.) and transient crime.
Whose responsibility is it to clean these problems up? How do we clean those up? Or, do we regulate sufficiently up front that when damage is being done we have some limit to it?
These are questions without obvious answers.
I don't consider it an assumption. Uber reduces transactions costs, increases competition, and improves the user experience of hailing a taxi. They are eliminating deadweight loss.
It is a quantifiable fact that the harm done to taxi drivers is outweighed by the jobs given to Uber drivers (quantifiable in the sense of dollars paid out - Uber has increased the size of the market).
> Uber is currently subsidizing ride costs with VC money. Uber can succeed in driving a lot of taxis/ride services out of business before the VC money shuts off and it implodes leaving people without ride services.
They are actually profitable in the US. However, this is true in many other markets, though I don't really see how its relevant.
> Airbnb can improve the efficiency by moving more people through unused housing. However, that can take away from long term rentals, and also brings problems with it like vermin (bedbugs, etc.) and transient crime.
Why is it a problem if it takes away from long term rentals? And i'm not sure how it would increase vermin, bedbugs, or transient crime, though i'd be curious why you think that might happen.
> Whose responsibility is it to clean these problems up? How do we clean those up? Or, do we regulate sufficiently up front that when damage is being done we have some limit to it?
If there are indeed negative, uncaptured externalities from these things, I think it's fair to price them in accordingly, through some sort of tax or similar system. But i'd like to see better evidence that these externalities are real.
And that isn't even addressing the fact that driver liquidity would be worse because it'd be harder for people to start/stop ubering at will. Which would create inefficiencies whereby they'd have to probably maintain an oversupply of drivers just to meet demand, further compounding their profitability problem.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-says-its-profitable-in-t...
If Uber can't pay real wages and benefits to their employees because they make a margin of $0.19/ride, their business model is pathetic and deserves to be replaced by something more productive and efficient.
I think they get to decide it because they are the ones most directly affected.
The other option is Uber, but I think there's too much of a conflict of interest. Uber's primary interest is to maximize profits for Uber, not to maximize the profits of its subcontractors.
They get to decide because they are us and we vote to prevent brutal gilded-age era exploitation and abuse by companies, who are unbelievably powerful and can essentially decide on any terms in the employment contract which workers must accept, unless we vote to make them illegal.
Why is that bad, though? The customers (or at least some of them) would go back to taxis, and then either taxi drivers/companies or customers would capture the $.19 that Uber was previously taking. It isn't immediately obvious why that would be worse.
These might seem like relatively inconsequential details, but the sum of them over an entire economy adds up to billions of dollars of deadweight loss. And in an era of slowing growth, we really shouldn't be throwing these things away because it makes some people uncomfortable.
If it were the case that allowing certain companies to use slave labor were good for the economy (it is) then should we allow that as well? It would make every single person on earth better off. Well, so long as I don't include the slaves that's the case, but as you've chosen not to include the Uber drivers in your characterization I think that's fair.
I disagree that it is bad for Uber employees. Yes, if you regulate Uber, the employees that remain will be better off. However, there will undoubtedly be fewer of them, and they will have a much less flexible relationship with their employer. Those are real costs that you can't simply ignore.
> If it were the case that allowing certain companies to use slave labor were good for the economy (it is) then should we allow that as well? It would make every single person on earth better off. Well, so long as I don't include the slaves that's the case, but as you've chosen not to include the Uber drivers in your characterization I think that's fair.
It is, at best, arguable whether slavery is good for the economy [1]. However, that doesn't really matter, because slavery violates basic human rights. Two consenting, informed adults entering into a voluntary, temporary agreement to exchange a ride for a fee violates nobody's rights.
[1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/economic...