If the government wants to step in, maybe they should create a state sponsored and run ride share service of their own.
So if the cab ride was $44, why not just take the cab?!
When there is scarcity, there are three ways to solve it: - allocating to those who exchange (pay) most - allocating based on lottery - allocating based on nepotism
We now know what the politicians there prefer.
Some jurisdictions do consider transportation a right, and act accordingly.
> If the government wants to step in, maybe they should create a state sponsored and run ride share service of their own.
Careful what you wish for. It wouldn't exactly be difficult for Honolulu's government to hire someone to roll their own and ban Uber/Lyft.
https://venturebeat.com/2014/09/11/yes-a-build-your-own-uber...
I am sympathetic to this position, but IMO the right way to go about that is to build a great public transportation system (which incidentally would reduce ride share surge pricing through reduced demand).
I agree. Why can't the local government provide a transportation app that includes ride sharing as a component of that transportation system?
I am waiting for a single-click multi-modal transportation app. I say “I want to get to the Hamptons” and have a car pick me up, deposit me at Penn Station, notify me before the change and have a car waiting on the other side.
Probably because taxis and pseudo-taxis don't want to be commoditized. They want to steer users towards their platform, not be a part of someone else's platform.
Hitting the price cap necessarily leads to excess demand, i.e. some people have _no_ access.
In effect, those willing to pay the most are replaced by a random subset of those willing to pay PRICE_CAP or more.
This is precisely the effect. And many would consider this fairer. I think it depends on whether you people's willingness to pay as being determined more by their preferences (between say convenient transport or having a bigger house), or their income level. If it's the latter, then I think it's fair to question for each good and service, why should someone with a greater income be prioritized?
• the provider (they must exchange their product for less than it's worth). • the consumer who values the service at free market price (they lose the service to someone who values it less).
Regarding willingness to pay, I think the underlying factors are much to complicated to list (e.g. a pregnant woman heading to the hospital). The beauty of a free market is that fair price sorts itself out.
We call them buses. And yes, Honolulu has buses. Flat fee however far you go or however long the trip takes. Bonus: they take the same amount of time as Uber or a cab to get from the airport to Wakiki.
I think it should be permissible to ask ${WHATEVER}, as long as the price is clearly stated prior to both parties agreeing to the transaction. I do however think that one doesn't have a right to have paying customers at ${WHATEVER} price. And I don't think people are suggesting that Uber or Lyft have a right to customers paying the prices they set. Both parties in the transaction have some agency with respect to whether or not the transaction happens at ${WHATEVER}.