Hacker News Reader

Comment by kelnos | Hacker News Reader

The problem there is twofold:

1) Many drivers from your town would likely geofence themselves to your town, reducing the supply of drivers that will drive to the metro area, increasing wait times and driving up prices, making riders unhappy.

2) Drivers would use this feature to avoid driving to "bad" parts of town, making transportation discriminatory. (In ways that are illegal for traditional taxi companies, so Uber would eventually run afoul of the same regulations.)

It's a shame because there are reasonable use cases for a geofencing feature (you seem to certainly be one of them), but it can be easily abused and can hurt the rider experience depending on locale. (Not saying the rider experience is inherently more important, but certainly Uber/Lyft would see it that way.)

View on HN

For #1, it seems the market would adjust. We already see complaints about drivers not knowing the area they're driving in. Would it reassure riders to know that their driver spends 99% of driving time in an area they're riding?

For #2, sincere problem for which I am not aware of a good solution.

Not if there aren't enough drivers there, period. I'd much rather a driver unfamiliar with my city who needs Google Maps to get me to my destination if the alternative is I have to wait 20 minutes for a car.

You could also allow for auto-handshakes, drivers who prefer to drive only within a radius handing over there passenger to another driver in transit.

Solution is to repeal the laws that make driving non-discriminatory. It'd be painful in the short run but ultimately a place being so bad cabbies won't drive there is a signal there is a serious need for other forms of intervention, probably by policing changes. Wallpapering over the symptoms may relieve short term pressure but is no long term solution.

Yes, this is how supply and demand works in a healthy market. Riders should pay higher prices for tasks that drivers are less willing to do, and concomitantly drivers should get paid more for those tasks.

That's a "healthy" market in the sense of a liquid market with high levels of information communication. That's not necessarily the same thing as a "healthy" market in the sense of good public policy. For instance, very few people would say that a "healthy" labor market has no minimum wage or discrimination protections, trusting supply and demand to solve those adequately. Similarly, letting the market price trips to "bad" neighborhoods higher is probably undesirable, even if that's what a free market would do.

It also may not be the same thing as a market customers understand and feel comfortable participating in. It's true that there's more demand for unblemished produce priced the same as misshapen ones, but I'd be very unlikely to patronize a grocery store that ran an auction for each individual vegetable. So it might be in Uber's interest to not expose a variable-pricing mechanism. (Indeed, customers already seem not thrilled with surge pricing, even though it arguably gets them the service they want more efficiently.)

> very few people would say that a "healthy" labor market has no minimum wage or discrimination protections ...

Unfortunately, you're talking to one of those few people. I'm against government mandating minimum wages or mandatory maternity/paternity leave. If you want those things, you can try to negotiate for it.

> customers already seem not thrilled with surge pricing

This is a true statement, but I wonder about these people. I don't share their view.

Government mandate minimum wages and mandatory parental leave are the result of people having negotiated for them.

It's a strange negotiation that prevents me from entering into another contract with a third party ...

You can - move to a country that doesn't provide those.

You can move to a country that does.

Negotiating for everything is not the most efficient way of conducting business for society as a whole. Negotiating offers the benefit of price discovery, but it also consumes resources in the form of opportunity cost with other things that could have been done with that time and effort.

Yes, we can expose the reality that most people aren't economically worth enough right now to demand parental leave or living conditions, but what is the benefit of exposing that?

It's not like figuring out the true price of a product is low because it's low quality, so if people stop buying it then the producer will stop making it. The people that aren't worth enough, whether it be because they are lazy, stupid, came across an illness, born into a poor family and never had the opportunity and mentors to teach them, should we just let them rot away?

> Yes, we can expose the reality that most people aren't economically worth enough right now to demand parental leave or living conditions, but what is the benefit of exposing that?

The benefit would be discouraging people from having kids they can't afford and not forcing employers to pay employees who aren't working.

If you want to get paid for work you're not doing, you should at least have a conversation with your employer about it.

You bring up an interesting point about efficiency, and regarding most other things, I would agree with you, but your employment is one of the most important things in your life, so it's worthwhile to do the work to understand your contract.

The benefit would be discouraging people from having kids they can't afford

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but all the evidence would suggest that that isn't working. You can't just not pay people and they magically stop fucking.

Rather, the framework is broken. When we hyper-individualise everything, we end up with a world people can come to frame thoughts like the one you've expressed.

A world where everyone must own one of everything, and a spare, in order to survive. Where betterment is defined as having more and better things to throw in the garbage heap.

So that future archeologists may dig up our society and find the last of the great cetaceans, beached, with their bellies full of custom gift cards with your face printed on it.

And that is a sad state of affairs.

The more educated people are the fewer children they have. And we continue to price more and more people out of education because they lost the birth lottery.

If biological entities whose entire purpose is to have kids can't afford to have kids, that's an indictment of the system that charges so much to have kids, not of the organisms fulfilling their biological imperative.

Here are a couple of replies: 1. As a society, we don’t allow people to discriminate against protected classes in commerce. Most of those “bad” neighborhoods are actually not bad, they are just populated by people of different race or social status. 2. Unregulated auctions work well when there is symmetry of information and negotiating power. That is not the case when I’m standing on a street corner trying to get home.

It's way too much to ask a driver to risk driving in some gang land area or pick up riders that in way too many cases are violent criminals.

If you pick up random strangers in "bad" neighborhoods as a private person you are insane. Somehow taxi drivers are bad persons when they don't.

Do these things full time you will sooner or later get in trouble.

Going after drivers is going for the symptoms rather than the cause and quite selfish. If I wouldn't do it myself I don't want anyone else being forced because they have lower income than me.

I think you are a bit sheltered about what "bad" neighborhoods can be like

Having to do fares in the bad part of town is the reason my brother carries a loaded gun under his seat while driving for Uber.

Bringing a loaded gun with you is a good way to end up dead.

What how does that work logically or in reality ? Good guy has no gun, bad guy does, 100% good guy gets robbed, raped, kidnapped, or killed. Good guy has gun, bad guy runs away most of time or sometimes gets killed or captured or otherwise stopped some of time, or sometimes robs, rapes, or kills good guy despite good guy gun some of time. 100% of time I like the second scenario.

"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies. ... Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."cdc see https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/how-many-lives...

Well it's not very useful without the bullets.

Yes, but the criminal always has first draw, first action. Unless the criminal is a bad shot or otherwise unlucky, you just escalate a situation in which you are already on the losing end of a stick.

Just explain to me the game theory plus of a main-street battle, where the bad guy already holds you at gun point- and you have the chance to accelerate towards the bitter end?

And if the criminal doesn't have a gun, crime averted. Pretty useful, I'd say.

It all depends on what the situation is. Some people get mugged by people without weapons or who only have a knife or are bluffing about having a gun. But yeah I wouldnt have it somewhere I couldnt reach for the gun immediately.

I'm going to guess that if someone in a bad part of town is pulling a gun or even a knife on your brother, they're not going to just lazily stand there staring at him as he fumbles to find a gun under his seat to defend himself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com