Half the so called dock workers don’t actually work. They sit at home and collect, “container royalties”.
https://nypost.com/2024/10/04/business/how-did-50k-dockworke...
https://nypost.com/2024/10/04/business/how-did-50k-dockworke...
It is the same with the cab companies. It took Uber and Lyft for them to lift a finger and actually attempt to innovate and make it better for customers.
The article linked above doesn't go into detail on what container royalties are, but it sounds like it was a protection from being laid off negotiated in the past.
And in the context of AI so frequently discussed here, perhaps more workers will need those types of protections as automation takes hold elsewhere.
There are no liberals or conservatives. Their are people with lives that share common traits and a policy set that suits those traits best.
Remember that Jesus (the generous saint of the needy) is the hero of conservatives and that liberals are the chief NIMBYs for affordable housing.
Nobody has lifelong rigid beliefs, it's all a matter of convenience. Everyone is in it for themselves.
*yes this is a generalization and you can find outliers. But don't let those outliers distract you from what is going on.
This is a complete rewriting of history.
The reason Uber "won" is because they operated on a loss. The reality is that running a Cab business typically has low overhead. You use phone lines, maybe a website, and then pay for cars and maintenance.
Uber "innovated" the field by doing the exact same thing with MUCH higher operating costs. How did they provide a cheaper service then? That's the kicker, they never have. They just ate the loss.
Cabbies, unfortunately, cannot work for a negative wage. Uber can pull that off then. And so, for 14 years, they never turned a profit. Losing hundreds of millions a year.
And that's how they won.
Of course, now Uber is actually more expensive than your average cab. Which makes complete sense when you consider calling someone's phone has got to be a lot cheaper than running one of the largest networks in the country.
And, is it really more convenient to tap around as opposed to make a call or even just stick out your hand? Maybe. But I think when it's double the price, people won't feel this way.
Look, I went to Russia, I took Yandex Taxi. I went to Indonesia and took Grub. Whether you pay double of half is i consequential compared to “Yes I take credit cards” then “Oh my credit card apparatus doesn’t work” then “Let me find an ATM for you, at your expense”.
The one brand than invested on marketing is for nothing in the death of the taxis; Everyone was wishing they’d disappear.
The price was the cherry on the cake, the bottle of water was the finger to every awful taxi driver that has existed in history.
Better than cabs were 15 years ago but we should expect more transparency.
It is game changing because now the drivers have a reputation from their previous customers and you know you won't be treated like a stupid mark at best, or sexually assaulted etc.
THAT was the game changer and good riddance to bad rubbish. Even such "tiny" details as the cars being clean and not smelly are, in fact, a major improvement in quality.
Old-style taxi guys had zero incentive to keep their cars clean. Many smoked in them outright.
Consumer don't actually care that much about this. They care about price - they're very price sensitive. Uber WAS cheaper, so they won. The experience being better matters a little, but not much. And, again, it's not that much better! Certainly, I can catch a cab much faster than an Uber, and consumers are also time sensitive!
> unapologetically exploitative
As opposed to Uber, who categorizes all their employees as "gig" so they don't have to pay out benefits. And they don't take on any risk with the capital, the employees bring their own capital.
Uber is extremely exploitative both to you, the consumer, and to workers. For you, you're not offered a fix rate. Your rate per mile varies by the minute and by who you are - not unlike a scammy Taxi. The difference is the Taxi's at least would sometimes not be scams and advertise a rate, this is not the case with Uber.
I have no problem with variable pricing, provided it's stated before I agree to pay, not after. It can't be a scam if customers have full information before they agree.
It absolutely can be, if customers don't know how that price is generated, which you don't. You agree but you don't have the full facts. Your friend could be paying half and you're getting ripped off.
And, to be clear, many taxis before Uber did actually advertise their rates. This is the same situation then, but even better, because you know your rate isn't for you, it's for everyone.
If you know the price, you can choose to accept it or not.
I never took a taxi with posted trip cost. Best was price per mile/time and the cabbies wouldn't tell you how for or long it would take
I am hinting at how ex-ante price disclosure or negotiation reduces transactions costs of triangulation and trust.
You are rewriting history here. Most NYers have a story about a cab that either tried to take them for a ride and take a shitty route, charged them an exploitative fee to return their cellphone, had their credit card machine "break" until you insisted you didn't have any cash and it was either a CC card or you are getting out right now... etc. There was absolutely no accountability for them at all and Uber fixed this problem- getting a ride is now actually pleasurable and everything is negotiated up front with no haggling and a full paper trail.
Your whole argument is ridiculous, not sure what your axe to grind against Uber is, but its clear you are not being objective here.
you are right about Uber bringing accountability, but Europe solved that through regulation. NYC could have done that-- the right to run a cab is linked to owning a government-issued medallion-- but regulation is not the US way.
The most recent time I was in the EU, I used freenow everywhere for upfront fares and driver ratings - would it even exist if not for uber?
I've had Uber try to go through the Throggs Neck Bridge, over to the Triboro in order to take me to LIC from eastern Queens. Of course the Uber driver, who only spoke Chinese had no way of understanding why this was incredibly and obviously stupid.
lyft even shows a notification on the passenger's phone now when the driver deviates from the planned route
Tech company comes in, "innovates" by providing a product that's 2x as convenient for 10x the cost, and undercuts competitors by cheating.
To be very clear, Uber IS absolutely a better experience than taking a cab, and I've noted this multiple times. I believe, however, it's not convenient ENOUGH to justify the extreme infrastructure costs.
From an economic standpoint, Uber does not make sense. If you wanted to run an Uber service at that scale, it would be beyond expensive. Customers don't want to pay 20 bucks to go a few blocks down. So if that was the case from the beginning, Uber would have been dead in the water.
You're greatly underestimating how cost sensitive consumers are. Most people will willingly take a less convenient and shittier option if it's cheaper.
Second off, even if Uber is more expensive that's still not it's true cost. You, or anyone, would be happy to take an uber if it was 1.15x the cost of a taxi. Because that's worth it for you.
But this is the big idea here: "Tech company moves in a provides a product that's 2x as convenient for 10x the cost"
There's a point where it makes no sense to get an Uber, and we're well past that point. Uber made it only because they could hide the true cost.
Uber IS a better experience. But would you pay, say, twice as much for a better experience? I would say for most people the answer is no. Not for a transportation service.
When you're making a product it doesn't matter how amazing it is if it's too expensive to produce. There's some exceptions for some product categories, but ultimately operating inefficiency will bite you. From an economic standpoint, Uber does not make sense and has never made sense. Point blank, it's a stupid idea. As time goes on and Uber prices go up and up to try to make up their billions of dollars of losses, you will see this first-hand.
I'm not even talking about the wage aspect of the business. Before Uber and Lyft, getting a cab was inconvenient. Mostly telephone or hailing it in-person. Uber and Lyft forced them to innovate. There are now apps available to get a cab in almost every major city.
Why did it take the Uber/Lyft disruption to get something like this? Because the cab companies didn't need to compete and the unions kept this monopoly in place.
What happens if you don't have the app or don't want to download it? We really have to sit down and make an account and do all this bullshit?
It's "more convenient" because you've been influenced. But, certainly, I can make a phone call faster than calling an uber. And I can do it without any data or without even a smartphone. In actuality, it's not more convenient, it's just less human.
1) I know it will take card. Last time I took a taxi the "card machine was broken" and "I'll drop you at an ATM"
2) I know I'll get a receipt, as a PDF, which I put into my expenses. Taxi drivers tend to be very grumpy about giving receipts
3) I know I won't get adverts - maybe this is just a New York thing, but last time I took a yellow cab in New York I was bombarded with adverts
4) I know I'll be going to the right place, without having communication difficulties and ending up at the wrong hotel or whatever
Price doesn't come into it.
And if uber can't gets its operational costs down below a taxi firm paying for a dispatcher and manager to handle paperwork etc, given the scale they operate at, then they really need their tech stack sorting.
Not true, price did come into it, you just decided the price differential was fair. If Uber was 1000x more expensive then you wouldn't have taken it, even if they massaged your feet and kissed your forehead.
> And if uber can't gets its operational costs
They can't, because the idea itself is flawed. Taxi companies don't need a tech stack. It costs very little to pay some bloke 10 bucks an hour to operate a phone. Paying hundreds of software engineers is very expensive, and it doesn't really matter if you switch away from Ruby or whatever. That's the least of their worries.
Even if you are pro-union, they have a history of attacking or undercutting other unions. The port of Portland Oregon was bankrupted because of a slowdown that was organized over two jobs they wanted to take from the electricians union.
The former president of the ILWU refused to recognize the AFL-CIO. The ILA president has mob connections.
https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/stellantis-uaw-lawsuit-...
"The Jobs Bank, established by GM in the mid-80s and adopted by Ford and Chrysler due to pattern bargaining, generally prohibited the Detroit automakers from laying off employees," the automaker said. "By the 2000s, Chrysler had over 2,000 employees in the Jobs Bank at a staggering cost. These employees were on active payroll, but were not allowed to perform any production work."
https://www.npr.org/2006/02/02/5185887/idled-auto-workers-ta...
The Jobs Bank was set up by mutual agreement between U.S. automakers and the United Auto Workers union to protect workers from layoffs. Begun in the mid-1980s, the program is being tapped by thousands of workers. Many of those receiving checks do community service work or take courses. Others sit around, watching movies or doing crossword puzzles -- all while making $26 an hour or more.
What’s the alternative here? An alternative I can think of is a much stronger unemployment program on the federal level so layoffs don’t hurt the community. But this scheme not existing would’ve been devastating for the middle class.
People in greater society are not really an elastic resource.
And while ongoing payments are unusual, it's still basically a severance package. Those dock workers no longer work at the docks because they were let go due to automation. Do they have other jobs? Probably. The article doesn't provide any info about that either.
It is the NY Post though. So I'm not super surprised by the lack of substance, just allegations.
We have like 4 different ports here plus Wind Project took over the old NIT port.
Is that corporate speak for insecure employment?
But from a financial perspective, most of the cost for the machines is probably in buying the machines, where most of the cost of the worker is probably hourly wage (or similar). Turning off the machines probably saves less money than sending the people home.
You don't get royalties for nothing. All the references I have been able to find, say you have to work some amount based on Union agreements but somewhere between 700 and 1500 hours per year, and you have to have worked at the port for at least 6 years. They seem to mostly be paid out as an end of year bonus. I haven't found anything that ballparks the amount so I have no clue how much money we are talking about.