Your thinking is overly rigid here. An action can be multiple things at the same time. Uber's incentive is to maximize transactions per unit time window. You are correct in that surge pricing on a first level pass isn't about profit maximization. You have to go up a layer of a straction or two before that becomes the case. Uber has to increase supply to fulfill transactions for a signalled demand, signalled demand is high, thus signaling more profit to be made, therefore the surge while at first seeming like a negative signal to consumers, is still acting systemically as a mechanism to bring about profit maximization.
Hiding this type of thing from the end consumer, or not saying it out loud, is a favorite of the current batch of business people.
Hm. This doesn't pass the sniff test for me.
If say 500 people take an Uber to a venue or need an Uber from the airport, increasing the price more often than not is just going to increase revenue. The price increase doesn't force you into an alternative choice if there are no alternatives.
Many places don't have substantial taxi or similar services, and public transit doesn't meet that same need with people in suburbs / ex-urbs / rural.
i mean, if you posit inelastic demand, you dont get you pretend you derived it as a conclusion right?
But never high enough to meaningfully dilute or really in any way change demand, and by raising the number of drivers, the parent company ultimately still makes more profit.
This seems self reinforcing.
> i mean, if you posit inelastic demand, you dont get you pretend you derived it as a conclusion right?
I'm not pretending anything, I'm considering the reality on the ground when I travel across the US.
literally you restating inelastic demand assumption
> I'm considering the reality on the ground
oh, reality is on your side. whoops i didn't realize i was arguing with reality. so you are definitionally correct?