Uber’s “Price Gouging” Is the Future of Business
blogs.hbr.org
blogs.hbr.org
Furthermore, getting a taxi will degenerate into a lottery of being in the right place at the right time instead of going to the highest bidder (which is much more fair and forces people to re-evaluate if they really need a taxi or if maybe they could walk)
Isn't traffic already built into the metering model, as well as delays from dangerous road conditions?
And presumably, insurance prices in risk...
I can't say I know anything about taxi insurance, but surely an accident would be a huge hassle and make the driver look bad to his company or increase his premiums?
During the taxi shortage caused by Hurricane Sandy, Uber (admittedly not the most unbiased party) claimed that doubling fares tripled the number of their drivers on the road. I don't find this implausible.
A lottery where everyone has an equal chance of winning is by definition fairer than a system where 98% cannot participate because they cannot afford to.
Even at 8x surge pricing (maybe $500 for a ride across Manhattan), Uber is much cheaper than an ambulance. Why are people mad at Uber and not the ambulance companies that charge insane prices for an essential service where they enjoy a monopoly?
And I think people are mad at ambulance companies, which is why the country is grappling with health care reform. A major obstacle to reform is the opposition of free-market idealogues who feel medical care should go to the highest bidder.
This is market forces at work.
You should be ashamed of yourself for comparing demand pricing for private transport to child labor and police bribery.
> Over the course of history we've learned that unfettered market forces can be destructive, and in order to maintain a civil society we regulate them.
Cheap, reliable, private transportation is not a right. Civil society is entitled to efficient, fairly priced mass transportation, not price controls for private transport.
> It may not be perfect, but clearly neither is the alternative if that alternative is the kind of opportunism advocated by Uber.
So don't user Uber then. Use a regular taxi (while they're still around). Walk. Own a bicycle or a membership to a bike share program. Or take mass transit.
End the entitlement complex.
And you should be ashamed of yourself for either missing my point or choosing mock outrage instead of thoughtful response.
Cheap, reliable, private transportation is not a right.
Neither is the operation of a gypsy taxi fleet.
Use a regular taxi (while they're still around).
And this is the crux of the issue. Both Uber and the taxi service use the same public infrastructure to operate. Streets, police, road repair, snow removal, the list goes on. Like it or not, Uber is inextricably bound up in public infrastructure and in an urban setting it is part of the public transportation system. If it cannibalizes the licensed taxi system to the point of extinction, then it will have effectively co-opted the system for the affluent, just as I said.
End the entitlement complex.
Let's start with the sense of entitlement that leads corporations like Uber to feel they have no social obligation, even though their shareholders and officers are relieved of personal liability for their actions as part of their (government-issued) corporate charter.
Your idea that they have a social obligation is incredulous. Would you prohibit me from ride sharing with someone privately? Of course not! Why does an app and the exchange of money make that different?
They don't. The introduction of a corporate mediator does. The idea that corporations, chartered by the government and relying heavily on public infrastructure to function, should have social obligations is simply common sense. Even individual property owners have always had social obligations with regard to the manner in which they use and maintain their property. Why do you believe corporations do not?
Because if the social obligation isn't codified into law, it doesn't exist. "Morality" does not equal legal obligation.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/29/163861383/why-econ...
tl;dr normal people with functioning empathy consider it grossly antisocial and won't put up with that shit. If Uber wants itself regulated to hell, then the CEO just needs to carry on in this style.