Comment by lifeisstillgood | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lifeisstillgood | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

lifeisstillgood

I would not like to use Uber as an example of creating jobs.

I see them as KFC in the egg farming world - pushing all the capital expenditure and risk onto smallest individuals whilst then aggregating what should be a distributed market.

I think any company capable of directly claiming to create one million jobs will be this abusive on a massive global scale - not something I would want to invest in personally.

I can imagine plenty of ways to create a million jobs - invent fusion power, invent a foldaway surgery theatre, but they are not things that capture the value back to the originator (that is the genuine use for patents).

So this seems like "build a market platform, make sure it is not interoperable, find a business model that makes individuals dependant on you, while pretending they are businesses". I think I understand what YC is reaching for here - there is a coming hollowing out of jobs, somehow we need to create new jobs. I agree - but a business model that creates new jobs and captures that surplus seems to me abusive - or it is a marketplace open to competition from other marketplaces and that's rarely a way to make money. So far.

Edit: clarify as much as I can this early before coffee

I wanted to revisit this quickly - I think what struck me was the difference between entrepreneurship and invention. I genuinely struggle to see how to create a million new jobs. Jobs are either shifted (demand for product A drops so Factory A shuts and everyone then goes to work at factory B)

This seems to be something where the total jobs globally is static (perhaps total demand is) except for natural growth probably population related

And is distinct from an invention - say fusion power - that actually increases the value available to humans

Just realised quite horribly that I wrote that on the coach in to work 20 hours ago - and have just got into bed. It's gonna be a rough day tomorrow.

How many Uber drivers have you talked to? Every driver I've asked has been quite happy with the job. While they might avoid open criticism, often they've provided sufficient details about their other or previous job that it's clear that this is an improvement.

As many as I have chicken farmers, long haulage truckers and other "capital at the lowest rung" industries. Which is one.

But that's not the point - Uber has no obligation to their drivers to provide work, or a fixed amount of pay not does it want to operate in an environment where it Ilis forced to do that. And history shows that if you have all the capital requirements at the bottom of the ladder (you own the car / the chicken shed / the 17wheeler) then the bottom of the ladder will keep cutting its own throat.

Uber would not be in business if it owned the capital.

What surprises me is the taxi firms do not seem to be fighting back with a (open) app of their own

Uber is actually a good example of how existing regulations can be a formidable barrier to startups; or even any kind of innovation. You are not just free to offer a new product or service that competes with existing ones. The incumbents will have the existing regulations on their side and use them to shut you down.

> The incumbents will have the existing regulations on their side and use them to shut you down.

Absolutely, but you must consider the possibility that in addition to turf protection, those regulations actually serve a social purpose. Not every innovation is good and every regulation is bad. Sometimes regulation is formalized valuable lessons learned over many years. As someone who sees Uber as an exploitative venture (I may be wrong), I actually find those regulations the last wall slowing down the huns.

I absolutely agree. The analogies I use when describing this are with the food (and medical/drug industry). Unless you grow/rear your own food, you really have no idea what's on your plate and your ability to comprehend the totality of the system that got the food there is quite limited (unless you work in that industry or devote significant time to it). Therefore, there is regulation intended to protect consumers from harm and from making poor choices.

It's true that regulations can be perverted and manipulated by incumbents but in my mind that's a separate issue (related to lobbying and politics). It doesn't mean we should throw out the laws all-together.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com