Comment by toyg | Hacker News Reader

Comment by toyg | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think there is a misconception in what "startup disruption" means. One thing is to remove entrenched interests and "trimming the fat" of inefficient or predatory practices; another is to race to the bottom.

I could create a "supermarket startup" tomorrow, by using 0-hour contracts for the whole workforce, forcing farmers to earn less, stocking food of dubious safety coming from China etc etc, all thanks to some wonderful app that will calculate and manage all this for me. That's not disruption, that's robber-baron race to the bottom.

On the opposite, if I create a fully-automated supermarket that does not require any workforce but still provides exactly the same level of quality to consumers and producers, that's real disruption.

The startup ecosystem should not take their clues from Walmart and Ryanair. Before Uber can righteously challenge European legislation, they should prove that they have ways to address the issues that generated that legislation in the first place: are all drivers insured? Are their vehicles safe? Etc etc.

0-hour contracts for the whole workforce, forcing farmers to earn less, stocking food of dubious safety

If you can find people freely willing to provide labour services at the price you offer, I see no problem. As far as "forcing" farmers to earn less, how are you going to achieve that? Coercive appropriation of goods is a practise strongly restricted in modern capitalist societies. Finally I highly doubt there is a good market for unsafe food products, though I am sure for some people it would be an acceptable risk - if you are discovered faking the quality of your food products though I imagine you would go out of business pretty quickly through the standard feedback mechanisms of capitalist society (the media, consumer outrage).

Doesn't sound like a very strong business model to me unfortunately.

Before Uber can righteously challenge European legislation, they should prove that they have ways to address the issues that generated that legislation in the first place: are all drivers insured? Are their vehicles safe? Etc etc.

Why can't we simply let people decide for themselves whether they want to ride in insured vehicles or not? Are people too stupid to calculate probable risks and rewards and make their own economic decisions?

> If you can find people freely willing to provide labour services at the price you offer, I see no problem.

That thought right there is straight from the XIX century. There is no such thing as "freely willing", in the real world people provide labour in exchange for money in order to survive in a society that forces them to do it or perish.

> As far as "forcing" farmers to earn less, how are you going to achieve that?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jul/02/british-f...

> Finally I highly doubt there is a good market for unsafe food products

Seriously?

http://ecowatch.com/2013/05/09/food-imports-from-china-under...

The food supply chain is much more opaque than you would think, even in Europe where regulation is much stricter than anywhere else. A lot of food producers will skimp on everything they can, short of killing tasters on their first sip.

> Are people too stupid to calculate probable risks and rewards

Not everyone has the education (or the inclination) to make such calculations, every minute of every day. This is why we have regulations in place: because predatory behaviour exists and can result in very bad outcomes, up to and including loss of life. I personally don't want to go back to "the XIX century plus iPhones".

People have to work because they have no capital. They are drowning. A job is a life preserver. The solution is to demand a bigger life preserver from he business man (minimum wage) the solution is to remove the pool (citizens divided guaranteed income negative income tax. One helps the poor the other fucks them.

> Why can't we simply let people decide for themselves whether they want to ride in insured vehicles or not?

People don't get to decide for themselves whether vehicles are insured or not anywhere in the world that you'd care to want to live. Liability insurance is mandatory, typically taxis carry passengers so they have mandatory insurance for their passengers as well.

Since you don't exactly get to check the state of the vehicle and/or the insurance situation of the driver before you get in this is something that is - rightly, in my opinion - regulated. It makes sure that as a consumer your rights are somewhat safe, rather than a gamble.

Sorry, what? I actually come from a country where vehicle insurance - even third-party - is completely optional. It's called New Zealand, pretty decent place to live all things considered.

Anyway, why can't we just let Uber drivers state the degree of insurance coverage they offer and explain how often they check their vehicles and who does the checks etc? Then let people decide who they want to ride with. No gambling required. We can even expect Uber drivers to freely offer this information themselves, because it will make their services more attractive.

Remember we are talking about interactions between free individuals here. No one is forced to take an Uber ride.

> I actually come from a country where vehicle insurance - even third-party is completely optional. It's called New Zealand, pretty decent place to live all things considered.

Beautiful country, nice people! I assume you are familiar with the ACC and that that is why you don't need such insurance? Effectively you already have it.

As for why we can't let Uber drivers state the degree of insurance etc, that's not how taxis work, and Uber competes head-on with taxis.

So if you want transportation using a car from point 'a' to point 'b' then there are certain levels of expectation to be met and because people are - surprise - crafty, so in order to make sure these expectations are actually honored the government in Germany chose to license such operators.

Just because 'we're free individuals here' does not give you license to ignore the law.

Thanks Jacques, I do understand that we are talking about laws here. I don't personally endorse Uber's business practise of breaking local laws to force the debate.

I'm arguing about the rationality of these particular laws. In essence, laws which mandate a minimum standard of a given good. I think these laws should be repealed because they restrict individual liberty and do not produce more optimal outcomes than an unhindered free market for transportation services. Just my two cents.

How do you cope with getting injured by a driver who cannot pay for your medical treatment?

I'd be very surprised if there was not some mechanism in place. Maybe taypayer money, the state paying for it and trying to get reimbursed by the driver?

Something else?

In Germany we handle this issue with mandatory insurance.

I'm pretty sure that you're comparing apples and oranges.

To paraphrase: Why can't we just let surgeons state the degree of medical training they have and explain how often they get training and who does the training etc? Then let people decide who they want to have surgery from. No gambling required. We can even expect surgeons to freely offer this information themselves, because it will make their services more attractive.

Remember we are talking about interactions between free individuals here. No one is forced after a critical, life-threatening accident to go to the nearest location such as Bob's Discount Surgery, "Where sterilization is for sissies. Check out our 50% off amputation special."

  Why can't we simply let people decide for themselves whether they want to ride in insured vehicles or not?

Maybe because society would bear the costs for those people?

Who will pay when those people wind up in hospital, racking up bills of hundreds of thousands Euro, and there's no insurer to cover the cost?

Sorry, but the price for living in a society is that you don't get to pick and chose, which laws are appropriate for you.

If you don't like them, you're free to try to change them.

You are not free, however, to just ignore them at a cost to everybody else.

> Who will pay when those people wind up in hospital, racking up bills of hundreds of thousands Euro, and there's no insurer to cover the cost?

Health insurance. I'm not aware of them not paying for obvious things like accidents, etc. They do avoid paying for things that are not strictly medically necessary, e.g. cosmetic surgery in many cases. But if you get a ride with someone and they get into an accident where you are injured, the question of hospital bills should not arise. At least not for the victim.

The victims insurance will for sure claim damages from the driver. As the driver most probably will not be able to pay the victims insurance has to cover the loss. This on the other hand means that the insurance needs to raise the prices for all their customers in order to cover for those kind of cases. To prevent that it is mandatory that all people are properly insured and pay their fair amount in respect to the risk - so a commercial driver has much higher insurance costs than a private driver.

  Health insurance.

Ahh, exactly as I said: society at large pays for the profits of a private company.

And actually (at least in the case of Switzerland) you're wrong.

Health insurance does never pay for accidents, period.

In Germany health insurance does not cover medical procedures if they were caused by someone else (or at least they try to get their money back with lawsuits).

And the insurance of the driver wouldn't cover commercial activities, so he'd have to pay everything on his own.

Good luck finding a single driver for Uber then, because just one accident could bring a driver 300k$ into debt.

The insurance requirement protects people who do not get to decide whether to interact with a properly insured driver (those hit by said driver).

You can't decide whether or not to be hit by an uninsured vehicle.

Sorry, how is your point relevant to the rights of individuals to freely choose the seller and nature of transportation services they purchase?

Because insurance typically affects all victims of a potential accident, and this includes people on crosswalks, in other vehicles and riding bicycles along the road.

If the insurance company deems you 'uninsured' this will result in society picking up the bill.

So the rights of individuals to choose to pick a seller who in that case is uninsured can have consequences for parties other than the two involved in the transaction.

jacquesm's comment is correct. Someone operating a taxi on domestic insurance may find that they are not covered if they collide with someone while they have an Uber passenger. The uninsured uber driver is then unable to pay for the damage to the other driver's car. That damage may be covered by their own insurer (increasing everyone's premiums) or they may be left out of pocket.

Because accidents are too violent and too infrequent for post-hoc enforcement to work. By making it illegal to drive without insurance police can do enforcement continuously, creating an incentive for insurance enrollment before you get hit by a car.

If you have to wait for peoples' lives to be ruined for you to have an opportunity to create your incentives, it's already too late.

> Why can't we simply let people decide for themselves whether they want to ride in insured vehicles or not? Are people too stupid to calculate probable risks and rewards and make their own economic decisions?

Yes, they are.

People are hopeless at calculating risk, especially for things like this.

because externalities and tragedy of the commons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com