Hacker News Reader

Comment by pron | Hacker News Reader

> Also I've empathy for those who want to make use of Uber services. It's not easy to make justice to all of them at the same time.

Well, it depends on your culture and perspective, of course. To me, the answer is almost always clear and obvious: when there's a conflict between the worker's happiness and the consumer's happiness, the worker comes first. Society's role is to ensure its members can make a respectable livelihood -- not to solve every minor inconvenience for those whose comfortable survival is already guaranteed, or to make their life more "efficient". Of course, if the rich want to run their lives like well-oiled machines, it's their prerogative, as long as they don't interfere with society's more important goals.

View on HN

You mean typewriter manufacturers should have been kept afloat forever using taxpayers' funds so as to not fire workers?

(That's what "the worker comes first" despite the consumer not wanting the product would mean, I think. If not, then the question is where you draw the line and how you measure the harm done to the average worker when he is forced to support other workers who are unproductive compared to available alternatives. For instance, rich people have private cars and sometimes private drivers and don't need taxis that much. Who needs a taxi? Someone without a car who needs to quickly get from A to B. Could be a rather poor chap. Of course, taxis, that regulated brand of public transportation, are hardly affordable on a regular basis to "poor" people. Whether this helps or hurts "workers" is not obvious to me. All of which is not to say that I'm "on Uber's side" or some such, I'm too uninformed to take a side on this one. Just wondering about your "pro-worker" statement.)

Common sense and politics[1] usually provide the answer. I'm not talking about keeping dead industries afloat, but protecting certain necessary ventures through regulation, to ensure that the workers get compensated fairly for their required service. It is better to have customers wait another 3 minutes for a taxi, than taxi drivers not being able to make ends meet. The important thing to remember is that we aren't supposed to work for the sake of the economy; the economy is meant to work for us. What that means in practice, is left for each country, with its own culture and customs, to decide.

[1]: Although I mean politics in its very common denotation (i.e. the work of politicians, and not "politics of oppression"), it does provide a very good mechanism for groups to bargain over interests. It doesn't always come up with the same answer your common sense would give you, but it's sometimes better (though more annoying): it allows groups to consider various proposals as a package, rather than fight it out over each one in isolation (e.g. we won't oppose increase in gas tax if you don't allow unregulated taxi services).

But clearly the issue here is not compensation for the workers. The issue is cost of license. Consider this hypothetical:

1. Country A - taxi license costs $300,000. Average ride costs $30, driver keeps $10 after paying off the license mortgage.

2. Country B - taxi license costs $100. Average ride costs $15, driver keeps $15 since he doesn't have to pay it off.

The structure of the arrangement between taxi companies and the government is different in each area, and is subject both to particular deals struck (and I don't mean that in a bad way, though sometimes it is) and to whatever extra safety procedures the government wants to enforce. For example, a country should be free to require an expensive insurance from taxi drivers, as well as background checks as means to preventing future costs, or as part of a deal. Thing is, Travis Kalanick and his ilk are trying to restrict our freedom to choose what's right for our community, as if there's only one way to run an economy, and as if they know what it is.

Color me cynical, but I think that most of opposition to Uber stems not from desire for safety but simple desire to protect the incumbent profits.

Moreover - the 'community' isn't really choosing anything. Instead it's some crony local politicians in the pocket of taxi lobby. If you want to do a referendum on whether Uber should be operating - I'll agree on the 'community' stance. Otherwise it's the minority who have the most to lose advocating against it.

That's a tricky position to take, as a political habit.

The problem with defining 'worker happiness' some way is that if unhappiness entitles you to something unhappiness can be achieved. What about the happiness of those who would like to be a worker, but can't because it conflicts with existing worker happiness?

Workers are ann entrenched interest group (or even class, to borrow more Marxist language) and they are interested in maintaining the way things are. The loudest are reactionary, preferring to go back to the way things were.

The unionized factories of 2 generations ago were not the pinnacle of human civilization.

But here's precisely the role of politics. If more workers would mean no one can make a sustenance, then maybe it's society's role to tell the newcomers, "look for something else". Or maybe it's the opposite, and when all interests are considered, it's best to let the incumbents shave a few percents off their income. But this kind of decision is exactly what politics is for. I wouldn't want to let a Silicon Valley brat with tons of VC money behind him to decide that for me in the name of "innovation" (here we're starting to see how "innovation" is being used as an instrument to restrict freedom).

I don't understand this approach. It's as if we'd never seen politics or economics in action and therefore our best guess comes from musings.

Democracy does not equal the will or the good of the people in some hermetically perfect way. The reality is that in both economics and democracy entrenched culture, institutions and interest groups gain power. They guard it and enlarge it. They quickly develop the belief that they are entitled to it.

The 'good of society' even if it could be understood objectively is not represented in the volumes of trade policy enacted into legislation after months of committees, "consultations" and such.

Political power is the oldest currency. You call innovation a euphemism used to justify things. I call these authorities euphemism.

Incidentally, I lean very left on a lot of things. I am a European. I am pro-EU and I think that the true goals of the EU, solidarity, peace and open borders are a genuinely worthy goal. What I reject is this rule-by-beaurocracy mindset enabling and encouraging letters of objection to your neighbor's lawn furniture.

In any case, it's very easy to launch accusations from your 1,000m high, drone's eye view that these people should just shave a percentage off their margin. It's not about shaving a few percentages point. It's about shaving themselves out of existence in order to allow old, decrepit and corrupt institutions another few years at the trough.

Yeah, democracy sucks, but being ruled by VCs carrying the BS banner of "innovation" is far worse. What you see as corrupt institutions, I see as the possibly outdated results of many years of political bargaining, which -- like everything else -- requires the occasional shakeup. But I'd much rather this shakeup happen as a result of new, better, interest groups forming, than as a result of companies who have zero interests other than their own profit.

How about people who would like to drive uber taxis and people who would like to ride in them?

I don't know -- that's up to society to decide. If the people think Uber is harmful, they have a right to ban it. At the end of the day, it's up to the people to come up with some bargain that will direct their society in the direction they want. And if society decides one way, but some people prefer it another, well in this case the choice is easy: if riding or driving Uber is so important to them, they can try and move to another country/state/region where Uber is welcome. It's a bit like asking, but what about people who would really like to pay less taxes?

If we don't like our civilization, we're free to rebel. It would be sad, though -- at least in my opinion -- if the cause for rebellion would be a "ride-sharing" app that's become so synonymous with spoiled consumerism.

then maybe it's society's role to tell the newcomers, "look for something else"

On the other hand, there's almost 5 million people in Spain "looking for something else". Many of whom have already exhausted their unemployment benefits.

I wouldn't count on Uber and Travis Kalanick to help you there. That's a job for you, through your politicians, and it seems that, for the moment, you want to tell Uber, "Thanks, but no thanks". That's your right, and it's got nothing to do with stifling "innovation" or "progress", because Uber's got nothing to do with either of those things. It's nothing but a different (and I think, particularly exploitative) form of employment (packaged in arrogance and disdain for the law and the people who make it), which may, or may not be right for Spain.

How does "government" know exactly when to tell people to look for something else?

Do you think it's possible that the "insiders" might try and influence the state to get them to tell that to newcomers in order to gain a bigger share of the pie for themselves?

> How does "government" know exactly when to tell people to look for something else?

I'm not sure why you put government in quotations, but the government doesn't know; it's supposed to decide through bargaining.

> Do you think it's possible that the "insiders" might try and influence the state to get them to tell that to newcomers in order to gain a bigger share of the pie for themselves?

Sure, but that's the name of the game. I would hope that politicians who want to get reelected support sensible policy (or at least a sensible "grand bargain"). The way the game is played sucks, but it's a lot better than living at the mercy of those who have more means (not that it isn't like that anyway, but at least democracies give people the power to organize and form an opposing power to capital).

I'm certainly not someone who has bought into the 'Austrian school' of economics, nor "market fundamentalism" in other forms, but some of their ideas were pretty good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

And as a consequence I think that markets are a more efficient way of calculating some things like "how many people should be taxi drivers" than government planning.

Government planning and government regulation are two very different things. Regulation is an iterative process, where the market is allowed to determine some things, and then society tries to correct the flaws and to better direct the outcome. The economy is like a river that starts out as a natural process (or, at least something that's hard to control), and along its flow, people may divert it or dam it to make sure it provides the desired benefit and to prevent possible harm it may cause.

This position makes no economic sense. Consumers are the end goal of an economy. Workers are just a means to meet consumer demand. Eventually, through automation, we may not even need any workers at all. You can artificially raise wages up to a certain point, but it's not at all clear that this is good for the economy as a whole. E.g. unemployment for workers whose labor isn't worth that much, higher prices for consumers, etc.

A better alternative is something like a basic income. Something that helps all people, not just people who have jobs with high demand. And is payed for by taxing the entire economy, not just businesses that coincidentally employ a lot of workers (or indirectly, their consumers.)

The thing is that they aren't workers. It would be a much easier problem to solve if they were. They are freelancers with unlimited liability.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com