Hacker News Reader

Comment by zaroth | Hacker News Reader

Rates are variable, and drivers choose when to drive. I've taken several rides where the driver only works during "surge" hours. What am I missing here?

View on HN

Drivers didn't set the rate.

Ebay for instance, the suppliers set the prices. Amazon Marketplace: the seller sets the prices (not Amazon).

Uber sets the prices, NOT the free market.

You're misusing free market. If the gov had set Uber's prices, you'd be correct. This is just Uber's model (regardless of the whole employer/contractor debate). Another competitor is free to come up with a different model where driver's can set the rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market > A free market is a market system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between vendors and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.

Uber is a price setting monopoly, the "sole authority" of the price within the Uber "marketplace". Consumers do NOT have any ability to change the price. Nor do any of the Uber drivers.

Taxis never were a free market either. But at least they didn't pretend to be one like Uber does.

You're speaking as if Uber exists in a vacuum with no competitors. And consumers do have the ability to change the price, though not directly. They could go with a taxi, use Lyft, ride a bike, take a bus, buy a car, etc--all factors that influence the demand and thus price for such services.

Lets select "this spot" as the primary arguing point, okay?

Uber has one job. Connect riders with drivers.

The "libertarian" solution is to provide a marketplace where drivers can sell their services to riders. Drivers can compete against each other by raising or lowering prices, while riders can compete against each other by similarly increasing or decreasing the bid.

Uber pretends to do this, but with a distinct difference. Uber sets all the prices. Therefore, Uber is anything BUT a free market.

Maybe you don't get it because you haven't been paying attention to Uber marketing. But I'm not claiming that Uber has no competitors. What I'm saying is within Uber's "marketplace" of "independent contractors", the drivers and riders are in fact helpless to Uber's pricing whims.

Uber is NOT a free market. But they are trying to market themselves as one. This is a distinct reason why Uber drivers have been declared to be employees.

edit: remove snark

> The "libertarian" solution is to provide a marketplace where drivers can sell their services to riders.

States create solutions. The libertarian "solution" is to do nothing and let the interactions happen organically. This could mean a marketplace, it could mean other things. It really depends on what people want, the locality, technology available, etc. And sometimes people actually want a monopoly and are happy with that. Facebook is practically a monopoly and I don't think people want 2 main social networks.

> Uber pretends to do this, but with a distinct difference. Uber sets all the prices. Therefore, Uber is anything BUT a free market.

I agree that Uber by itself is definitely not a free market place. I'll take your word that their marketing paints a different picture--seems likely.

I think you've got my core idea down.

Upvoted.

Lyft, et.al. 's are not part of the contractual relationship between Uber and the driver.

You are confusing anti-trust law ( or something else ) with labor law.

Dragontamer is speaking as if Uber's competition is external to Uber, which of course it is. Uber sets its price and then offers services in a free market at that price, just like any other company. That makes Uber different from platforms (such as ebay) that facilitate sales but do not set prices.

EDIT: I can't reply to ori_b below yet, but: he's completely right, I interpreted the parent comment as saying something it was not. I'm not sure "free market" vs. "monopolist" is the best way to name the alternatives here, but I agree that Uber does something more akin to setting wages/commissions than creating a "market" for its contractors. Original comment below for context.

> Uber is a price setting monopoly, the "sole authority" of the price within the Uber "marketplace".

Within the Uber marketplace dilutes the definition of "monopoly" into meaninglessness. Uber competes for drivers with Lyft, SideCar, taxi companies, limo companies, and, well, every other company hiring (relatively) unskilled labor. Uber competes for passengers with, uh, again, Lyft, SideCar, and taxi companies.

A free market does not require that consumers have the freedom to choose exactly what price they will pay for a particular product or service. What defines the free market is the ability to choose between competing products and services.

If you are trying to figure out if these are independent contractors or employees, this is the question that is relevant.

Can the Uber drivers, within the Uber marketplace, compete with each other? If yes, then they are acting like independent agents. If not, they are acting like employees.

So, is Uber acting like a market, or like an employer?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com