Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 493850)

This is a bit much. The concern over a new piecework system is valid, but it seems you are holding up traditional cab companies as the good guys who follow employment laws.

Do cab companies pay minimum wage and provide benefits to drivers? I don't think so. The drivers are not employees, but independent contractors, who have to pay to lease their cabs, and who are fucked if they can't get enough fares to cover the lease, gas, etc.

Cab companies complain about Uber because they have rigged up the medallion system, which suppresses the supply in order to drive up prices -- not the price of cabfare, so much, but the price of medallions. It's not a coincidence that Uber first took off in the SF Bay Area -- not (just) because so much b.s.-tech-stuff gets started here, but because SF still has the same number of cab medallions that it had decades ago, and it's often impossible to find a cab.

(p.s. I've never ridden Uber, Lyft, or any of the other services.)

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493841)

I like unions. I am not a fan of trade guilds. They serve different functions, though there are times unions themselves forget it and those are times that they and I often end up on the other side of issues (like immigration). The AMA and ABA are trade guilds.

The cab issue is a bit different, and not related to unions at all. It's related to following the law. Uber is an organized criminal operation that disregards laws that apply to other businesses, like wage payment and minimum wage laws, laws on benefits, etc., based on rather thin legal reasoning. Uber's legal positions on employment law are just like John Yoo's - a thin veil for knowingly criminal behavior, attempting to create cover to protect the perpetrators. Their position on licensing law isn't much better. But they're being protected because they're a fad with the UMC.

Uber's also not new. It's just a piecework labor system. If we can't hire them to do the work at the factory because of the damn minimum wage laws and 40 hour work week, let's just send the work home with them, pay them by the piece, and make enforcing the law almost impossible. Again, we got laws....

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 493850)

This is a bit much. The concern over a new piecework system is valid, but it seems you are holding up traditional cab companies as the good guys who follow employment laws.

Do cab companies pay minimum wage and provide benefits to drivers? I don't think so. The drivers are not employees, but independent contractors, who have to pay to lease their cabs, and who are fucked if they can't get enough fares to cover the lease, gas, etc.

Cab companies complain about Uber because they have rigged up the medallion system, which suppresses the supply in order to drive up prices -- not the price of cabfare, so much, but the price of medallions. It's not a coincidence that Uber first took off in the SF Bay Area -- not (just) because so much b.s.-tech-stuff gets started here, but because SF still has the same number of cab medallions that it had decades ago, and it's often impossible to find a cab.

(p.s. I've never ridden Uber, Lyft, or any of the other services.)

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 493855)

No doubt that Uber gains a competitive advantage by disregarding laws or engaging in regulatory arbitrage. No doubt that taxi regulation in many (most?) places is an example of regulatory capture, designed more to protect medallion-owners' investments than serve the public. It is also worth noting that Uber uses recent technology to provide services more efficiently than prior business models, and that this could confer substantial benefits on the public.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 493863)

But for the medallion system, Uber or something like it could have sought to work within the existing system, essentially providing a software package that would enable taxis to better serve customers, and charging them for it.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 493859)

I'm not arguing with you, as I tend to agree about Uber. But how is their treatment of drivers different than the treatment of cabbies by the owners of medallions (when it comes to pay, hours worked, etc.)? Is it just that they have found a way around the licensing fees?

I just googled and see that they are avoiding "insurance provisions, minimum vehicle standards and signage requirements" with which cab companies must comply. But when it comes to taking advantage of a non-employee/contractor system, how are they different than any cab company out there?

TM

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 493863)

I think the Uber technology focus would make it very difficult to impose wage-and-hour laws on them. There isn't really a difference between an Uber driver and me agreeing to give someone a ride if they pay me -- it's just that the Uber driver uses (and pays for) some technology as part of offering that service.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 493855)

It is also worth noting that Uber uses recent technology to provide services more efficiently than prior business models, and that this could confer substantial benefits on the public.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493871)

I'm impressed you can say that with a straight face. So this is all for the public good, and not because they're greedy bastards who want to make a lot of money (NTTAWWT)?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493873)

by the way, yesterday, during the snow storm, when there was not a cab or car service to be found available in Boston, I relied on the ultimate innovation to get me a ride: a hotel bell-hop!! Bang up, A+ job, and I tipped the guy a fiver and we were both happy.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493871)

I'm impressed you can say that with a straight face. So this is all for the public good, and not because they're greedy bastards who want to make a lot of money (NTTAWWT)?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 493894)

I very carefully didn't say that at all. They are clearly a bunch of bastards who want to make a lot of money, and don't mind disregarding the law. That doesn't mean they don't also have technology and a business model that "could" be better for the public than the current one. If they are unregulated, I'm not sure it will be. They have an obvious desire to monopolize and would like to capture all of the gains from their model as profits. But even the most rapacious monopolists might not be able to capture all of the upside.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493903)

Their technology is only as new as the gps and internet, and is generally capable of being programmed by my 14 year old. I'm not sure what there is that is interesting in their business model other than using the gps and internet to do what dispatchers have long done.

Well, except perhaps if you think ignoring the regulations is a key part of their business plan, in which case, well, they're no still no Charles Ponzi, but it's something.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 493905)

You're completely discounting that users may prefer to be their own dispatcher.

Although whenever I've thought about using Uber or Lyft (which I've not done), I'm mostly amazed that existing cab companies hadn't already deployed these technologies on their own.

Then I remember that they don't face much in the way of competition.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493910)

Go to your favorite app vendor. Input the word "cab" or "taxi" or "ride" (wait, maybe not the last one). If you'd like, input your city, too. See what you find.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493791)

Most of them could use a good stint out in the countryside, Maoist cultural revolution style, for a little while (perhaps not quite to the famine state the Chinese took it). Send them all to Cuba and let Castro reeducate them.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 493916)

My brother-in-law doesn't drive in a city that is severely lacking in mass transit, so he was very used to the taxi apps before Uber came along. Now, he exclusively uses Uber. It's faster, more reliable, and there's no question at all about how payment will work out.

More interestingly, friends and family who previously never took taxis have started to use Uber regularly on nights that they know they may be out drinking. Also, I can think of at least five instances in the last six months where a too drunk to drive friend was put in an Uber by other friends, again without worry about how it was going to be paid for. I don't have the need (Graham doesn't drink, so I always have a designated driver), but I wasn't surprised at the claim that duis are down in cities with Uber.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493910)

Go to your favorite app vendor. Input the word "cab" or "taxi" or "ride" (wait, maybe not the last one). If you'd like, input your city, too. See what you find.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 493865)

It could have, but that would have left in place the market-distorting restriction on supply that the medallion system represents and thereby substantially reduced its ability to be welfare-enhancing.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493870)

What's are the key differences between doing it on the Uber platform or over a phone or radio through a dispatch system?

I see just one big one, and it doesn't help Uber: With the traditional cabbies, of course, you pay the cabbie, but with Uber, you pay Uber and Uber then pays the cabbie - doesn't that simple fact shift the legal analysis against Uber rather than the other way around? Why shouldn't Uber be focused on things like withholding taxes, hours (which they track) and all the other accouterments of employment?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493793)

One more thing. Bob Seger had it right. Lincoln? Burgundy? Ugggh. Let me hang with the Jeep/Rioja or Porsche/Bordeaux set any day.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493870)

What's are the key differences between doing it on the Uber platform or over a phone or radio through a dispatch system?

I see just one big one, and it doesn't help Uber: With the traditional cabbies, of course, you pay the cabbie, but with Uber, you pay Uber and Uber then pays the cabbie - doesn't that simple fact shift the legal analysis against Uber rather than the other way around? Why shouldn't Uber be focused on things like withholding taxes, hours (which they track) and all the other accouterments of employment?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493871)

I'm impressed you can say that with a straight face. So this is all for the public good, and not because they're greedy bastards who want to make a lot of money (NTTAWWT)?

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 493916)

My brother-in-law doesn't drive in a city that is severely lacking in mass transit, so he was very used to the taxi apps before Uber came along. Now, he exclusively uses Uber. It's faster, more reliable, and there's no question at all about how payment will work out.

More interestingly, friends and family who previously never took taxis have started to use Uber regularly on nights that they know they may be out drinking. Also, I can think of at least five instances in the last six months where a too drunk to drive friend was put in an Uber by other friends, again without worry about how it was going to be paid for. I don't have the need (Graham doesn't drink, so I always have a designated driver), but I wasn't surprised at the claim that duis are down in cities with Uber.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 493945)

The people I see using Uber don't have these problems, as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 493916)

My brother-in-law doesn't drive in a city that is severely lacking in mass transit, so he was very used to the taxi apps before Uber came along. Now, he exclusively uses Uber. It's faster, more reliable, and there's no question at all about how payment will work out.

More interestingly, friends and family who previously never took taxis have started to use Uber regularly on nights that they know they may be out drinking. Also, I can think of at least five instances in the last six months where a too drunk to drive friend was put in an Uber by other friends, again without worry about how it was going to be paid for. I don't have the need (Graham doesn't drink, so I always have a designated driver), but I wasn't surprised at the claim that duis are down in cities with Uber.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 493946)

don't get the Seger reference, wasn't his commercial for Chevy?

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 493944)

Is the phrase "But for ..." somehow difficult to understand?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 493946)

don't get the Seger reference, wasn't his commercial for Chevy?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493956)

Interesting that when I let lose on a rant about how the UMC is gutting the economy for its own benefit, the thing everyone (other than Sebby) focused on was defending the UMC from being pejoratively referred to as Uber-Users rather than any of the substantive points I made about the UMC or economy.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 493962)

What is "the UMC"?

On behalf of the rest of us, I apologize for calling you out for sucking on Yellow Cab's dick.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493957)

I found the language of tweets out of the Middle East interesting overnight.

Very common rhetoric was "I am Mutah", taking off on the I am Charlie, and there were a lot (I mean, a ton) of references to Muhammad abu Khdeir's similar death at the hands of Israeli terrorists last year.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493968)

I never defended the cabbies, indeed, I think I called them thugs above. But, whatever you think gets you off for sucking on Travis Kalanick's misogynistic SV cock - is it as overinflated as his head?

UMC is the Upper Middle Class, they of whom Bob Seger sings.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 493974)

I don't think Uber usage is limited to the upper middle class. That's certainly where it started, but it's expanding. Of course, not a lot of poor people ride taxis, so....

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493956)

Interesting that when I let lose on a rant about how the UMC is gutting the economy for its own benefit, the thing everyone (other than Sebby) focused on was defending the UMC from being pejoratively referred to as Uber-Users rather than any of the substantive points I made about the UMC or economy.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493956)

Interesting that when I let lose on a rant about how the UMC is gutting the economy for its own benefit, the thing everyone (other than Sebby) focused on was defending the UMC from being pejoratively referred to as Uber-Users rather than any of the substantive points I made about the UMC or economy.