I have mixed feelings about this.
Yes, Uber et al are de facto taxi services so they should be required to follow the same rules as taxis.
On the other hand, surge pricing creates an incentive for extra drivers to be out during a period of high demand. I remember how difficult it was to get a cab in NYC if there was anything special happening, and how frustrating that was.
When your friends invite you to dinner, do they charge you for the cost of the meal plus some profit for them?
Are you sure these are your friends?
Of course I’m aware of how it works. I don’t see why this is a problem. It’s not like you don’t have a choice. If I were a taxi company, I would hate this regulation, because now it makes no difference if the customer would prefer to wait and pay less for a taxi or take an Uber. If it makes no difference, I’d rather take an Uber or Lyft. It completely removes my incentive to take a cab.
I was just on a business trip and took an uber to my hotel from the airport. On the way back there were no ubers available so I hired a regular taxi. The taxi ride cost me 2x what the uber ride did. Basically the taxis were charging surge pricing all of the time so that they would be available when no ubers were. I don’t have a problem with uber charging 2 or 10x if it gets drivers on the streets and if they are too expensive then I can always call a regular cab.
In some areas of life, a largely unregulated free market is a good thing.
A ride-hailing service is a great example. There is a ton of competition. The pricing is fully transparent. The transaction is dead simple to understand. And there are few externalities.
Simple - if the goal is to get more drivers on the street, then pay the drivers more for the rides at that time. But (and it’s a big BUT) but don’t pass the cost on to the consumer. Just like a taxi, or bus, or subway, etc., the pricing doesn’t move based on rider volume.
What the new regulation is trying solve is the damage to the buyer by outrageous pricing. As it is, Uber is subsidizing the cost of rides in order to build market share (translation, get people hooked). So, why not let them manage the cost of their drivers, and don’t involve the buyer in that formula.
Good. More businesses need to side step certain regulations.
I’d love to see the list of donations from the taxi driver unions to the elected officials who enacted this nonsense.
I knew someone would come back with this. That’s why I threw in bake sale as well. (The exchange of money is irrelevant. Even though I do tend to bring a bottle of wine to dinner parties.)
The buyer is under ZERO obligation to use Uber or Lyft, and both apps blatantly tell you EXACTLY how much the surge pricing is, and what the ride will cost you.
That sort of thing is good.
On a related note, I wouldn’t be shocked if Uber and Lyft are okay with operating at a loss for now with the long term plan of killing off public transportation which would then allow them to charge whatever they want.
The bake sale doesn’t make your point either. It’s an event that happens at most a couple times a year. Show me that Uber’s business model is based on its employees – er, independent contractors – only showing up for one evening each semester.
If there’s a “bake sale” for which proceeds go to the baker, and not some charity, that operates five days a week, yeah, it should be regulated like a business.
The frequency with which it happens is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is both parties know what they are getting into. If I can decide for myself, that it’s safe to eat diner at my friend’s house, than I think I can also decide who get’s to drive me home.
Sure, in Libertopia, its impossible to differentiate between a kid’s lemonade stand and a multinational corporation specializing in the dumping of toxic waste.
On an economic basis, there’s a fair reason to oppose the new law. Surge pricing is a perfectly fair way to deal with scarcity. But your criticism of the law from some kind of unlimited liberty perspective is totally specious.
:dubious: Who’s talking about toxic waste? Uber is causing no public health concerns that I’m aware of.
The city of Honolulu stepped in under the guise of protecting people from getting ripped off. If the people already know what they are being charged and are fine with it, then government protection is not needed.
My buddy has never charged me for the food I’ve eaten at his house.
Some of the comments are reversed. The problem has little to do with Uber itself and a whole lot to do with the legacy taxi system. Taxi medallions cost well over $1 million in New York City and close to that in cities like Boston. It was designed to be a government opposed semi-monopoly for few good reasons other than the greed of the people that could afford them. The drivers themselves don’t make much money and customers have to deal with an artificially limited supply of licensed taxis.
Now that market is being disrupted and the people that profited from the taxi trade as well as the government are yelling thing like “safety”, “screening” and “control”. Anyone that has ever been in a taxi knows that isn’t the real reason. Many of the drivers are undocumented immigrants with practically no screening. One of the only wrecks I have ever been in was in New Orleans in a cab when the driver suddenly decided to back up into an intersection and we got hit without him even looking. A driver in Las Vegas spent the time telling me about his substance abuse and criminal history. It is hard to do worse than the legacy taxi model.
We’ve already gone over this. Maybe read your own thread before responding.
The exchange of money is not irrelevant; it’s the core of the transaction and what makes this a business and not “sharing”.