No one actually said, “Hey, there’s a terrorist attack! Let’s bump up the rates (to get more drivers out/to get more money out of the fleeing people)”. The algorithm noticed that a lot of people were calling for cars in the area all of the sudden, and automatically applied surge pricing. No decision was made based on a expectation that drivers would drive into a terror zone for some extra cash (maybe some people would, maybe not), just “lots of demand here, let’s create some supply”.
And if a gas station is gouging, you can always drive to another gas station that isn’t gouging.
But the law doesn’t give a crap about that. Gouging is gouging, and sooner or later Uber will get in trouble for it.
I suppose they could increase the base price and offer discounts off-peak. Although there are often laws about how discounts are offered; see Kohls, New Mexico souvenir shops, etc.
I prefer to do away with gas gouging laws so that I actually have gas to buy after a hurricane. Expensive gas is better for me than no gas. I prefer the government not protect me from a mutually beneficial transaction.
What else is there except the experience? Honestly, at this point, it’s sounding like someone who’s like “TV? That’s just radio with pictures, it’ll never catch on” or “Broadband, that’s just dialup but faster” or “iPhone, that’s just Windows Mobile 6 with an Apple logo” without having tried any of those things.
I haven’t seen the airlines take a hit for their* creative *pricing “system.”
Most american cities use the medallion system for taxi companies. So what you have is a state regulated monopoly. Like all monopolies, it creates its own problems:
-low wages for drivers
-high profits for the medallion owners
-corruption in the awarding of contracts
-poor service and high costs
-evasion of safety rules (potential)
-non-responsive to customers
So now, UBER offers an alternative. Challenging a city-supported monopoly is going to be difficult. i expect lots of litigation over this.
The obvious alternative to “the experience” (which is anecdotal data) is hard data–controlled scientific studies, statistical analysis… We are waiting for Amateur Barbarian to provide this.
Why would Amateur Barbarian need to provide hard evidence when hiss ill-informed, experience-free opinion is his cite?
Nobody’s ever been run over by a TV. Or raped by an iPhone. You get the point.
While airline pricing could undoubtedly be improved, there are at least more options there. If I’m planning to fly to New York for Labor Day Weekend and I don’t like the price I’m getting from United I can look at the other airlines, I can look at flying on different days, I can check back on if the prices are better tomorrow or next week, I can see if it’s cheaper with a layover, or I can just choose not to take the flight in most instances if I truly never find a good price. If I’m leaving a concert at midnight I have other options than Uber if the price is high, but not as many options, and I don’t have as much time to see if prices improve.
No idea. My guess is that, yes, some people will in fact brave the danger of a crazed gunman to go pick up valuable fares.
I suppose if they won’t, then the price that is offered is irrelevant, since everyone is going to be driving in the opposite direction at full speed, and no one is going to pay the fare at all.
There are, but I think those regulations are bad ones. Again, people usually assume that the alternative to $20 gas is normal priced gas. But in a massive demand and supply shock like an oncoming hurricane, for most people, it’s no gas at all. It’s like running a reverse lottery where a bunch of unlucky people who didn’t happen to have a full tank get stranded. I’m not sure how much you’re willing to pay to get out of the path of a hurricane, but I’m willing to pay well over $20/gallon and laws that make it harder to get out at all are misguided.
If the alternative to a $50 fare to get away from a crazed gunman is to have to try to get away from a crazed gunman on foot, I’m happy to pay.
Am I missing something? I quick perusal of this thread seems to indicate that Uber has much happier customers than taxis. You haven’t responded to one of my posts and I’m curious how you would respond. I’ll quote it here:
If we had a “Like” system I would have hammered this post with 1000 Likes:
I’m in total agreement.
yes. you’re missing the fact that you, and cmyk, and Shalmanese and others are arguing against strawmen. I haven’t (and I don’t think AB has) argued that Uber doesn’t provide a useful service. What we’ve both been railing against is the fact that they out-and-out lie about what they do to evade regulation. Uber calls itself a “ride-sharing” service without any evidence that they’re actually a ride-sharing service. but because they cater to your convenience, you don’t give a shit. Uber is a fucking taxi company who is trying to claim that they’re not a taxi company because smartphone app.
You could probably call Uber a livery service but they are not a taxi company. People cannot hail a Uber driver which AIUI is the difference between livery and taxi services. I’ve never taken Uber so they don’t cater to my convenience; besides being a good idea I think the concept of limited taxi medallions to be bankrupt.
The only similarity between Uber and taxis is they both can take you from point A to point B. Everything else about how Uber works for the company, drivers and customers is completely different. Especially the experience.
I’ve had several conversations with my Uber drivers, and a few of them said they used to be taxi drivers, and how much better and happier they are working for Uber.
That depends on exactly where and when you are talking about. Before 1987, yellow cabs in NYC could take radio calls, and in 2013 “street hail livery vehicles” ( more commonly known as “boro taxis” or “green taxis”) came into existence in NYC. They are technically livery vehicles but can pick up street hails anywhere in the city except Manhatan south of 96 st and the airports.
In any event , whether Uber is a taxi service or a livery service or if it's different enough from both of those to deserve a new name ( I've seen "ridesourcing") the one thing Uber certainly isn't is ridesharing. Ridesharing would be the modern equivalent of posting a notice on a bulletin board that I am driving from NYC to Albany on June 22 and I am looking for someone to *share* expenses. Kind of like a one-time carpool. That's another similarity between Uber and taxis - someone is making a profit. We don't normally refer to profit-making activities as "sharing".
“Because smartphone app” has nothing at all to do with it and misses the entire point in a pretty egregious way. The reason they think they’re not a taxi company is that they use an enormously flexible fleet of vehicles which, instead of being taxis, are actually just regular passenger cars that people own and use for driving other people around as much or as little as they want. Whether or not they’re going to be successful at arguing that this makes them “not taxis” remains to be seen (and will vary from location to location), but pretending that the only difference in their business is that they have a smartphone app is being pretty obtuse.
To put it simply: the business model is crowdsourcing the vehicle fleet. Period. The technology makes this business model possible, but the technology is not the business model. Giving regular taxis a smartphone app will not reclaim the business the “ridesharing” model has been stealing.
The term that gets increasingly bandied about is Transportation Network Companies or TNCs.
Shouldn’t we want an upper limit on fares so more people can afford to pay for a ride out of a dangerous place?
The higher the price goes the fewer people can pay it. Do you value profit over human life and safety?
The alternative to price gouging during a hurricane is limit how much gas someone can purchase. Some gas is also better than no gas.