Better that a few people can pay it than no-one has the opportunity to pay it. You are still making the false assumption that, if the price was kept low, everybody would be able to get the service at that price.
If you have 100 people wanting to travel, the price needs to be set at a level where 100 drivers are willing to come. If the base price is £10, but only 10 cars will come at that price, it’s useless for 90 people. Or are you saying that drivers should be required to provide the service for £10? Because that’s not going to happen. Drivers will either be allowed to charge £20, or £50, or whatever, or they’re not going to work for Uber at all.
With surge pricing, everybody who wants one can get a ride. Without it, only a fixed number can. The reason Uber and the like are so successful is that fixed-rate pricing is not providing enough drivers, and short of forcing people to drive people for that amount of money even if they’d rather not drive at all, there’s no other solution.
Oh you mean the extra charge for baggage when gas prices were high that stayed once gas prices went down? Yeah the gov’ment don’t care about that sort of gouging so uber is safe.
I’ll bet they are. It’s a profession that appeals to people who bristle at perceived authority. So given the opportunity to do something with even less in the way of rules than driving a cab, of course they’re going to jump at it.
And it’s not like Uber invented the concept of transportation being more expensive when more people want to be transported. It’s the MO of every sizeable airline that fares fluctuate wildly depending on demand (by factors Uber only dreams of raking in), there are traditional taxi systems that have higher fares in rush hour, there are mass transit systems with peak surcharges, and there are even roads that have a higher toll when you drive on them at certain times.
My car can go 40 miles on a gallon of gas, how frickin’ much do you think I need to get out of the way of a hurricane?
If you drive an M1 tank yeah, that’s going to be a problem, but on the other hand if you’re in a tank you probably don’t have to worry about the weather outside of it.
Rationing gas works, but comes with its own problems. After Hurricane Sandy, they rationed gas in NJ, you were only allowed to get gas on particular days. You need the police to enforce it, you have huge lines, and stations run out anyway leaving people in the lurch.
Ultimately, there is no perfect solution to peaking demand for a service with a limited supply. The “natural” solution is to increase price to equilibrium, which is what Uber does. They increase price, which both reduces demand and increases supply. In traditional taxi models, there is no increasing supply, so even more people are denied service, though those who get service keep the same lower price. It’s a tradeoff, and my only thought is that Uber’s model is better, but it needs some broad controls to prevent abuse.
But seriously, are people fleeing from hurricane danger zones in droves using taxis and Uber?? Either most people will just carpool or that’s when the National Guard/Coast Guard might come in.
The higher the price goes, the more drivers will come to pick up fares.
This isn’t about profit. It’s about matching supply to demand. And the best way to do that is prices.
You still seem to think that a lower price will result in more people getting to safety, and I think you’re just wrong about that, and potentially disastrously. If you set the price too low, you’ll get fewer drivers. And if it’s really a dangerous condition, you want drivers to get people out of there.
Yes, but it’s not as effective for a few reasons.
It’s hard to administer. If you do it per-gas-station, then you potentially have people going around to lots of gas stations to get more. If you do it in some broader way, you have to somehow get information around to drivers about where they can fuel up, and to gas stations about how to do it. And all that takes time and effort that maybe would be better used buying some gas and getting the hell out of dodge.
It only (sort of) solves the demand side, by artificially limiting purchases. But it does nothing to solve the supply side, because there’s no extra incentive for people to provide more supply. If the price spikes, people who have gasoline tanks outside the affected area have an incentive to bring it in to where it will sell for more. If you set a price and limit purchases, they’re probably not going to drive toward a hurricane.
Look, I’m not a gas station owner. I have no interest in how much money they make. I think this is the right solution because the results are better. So, no, I don’t value profit over human lives and safety. I think that, especially in an emergency, the profit motive is a very effective method of allocating temporarily scarce resources in an atmosphere of heightened risk in order to best preserve human lives and safety.
I understand that letting gas station owners (or Uber drivers) charge really high prices around a catastrophe feels deeply unfair. Why should they get to make extra money just because something bad happened? But I’m in favor of it because it works better. In spite of the profit, not because of it. Although I am in favor of the profits that people outside the region will get for going to extra effort to come in and help. They should be rewarded for that effort and the extra risk they’ll take.
I don’t necessarily think that as a bad thing. I’ve been self-employed since '07, and while it takes tremendous discipline and hard work, I love the freedom of calling my own hours and setting my own rates. I wouldn’t trade it for a job in a cubicle under middle-management again for the world.
If you’re arguing that that’s your only option to escape a deadly hurricane, I’m sure you’d find a way (or some other means). Unless you value not being in debt or asking for help over human life and safety?
If your thought is: “I’m broke, so I guess I’ll just drown.” That doesn’t sound very resourceful or make much sense.
