> “Uber does not believe it is appropriate for authorities to seek to punish drivers who are trying to make a living through this service,” Uber said in today’s e-mail.
Uber needs to slow down the spin. It might work in metros in the US, but it's not going to work in Seoul.
It works anywhere. Stupid state monopoly mafia trying to control how people are supposed to make money is scared. That's all there is to it. If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence.
I am not arguing this point on licenses or no licenses, however I would say that assuming the client has provided an informed consent, then the client should be allowed to use whatever car service they want. If I hitchhike, I assume the risk with no expectation of protection. Consumers should have a right to use whatever they want -- provided they are aware of what they are consuming.
However the odd thing about Uber in Korea is that taxis are already relatively cheap. It isn't quite the overpriced racket it seems to be in other places. Also I find it odd that suddenly Korea is concerned about safety especially given the overall lack of safety consciousness at the government level (for example overloaded ferries sinking due to government officials looking the other way in regards to permitting and safety inspections.) I lived in Korea for a total of 4 years and, it comes down to this: nationalism and protectionism. This isn't about safety at all -- this is about someone getting (or not getting) paid. The mad cow hysteria a few years ago is a great example -- North American producers were effectively shut out of the market over unsubstantiated government claims of a mad cow risk.. Thus effectively subsidizing a far less efficient domestic market. During the time of their 'concern' over mad cow, not a single American or Candian was harmed by the so-called tainted beef. Yet safety was the propaganda with which they effectively killed beef imports. The Uber situation is no different. The Chaebols own Korea -- to an even far greater scale than large corporations 'own' the US. Korea is almost entirely run by three (perhaps 4) corporations. Everything from media, communications, heavy industry real estate, autos, food production.. All owned by Samsung, LG, Daewoo (and Lotte.) Wrong or right isn't my point, my point is that Uber isn't playing with (or paying) the right people, thus this action by the government. There's a reason the largest Korean banknote was no bigger than 10,000 won ($10) (though now they apparently have a $50 note) -- it was a result of a feeble attempt to reduce large cash payments under the table. Here's a badly written article discussing that idea: http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=15...
> assuming the client has provided an informed consent
How would the client be informed on issues such as
* proper vehicle maintenance records
* prior criminal record
* history of accidents and insurance claims
* presence of proper insurance to cover client's medical costs or property loss costs in case of an accident
This is something that is required of properly licensed transportation companies (i.e. anybody working under Uber Black). Until the client has a quick and convenient way to research that information, we can only pretend the consent is informed.
If I offer you a ride to the airport for ten bucks,should the state prosecute me criminally? Or is that true only if I use the I Internet to do it? What if I post in an online forum?
The state can certainly require me to purchase insurance to own a vehicle. Clearly in the public's interest. Perhaps that insurance should cover riders. Great discussion. But this is simply crony capitalism. There may be risk, but there is no crime here. At all.
I wonder how HN'ers would feel if the U.S. government decided to respond to a "cybersecurity crisis" by requiring licensure and fulfillment of a host of legal requirements (such as posting a bond or insurance) before anyone can program or administer any public-facing computer. After all, they'd just be looking out for the public interest. Surely no one wants laissez faire software development!
That's not to say there is no "public interest", but rather that the public interest is something that has to be balanced against other interests, and the freedom to ply a trade is a pretty important one.
> But this is simply crony capitalism. There may be risk, but there is no crime here. At all.
That is where you are quite wrong. The regulations of taxis goes way back to carriage regulations in the 19th century. The reason for this is clear: to ensure that the vehicle is maintained, the driver doesn't have a history of attacking or abducting passengers, and that pricing is transparent and passengers aren't gouged.
Taxis are not private transportation, period. They are a form of public transportation and function more like a transit utility. To not offer basic regulation of taxis is to leave the public at large in significant danger of being ripped off, maimed, and/or assaulted.
You are quite right about the reason for carriage laws. They're right out of two centuries ago, where a person who got into a conveyance had no idea what they might be getting into.
Those days are long gone, however. Today I can buy a used car on Ebay, committing thousands of dollars to a sale for a product I've never seen and a seller I'll never meet, all without worrying about the transaction. Why? Because information flows much more freely. The commercial transaction that used to take a government guarantee now just requires an open exchange of information about past history -- which is trivial to accomplish.
>If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence.
No but you should be properly insured and bonded to prevent client liability. You can argue Laissez-faire, but we tried that in the 1860-1890's and it really sucked. We collectively decided individual safety is worth more then a fatter wallet.
Your argument works from an Objectivist stand point, but Objectivism doesn't work in the real world.
Nothing about laissez-faire precludes insurance and bonding. If anything the very non-laissez-faire phenomenon of bankruptcy is what makes an insurance mandate necessary. Not that I'm against bankruptcy laws in general. I'm just pointing out that personal liability is hardly unregulated.
Arguing that personal liability laws already exist and can enforce this system is technically true. But you first have to concede that a cash settlement is potentially worth brain damage, loss of vision, loss of limbs, loss of family members, etc.
Therefore a potential liability lawsuit will result in no net economic gain, but restoring what you already had (I.E.: How much is your SO's life actually worth to you?). If you don't concede this fact, then every single instance of the situation correcting itself, I.E.: Crash and law suit, will result in a net loss to the community GDP and private loss of money. The service can have no economic value what so ever to the seller, or purchaser on a macro scale, its just becomes Russian Roulette as a service.
The issue with Randian Objectivism is it normalizes human death to solve micro economic problems.
No, everyone and every system puts a price on human life. The only question is who decides what cost is worth it.
We could basically eliminate car accidents tomorrow through extreme measures. We could lower speed limits to walking speeds, cover all vehicles in cushions, and require everyone to hire the services of a (licensed and bonded) crossing guard before crossing the street. If it saves one life or debilitating injury, isn't it worth it? Obviously not.
So at the end of the day, someone is balancing things like time, money, and effort with safety. The only question is who should decide what a reasonable cost is. I would argue that, given the right tools, you are better at protecting your family than whoever runs the taxi commission, DMV, or even the city council.
Reasonable people can disagree on what a reasonable cost is. They can disagree on who makes the decision and how. But it's not reasonable to jump into polemics about who has a morally superior worldview.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Randian, so I don't care to defend Randian mistakes, but I disagree with your logic on this point.
Replying to the other reply that exceeds the max depth one can reply directly to, to imply "human life" is somehow a magical infinitely valuable commodity is childishly naive. Human life is just an electrochemical reaction and like everything else in the universe has a quantifiable value.
If you're going to vote me down please explain how I am wrong and how not being able to put a price on life is more than just silly romanticism.
Counter point: How much do I have to offer you to kill yourself?
The actual answer is I can't. Because your life has infinite value to you, because without which you may not acquire any other wealth. I.E.: Your life is worth all the wealthy you may obtain to yourself, or potentially all wealth in existence.
Therefore, what is the quantifiable value of something with inelastic demand? Economics tells us its infinite (or we have to divide by zero to calculate it). But you say otherwise.
Stop this Randian nonsense. There are perfectly valid reasons to regulate taxi services - such as ensuring that passengers are safe, or that they aren't ripped off. Those requirements are beneficial as a whole.
It's perfectly valid to question whether or not the current regime in various places has been effective at achieving these goals. It's also fine to change the way it all works. But dismissing it out of hand like this is purposefully, dangerously ignorant.
On the other hand, a blind devotion to the regulations in question without reference to passengers' overall well-being and ability to afford a ride is equally nonsense, and a common feature of the current regime's defense of itself. (For instance, when all the London taxi drivers were complaining about Uber using boring reasons about taximeters).
Agreed that there's a much wider issue to examine, because taxi services could really use an overhaul. Though I don't agree that the London case is particularly boring. The London taxi racket argued that Uber was violating the rules on minicab services not having taximeters (and that's a legitimately arguable point). That's how this sort of thing gets resolved; either we decide "yes, that rule is outdated, let's change it" or "no, we've got that rule for a reason which is still valid, Uber needs to change."
Sure, that was just one of the examples. These are all valid points for argument – one of the benefits of regulation is ensuring that taxi services are accessible.
Your London example is poor: Uber is free to operate in London.
Uber drivers who want to be hailed from the street or use a meter need to i) use the correct meter; ii) use a wheelchair accessible vehicle; iii) "do the knowledge".
Uner drivers have an alternitive. They could operate as minicabs. That allows them to use the app for booking; they don't need to have wheelchair accessible vehicles and they don't need to do the knowledge. But it does mean that they can't use a meter for pricing - they need to be able to agree a price before they journey starts.
"Things that control or store money" (payphones, vending machines, ticket machines, taxi meters, gambling and TOTE machines) are all high profile targets for criminal gangs and for people wishing to commit fraud. It's probably a good thing that a limited range of taxi meters is allowed to be used, although the current system of assessing and approving meters is probably sub-optimal.
As if to prove my point, snazzy arguments made without reference to the customer's well-being!
Why must a prospective Uber customer be forced to pay specifically for "the knowledge" (an insane, financially risky, multi-year investment in human capital) to have access to cars running a variable fare business model? How do they benefit from having their choices restricted like this? But with Uber, the case of "unsuspecting user gets ripped off" is a lot harder to make.
I mean sure, when it comes to privileging a set of drivers with the power to take street hails you have a good excuse about protecting random tourists from ostentatious fraud. But requiring that all variable-fare hails have the Knowledge? Seriously? That's incumbent-protection and nothing else.
How can it be that it's perfectly valid to "question the current regime" and "the way it all works", but not the existence of licenses? Did you just randomly defined bounds of the discussion that we can have, and called everything outside of those bounds dangerously ignorant?
No. Blanket rejection of the existence of licenses – "There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence" – is not useful at all. There are, objectively, justifications for requiring a license.
The problem with 'questioning the existence of licenses' is that Uber always plays the same tune, world wide - even if those licenses work very different in different locales.
Not every taxi system works as bad as San Francisco's and in some areas (eg in Germany), when counting by the numbers Uber is the bully: tons of money and international reach vs. regional taxi companies with a handful of cars.
People tend to be quite opposed to 'rent-seeking schemes' on hn. Except when it comes to Uber, which is _the_ example of a rent seeking, as the 20% parasite between customers and drivers while trying to tear down the advantages of the existing system that get in their way (safety regulations, accessibility guarantees).
IF you don't like Ubers pricing or safety mechanisms take a different taxi. That IS the point. More competition is always better. You don't need mother government to control everything and make the whole world "fair". Grow up and take responsibility for yourself. If there's room for competition there will be cheaper and "safer" alternatived.
Are there cases of uber driver on passenger violence and if so how do they compare to licensed taxi driver on passenger violence statistically? This just feels like fear mo getting from the anxiety ridden to though.
I honestly don't understand how you can be on a news site for start ups and be against fair competition.
IF you don't like Ubers pricing or safety mechanisms take a different taxi. That IS the point
This is a reductive and overly simplistic view that invites that total absence of regulation of any services.
The problem is that consumers are unfortunately not well informed, and that 'fair competition' is extraordinarily difficult to maintain in practice. That's why regulation happens in the first place – to prevent the worst excesses of the market.
I honestly don't understand how you can be on a news site for start ups and be against fair competition.
Then stretch yourself a little harder. Nobody's against fair competition - is it that hard to believe that some people feel fair competition is most effectively achieved not through uncontrolled free markets, but through broadly free markets with some state intervention to ensure a fair playing field? That's not too left-field, and it's the principle that every western state is operating on.
If Uber drivers do not have valid insurance[1] then the only "choice" I can make to avoid that is to not use public highways at all (an uninsured Uber driver can crash into me even if I'm not an Uber customer). I'm sorry but arguing for filling the roads with uninsured drives is just sociopathic.
I honestly can't understand how an adult in the 21st century can arguing against vehicle insurance. You don't even own a stake in Uber! You are arguing for adding uninsured drivers to the roads that you use, just to make other people rich. It's not even in your own self interest. Talk about irrational.
[1] e.g. because they have regular non-commercial insurance that isn't valid when operating a taxi, and Uber fails to check that their drivers are insured or educate them about what insurance they need. This has been a common complaint against Uber in various jurisdictions.
I'm sorry but arguing for filling the roads with uninsured drives is just sociopathic.
It's not sociopathic. There are (and were) countries where driver insurance is not compulsory. I lived in one, and it wasn't that bad. If you want to be sure that you get paid for damage, that's what insurance is for — insure yourself.
This is the kind of unnecessarily provocative embellishment that HN guidelines specifically call out:
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
It's a good thing you know everything and your actions never have consequences on others. Fire never spreads, the free market will solve all problems, and the earth is flat.
Yes but if your house causes a black out to our city, or a fire that destroys a city block who's held responsible? You, the electrician? What if people die?
The problem with Randian Objectivism is it normalizes human death to solve micro economical problems. I'd rather have micro economical problems then human death.
It could work this way. Wiring not done by a licensed electrician then you pay triple for insurance. No insurance no mortgage. Now you can have your house burn down and it is a total loss. Hell NH drivers don't need insurance. Live free or die.
Edit: Actually I just remembered you can wire your own house in NH, but it still has to be inspected. They are not totally crazy.
This is a horrible idea. What will happen and has happened in reality is that those with less scruples or money will simply pay for the cheaper unlicensed work and not pay for extra insurance. Those people or their tenets then suffer by injury and death when an electrical fire starts or an improper wiring job jolts someone.
So you prefer a multinational corporation over local small / medium companies? That does really make no sense, this is not same as non licensed drivers operating in third world countries, who at least keep most their profits for themselves.
The FARC funded a big portion of their operations off of unregulated/poorly regulated taxi service. It's a lot easier to kidnap somebody when they willfully get in the car you intend to kidnap them in.
The heavy spin is necessary to preserve the image that Uber represents the drivers. Uber really just provides technical infrastructure and marketing, and rakes off most of the profit. Almost all of that wealth should be flowing back to the drivers who provide Uber's actual service.
The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for them to organize, since they all have smartphones and they all end up dissatisfied when Uber cuts their rates.
I am perfectly aware that we live in deeply partisan times.
Partisan in not just political ideologies but also in ways we see the world and our place in it. At times, it seems all middle ground has vanished. But that discussion is for another time.
Unionizing is a contentious issue not just for the employers but also for the consumers, especially when you look at how unions - in the industries and sectors where they have a stranglehold on affairs - seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers.
As a disinterested observer, I ask this in good faith :
Are there documented cases of industries or even governmental sectors where unionizing - whether in America or abroad, say France - has proved immensely beneficial to the consumers and patrons?
Are they not just self-serving instruments and political vote banks?
I am yet to find a single heavily-unionized entity proving to enhance my experience as a consumer.
Unionizing wasn't such a contentious issue when employers were working their employees to death and paying them in credit to be used at the company store.
When I was in college I worked at a regional Wal Mart competitor where I made minimum wage (not enough to live on) but got a nice discount if I bought from the store itself (which made my wages about enough to live on). It's as close to the old "company store" as they can legally get away with these days.
That is incorrect. Unionizing was strongly opposed throughout the industrial revolution. Look up Pinkerton's efforts, the Haymarket incident, many others.
Yeah, of course the bosses didn't want it. It hurt them and their profits. But back then, the people wanted it. The difference between then and now is, now when the bosses say "you don't want a union", the workers actually believe them.
There's been enough studies showing that people having more than 0 weeks of vacation is beneficial, good for productivity, etc. Unions have secured that for people in the US who would otherwise not have access to this.
A lot of social movements granting more vacation time to people in France happened through generalised strikes caused by unions.
The argument goes that since people can be more productive when well rested and not sick, then companies can in theory pass the savings onto customers. Whether this happens in practice is slightly independent of unions getting health care and vacation for the workers.
> seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers.
Serving the interests of the union members - representing them in their negotiations with management, to be precise - is a union's reason for being. They might also hold their members to a standard of professional ethics, depending on the union, and that might or might not benefit you as a consumer, but that's not the immediate goal.
> Are there documented cases of industries or even governmental sectors where unionizing - whether in America or abroad, say France - has proved immensely beneficial to the consumers and patrons?
The example that leaps to mind, in part because the comparison is so easy, is the press. In my town the difference in quality of output between journalists who are members of the guild and those who are not is quite noticeable.
Whether you want to credit that to the union, or the fact that better journalists are also better career strategists or something, is up to you. You're focused on the wrong thing vis a vis unions. They are there for the workers, that might or might not play out well for the consumer.
"...that might or might not benefit you as a consumer, but
that's not the immediate goal."
"You're focused on the wrong thing vis a vis unions.
They are there for the workers, that might or might not
play out well for the consumer."
Bah Humbug! Then why am I - as the consumer - should want to foster the growth and strengthening of unions?
To create another entrenched interest group whose influence I cannot hope to counter, using my already significance-dwindled vote, in a state that is already rife with the influence of such powerful unions?
In California, the biggest special interest donor, the California Teachers Association, spent more than $118 million on campaigns in the state during the past five election cycles.[1]
And what do the "consumers" get for that?
The Golden State's fourth-graders ranked 47th in the nation in both math and reading. Eighth-graders ranked 45th in math and 42nd in reading.[2]
Looking at states like California, it is not a stretch to extrapolate that unions - once they reach a critical mass - tend to indulge in a cycle of voracious self-fattening with their growing influence, election cycle after election cycle.
As a consumer, I am supposed to help create more unions and enable this kind of behavior?
> Bah Humbug! Then why am I - as the consumer - should want to foster the growth and strengthening of unions?
You're welcome to do whatever you like. The way you continue to phrase things is a little odd, though. If you define yourself purely by your role as a consumer an awful lot of stuff in life is going to look pretty odd because it's a limited point of view.
> As a consumer, I am supposed to help create more unions and enable this kind of behavior?
This is such an odd question. I don't think anyone in the world believes it's your job to create unions. In fact, that's what we all decided at the last meeting. "It is absolutely not wozniacki's job, in his role as a consumer or otherwise, to create unions." We didn't tell you because we were worried you might be offended.
> Looking at states like California, it is not a stretch to extrapolate that unions - once they reach a critical mass - tend to indulge in a cycle of voracious self-fattening with their growing influence, election cycle after election cycle.
Are you claiming that union participation among primary school educators correlates strongly with lack of achievement among students? I'm pretty sure the top achieving states in this regard - Maryland, Massachusetts, Virginia, New York, and so on - have teacher unions.
I lived in California for years and I'm sympathetic to the fact that government there is completely insane. I think an explanation like "it's because of the unions!" is reductionist and too simple.
> Then why am I - as the consumer - should want to foster the growth and strengthening of unions?
WUT? Do you play any other role in society than that of consumer? Worker, maybe?
Perhaps you're a Titan of Industry, or a self-employed tinkerer, but society depends on big projects (think about the roads you use...), which require big organizations, which have many more workers than bosses. As consumers, those workers may not support unions, but as workers, I'll bet quite a few do.
>The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for them to organize, since they all have smartphones and they all end up dissatisfied when Uber cuts their rates.
As a consumer who would much rather ride in a self-driving car than with a human driver, this notion pains my heart. Using unions to halt the progress of technology hurts us all.
I'm crossing my fingers you were being sarcastic. This is a tech community, after all.
your "progress of technology" is based off of the exploitation of the lower class. I'd much rather our resources be allocated in a way that doesn't force people to work 3 jobs.
If this was a different company in HN people would be clamoring that everyone else needs to get with the times and that this is just our favorite buzzword "disruption" at work. It doesn't apply to uber now, I guess just since they've crossed the invisible HN "us vs. them" threshold now that they have a lot of money.
I understand your point but there's a much less stifling middle ground. Unions can be grand things until a line is crossed. Higher wages for drivers? Sure. Safety and insurance? Absolutely. Prolonging the adaptation of a technology that will replace the dangerous alternative (humans operating cars)? Please, no: this job market is now dead for drivers. It's time to move on.
Or should we go back to horse-drawn carriages in consideration of the unemployed buggy drivers?
I'm sorry, but are we talking about the same company? Uber is not replacing taxi drivers with robots, it's replacing taxi drivers with taxi drivers. It's a dispatch service with a nice payment integration system. No matter how well it is done, there is no quantum leap to it.
This leads to the big philosophical question that has been relevant for some time. If we have the choice, which society is preferrable:
(1) Most services automated away, and those who don't have the skills or abilities to earn money are supported by taxing those who do
(2) technological progress is actively hindered in order to ensure that everyone has the skills to hold a job that pays enough to live on, or
(3) most services are automated away, and those who don't have the skills or abilities to earn enough to live are left to live in poverty (or starve)
And as technologists, which world should we push for? Ethics is not given nearly enough consideration among technologists, and this is one prime example.
I don't know that it is the popular opinion in my country (USA) but I'd choose to live in society (1). I grew up being convinced that a successful person is one who "earns" one's keep, but it's becoming clear that by turning our backs to those in poverty, we make the world a much worse place than if instead we normalized the class bracket to keep the poorest at an approximate income value of ~$30k/yr.
I believe you are grouping "those who don't have the skills or abilities" as one unit. Seems like a very large container to be making decisions about.
Let's exclude those who cannot learn enough to function in society. If anybody wants these people to starve, I haven't met them.
Suppose you graduate from college with a degree in repairing fax machines. Fax machines are quickly disappearing. Should you:
1) Continue to learn about fax machines while the rest of society pays for your food, shelter, and health care. After all, it's not for us to judge what you do with your life.
2) Expect fax machines to be mandated by law so that you and the other fax machine experts can have a job, or
3) Expect things to change. Try to match your own skills and desires with whatever most people want. That is, try to fit yourself into the society and world you find yourself in and not expect the world to change for you. (Whether or not the rest of us support you during this time is irrelevant, except in terms of whether it helps or hinders the change you need to make)
I believe this is the same set of alternatives you have offered, only looking at it from the individual level instead of as some hypothetical external observer.
4) Realize that repairing fax machines is pretty much your intellectual limit and now that fax machines are disappearing you don't have the mental capacity to learn how to fix self driving cars. You are now in the group "those who don't have the skills or abilities".
4) is what is actually happening now. The "bar" is constantly being raised.
You seem to have intentionally misrepresented options 1 and 3. The society originally described includes in option 1 supporting the fax repair man while he dives into founding a startup, starting a homely little cliffside cafe, busking on the streets or whatever else. It does not mandate that the recipient of the support continue to pursue a dead end against all evidence and logic.
That is assuming the fax repairman has the motivation to do all of those things you have mentioned. Considering that life ideally leads to a comfortable retirement for most individuals (i.e.: doing nothing and spending one's days leisurely is the ultimate goal as opposed to creating value for society). I think it is safe to say that most people, given the opportunity, will opt for this "lazy" style of life.
Now I'm not saying this is inherently a bad thing. When technology and automation improves to the point where laborers are made obsolete, could society potentially adopt an egalitarian system where through taxation, society can afford to let the laborers live in complacency with a satisfying slice of the pie, while the more ambitious (those who continue to push through with scientific and technological advancements) are rewarded with an even bigger piece of the pie? With increasing advancements, will society reach a point where there's more than enough pie for everyone?
"I think it is safe to say that most people, given the opportunity, will opt for this "lazy" style of life."
This seems to be the one "fact" that makes all the difference in the entire debate. My question is, how come all of history shows man's drive to explore, build, conquer, discover, organize, etc...yet you conclude the "safe" bet is the oppisite?
I don't want to sound rude or heartless, but, about "Let's exclude those who cannot learn enough to function in society. If anybody wants these people to starve, I haven't met them", I am curious as to why one would choose to support them, if they serve no purpose to society?
If we go down that line of thought let's skip waiting till they die and allow execution of people who serve no purpose to society. I know whole industries full of people who could be removed ... what a joy. Or not?!
I don't think that we have the right to play god on people's life. What I was saying is very different, I am saying that, as a society, it is peculiar that we would choose to support those people.
Ignoring them is not the same as taking their life.
I think to say that humans must serve a purpose in society based on their ability to make money is dangerously utilitarian. As it stands, I'd guess at least 20% of adults in America (shot in the dark) do not make any money and rely on others for food and shelter. These people are kept out of harm, and their safe mental state keeps other people out of harm. They can offer community service, familial or household care, and plenty of other things that do not profit them any cash. Most importantly, these people are spouses, parents, children, and grandchildren. They offer emotion and humility.
I know it seems like I'm doing my best to assert your rudeness or heartlessness, but I'm just trying to raise the point that one's monetary value is not wholly representative of their value in society.
I wasn't asserting that money is the determining factor in asserting one's purpose.
I was relating to the parent's point that some people cannot learn to function in society. These people couldn't offer things such as community service and some of them might be so separated from society from their handicap as to not have any one caring for them except the government agencies in charge of them.
If the lower classes are having to work three jobs, it's because of the scarcity of housing, not self-driving cars. Most poor people's biggest monthly expense is rent. An oversupply of housing would go a long way towards helping them.
Of course, the landowning classes will never allow this. We haven't really moved on since the middle ages.
Yeah but in this case no one who works for Uber is forced to actually do any work. This is an ad hoc, "I feel like making a few extra bones" type deal where they provide an affordable and convenient service to the populace. To say they are being exploited is wildly dramatic.
No, if all the services are unionized, those same unions will then use every means possible to get new laws passed that say you can't have a driver-less taxi. They won't just go quietly, as they watch robots take over, just like taxi drivers aren't now when confronted with uber.
Not every union is a political powerhouse capable of doing such. Eventually you'll reach a point where it becomes economically feasible for a company to wholesale fire it's drivers and roll out it's fleet of driverless cars. It's certainly possible that a union could push for a law against such, but that sounds a bit more like fear-mongering and an anti-union bias than anything else.
Not only that but they will drive the whole efficient and affordability premise into the ground just for the betterment of their drivers. In this case, with the competition being what it is, it would be more for the detriment.
This is a lot of anti-union FUD. Unions generally now don't seek to ban or outlaw non-union operations in the same field. Remember there are A LOT of unions and behaviors and platforms of various unions range widely.
Maybe I'm skewed - I'm from South Carolina - but I don't necessarily view unions as a monstrosity, surprisingly. I do hear the horror stories, but there must be some middle ground.
There's definitely a middle ground. I have a couple friends who are in unions, and they're very pro-union. They don't claim they're perfect, just that it's sure better than not having one.
I can certainly imagine why they would love their unions. They are great for the people, but shit for our states economy. Unfortunately, they have such lobby power it's tough to stop them here.
I find it amazing how well working-class unions have been demonized in modern American society. Especially when this[1] is happening. There was a comment on another post a few days/weeks ago about how the AMA and bar associations are basically unions for professionals that have avoided this demonization and that the software industry ought to consider something similar to prevent the fixing of wages and the depressing of wages using foreign workers. If such unionization directly benefited you, would you be in support of it then? (honest question)
Who wouldn't? But for every good thing about unions I can name you a bad. It's a matter of the individual and how they are effected. As an example, look at Camden, NJ. Most of it's industry vacated for other states because union labor in New Jersey is extraordinarily high (and powerful).
Another example, look at the cost of Metlife Stadium vs. whatever the stadium the Cowboys play in now. it's about 30% HIGHER in cost. Again, no fancy gadgets or beach front property, it's in swampland occupied by highways built by union labor.
Unions historically have done great things for workers and continue to do so. However, they have a habit of forcing corporations to move elsewhere and pissing off non-union laborers as a result.
Unionize? What for? They aren't forced to work for Uber. Organize? The very same people, many of whom never did this type of work before, let alone organize, you expect them to step up and try to?
As in, before Uber what were they doing, when Uber leaves what do you think they will be doing. Pretty much what they did before Uber, not be a taxi.
Unions were a necessary part of life when industrialization first took off, now they are not. In heavily regulated countries they are abusive of both the public and private entities they have workers within.
> Unions were a necessary part of life when industrialization first took off, now they are not. In heavily regulated countries they are abusive of both the public and private entities they have workers within.
All you anti-union people make them out to be the devil. It's ridiculous.
before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars
If Uber (or any other company) wants to replace them with self-driving cars, what stops them? My point here is that if self-driving cars have value in the future, they will be a secular trend that will come to pass whether or not a group of drivers are unionized.
The only option a union might have to prevent this is get political power/influence to get lawmakers to prevent new self-driving services from cropping up. But if we go in that direction, you can see what that situation looks like when you see car dealerships and their battles with Tesla.
If self-driving cars become a big reality, no union will save drivers. I sympathize with people losing income opportunities and jobs, but unions do not seem to be a feasible long-term answer here. They might prevent their specific employer from laying them off to replace them with self-driving cars. But they would not be able to stop the overall technological trend.
If I only lost while gambling 20% of the time, I would be ecstatic. Meanwhile in my job as a consultant, I get paid 30% of what my clients are actually billed. Uber takes 20%. My employer takes 70%. I fail to see the outrage.
What percentage do the cab companies take from their drivers?
You misinterpreted the poker analogy. When 20% is taken out of every pot, that includes the ones you lose. It doesn't mean you win with an 80% rate. When the rake is 20%, basically half the entire table's money is gone after 3-4 hours. (If you're going to criticize an analogy, you better understand the analogy.)
> Uber really just provides technical infrastructure
Would it be accurate to say centralised technical infrastructure? Simply transferring the data to the US is already probably breaking local data protection laws. I don't think Uber operates a franchise model with local infrastructure so countries are right to be concerned that names, addresses, credit cards and movement of individuals is being stored in a foreign country and open to data-mining and other abuse.
Do convicts in South Korea get a choice? I'm assuming the judge decrees a sentence and the convicted serve it, not that you're given the choice between going to jail and paying a fine.
> "[...]from next week will offer rewards of as much as 1 million won ($905) to people who provide information on Uber’s services. "
> "The maximum penalty for Uber’s alleged legal violation is a two-year prison sentence or a fine of as much as 20 million won[...]"
Can anyone clarify this for me?
I read it as two years in prison or pay a 20.000$ fine. The difference between two years in prison and 20.000$ seems very large to me. It seems slightly illogical to me if this is the case.
There are lots of crimes in the US punishable by a year in prison or a fine of up to $1k. I suspect the fines are leftover from when $1k was significantly more money.
Like US law you can be fined for a crime OR serve time (proper Boolean or: one, the other, both). The fine/prison limits are maximum, and decided on sentencing.
Presumably it's just about degrees of severity. If the case is decreed minor enough, the punishment is a fine up to $20.000; if it's more severe, the penalty is a prison sentence of some months up to 24 months in the most severe case.
Can't consumers decide what their safety requirements are? If they prefer a different service, for safety reasons, can't they just use that service instead?
Not really, because of information asymmetry. Users of taxi services, like users of medicine, are vastly less informed about the quality of the service than those that provide it.
Contrary to Uber's propaganda, legislation around taxis is not there, for the most part, to increase the revenue of taxi operators.
I don't understand your analogy to medical service. Surely I can assess the quality of taxi service I just received to the highest degree imaginable. And we now have fantastic systems in place to spread this information (e.g. Yelp, Facebook, etc.).
You generally want some guarantees before you consume the service.
Most would agree it is suboptimal if the first point you can assess the quality of your taxi service is after being raped and dumped out of town (or waking up deaf because your doctor was an alcoholic, which happened to someone I know; the doctor was of course struck off).
As to whether other systems like Yelp or Facebook are substitutes for the licensing process -- well, that is a reasonable argument to put forward. It's not the usual one we hear on HN though, which is just libertarian free-market-uber-alles ranting. One complaint I would have about using Yelp or Facebook is that they are private companies, and thus not accountable to the public in the way that government licensing services are.
Well arguably in parts of the US it is there due to restrictive practises. Much of the rest of the world has much more deregulated taxi services, with some regulation around non ripoff pricing and safety from being attacked by drivers being the main concerns.
Anyone with a smart phone to use Uber is capable of researching though. If they don't research the onus is on them. I don't just blindly buy products, or hire contractors it's not 1950. I always read reviews first. The people HAVE the power to find competitors in their area. If they donee en try that's not anyone's fault but their own.
Like you, I always have a charged battery, a data connection, and the time to conduct research.
I also have a PhD in chemistry, and I find this knowledge invaluable for assessing the potential for harm of all food additivies and environmental pollutants. I find this nicely complements my medical training, which of course helps me make the best decisions regarding my health, and my PhD in CS which keeps my data safe online. Of course my 15 years of MMA keeps me safe on the street, and my extensive knowledge of finance means I never have to worry about my bank's financial security.
I really don't understand why we need any governmental organisations!
It's not about pricing. In Germany one of the issues for Uber was that they weren't ensuring the vehicles had the more frequent mechanical safety checks that the law requires for commercial vehicles (the logic being that they do far more miles).
How is the average customer supposed to be able to decide how much risk is involved in the fact that one vehicle hasn't had its breaks inspected in the last X thousand miles, and another has? In the Uber world, how does the customer even get hold of that information?
It sounds perfectly reasonable to me to compare failing breaks with contaminated food. Both have the potential to be highly dangerous.
"In the Uber world, how does the customer even get hold of that information?"
Strictly speaking, there's nothing preventing Uber from making that information available when you book a ride. Not that I think that's a great way to deal with this...
If we were going to leave it up to the individual riders, building a profile to automatically filter for appropriate vehicles would make more sense - I reserve judgement as to whether it makes enough sense.
There are broad swaths in this community who are unwilling to understand the targets of their disruption - similar to those unwilling to understand why something that seems obtuse is the prescribed solution developed in a previous context. Brownfield software platforms and applications don't make sense to the next wave.
Regulations, society, governments, etc. don't make sense to the next wave of kids, but the themes of disruption and hacking are salient and seductive. Good on the next wave and each one after for seeing the world and thinking, "I can do better." That is the commandment within the religion of the technologist I appreciate.
Uber ceases to exist with driverless cars unless they become a car manufacturer and own the vehicles. You don't need the overhead of Uber to get driverless cars to your door. The companies working on driverless cars can wipe away Uber with far fewer indictments of CEOs. In Uber, I see a naivete in deploying disruption that will more likely place Uber on the heap of left coast bubbles than reward them with an institutional place in the firmament of global corporations.
It's time to get rid of the senior execs and let the investors run the house to extract maximum value until Google's driverless car subscription is pervasive. The leadership of Uber is too high a risk for the investors in Uber.
And, for the kids who don't need no rules, you will age to become us one day and see yourself in those coming to replace you. You will see them screaming to unravel the world while not realizing they are perturbing the world, not changing it. They are part of the world, not its master. They are the catalysts of churn but will repeat our mistakes. And another wave will crash on the shore...
There are broad swaths in this community who are unwilling to understand the targets of their disruption - similar to those unwilling to understand why something that seems obtuse is the prescribed solution developed in a previous context. Brownfield software platforms and applications don't make sense to the next wave.
Regulations, society, governments, etc. don't make sense to the next wave of kids, but the themes of disruption and hacking are salient and seductive. Good on the next wave and each one after for seeing the world and thinking, "I can do better." That is the commandment within the religion of the technologist I appreciate.
Uber ceases to exist with driverless cars unless they become a car manufacturer and own the vehicles. You don't need the overhead of Uber to get driverless cars to your door. The companies working on driverless cars can wipe away Uber with far fewer indictments of CEOs. In Uber, I see a naivete in deploying disruption that will more likely place Uber on the heap of left coast bubbles than reward them with an institutional place in the firmament of global corporations.
It's time to get rid of the senior execs and let the investors run the house to extract maximum value until Google's driverless car subscription is pervasive. The leadership of Uber is too high a risk for the investors in Uber.
And, for the kids who don't need no rules, you will age to become us one day and see yourself in those coming to replace you. You will see them screaming to unravel the world while not realizing they are perturbing the world, not changing it. They are part of the world, not its master. They are the catalysts of change and, in ways, improve life, but will repeat our mistakes. And another wave will crash on the shore...
Of course they could. This is about revenue. Governments don't make nearly as much money from Uber as they do from taxis. There's the licensing factor, but there's also the way the service is taxed. UberX drivers pay personal income tax, but in most cases are probably not companies, so they probably don't pay company tax. Even Uber's cut of each ride probably isn't recorded as revenue of the local Uber entity, assuming Uber uses the same structure as most other large tech companies.
Long story short, governments are losing a lot of revenue due to Uber and (similarly) Airbnb. Consumers won't abide that as a reason for shutting Uber down, though, so they claim it's less safe. Taxi companies are happy to play along with that.
That would require personal responsibility-- we certainly can't promote that. It might lead to a snowball effect where people might demand control over their own lives in other areas, such as substances they choose to consume, education they choose to pursue (or not pursue) or people taking charge of their own health. We certainly can't allow that, the "people" are helpless and if left to their own devices, they might just starve or overdose on Sudafed.
If you want a light touch regulation from the government about this, you might want to figure out a simple way to let riders know about the licensing and bonding of the taxi and/or driver. And presuming that forces all taxis to have insurance, the information asymmetry problem is solved because the insurance company will have much more information about safety.
To be clear, there is certainly information asymmetry around the insurance and bonding levels of a cab. And it's way too expensive to investigate before getting in the cab. It would be cheaper to just hire a car service.
So as a client, how would I currently pull the driver's criminal record (to check for DUIs and road rage incidents), insurance claims (to check for frequency of accidents), vehicle maintenance records (to ensure I'm not driven in something that's going to fall apart when we hit 65 mph) and proof of high liability insurance (to ensure my medical costs will be covered if an accident happens)?
To anyone who knows more about law, is it legally/morally justifiable to hold individual executives liable for company tactics to this extent? Why don't they just ban/fine the company instead?
Depends heavily on the kind of law, and the kind of company. In the US, the main attraction of being a LLC is that the liability, for the most part, stops at the juridical person level, with natural persons being protected. Doesn't apply to this case, as SK law is probably radically different.
IANAL but (in Ireland) liability usually stops with the company unless the directors are shown to have acted outside company law.
Given that Uber's business model seems to be based on "fuck the law, we'll do what we want" - in my view is that the management, morally, can't rely on that same legal system to insulate them from punishment.
I'm very happy that South Korea has taken these steps. That serves as a very clear indication that Seoul does not want Uber declaring their own law on the country.
The issue goes beyond the technology and law. It's more about the culture of place where Uber operates in. Making a living as a taxi driver in Seoul is different from how it is to do the same in San Francisco. Consumers have different expectations and are wary about different safety issues.
This must be true for each country. I don't think Uber can pervade the entire globe as much as facebook or google. Each place will lag but eventually come up with their own version of Uber that has better understanding of their locale. I think it's different from how people wish to have the same McDonald's experience across the globe. And there is no economy of scale by operating in two very difference places. Consumers in Seoul do not benefit from Uber's operation in San Francisco. Perhaps there is economy of scale in developing the technology, but not in operations.
Uber is the pioneer but is not meant to take over the entire globe.
146 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 216 ms ] threadUber needs to slow down the spin. It might work in metros in the US, but it's not going to work in Seoul.
What about the client's rights?
However the odd thing about Uber in Korea is that taxis are already relatively cheap. It isn't quite the overpriced racket it seems to be in other places. Also I find it odd that suddenly Korea is concerned about safety especially given the overall lack of safety consciousness at the government level (for example overloaded ferries sinking due to government officials looking the other way in regards to permitting and safety inspections.) I lived in Korea for a total of 4 years and, it comes down to this: nationalism and protectionism. This isn't about safety at all -- this is about someone getting (or not getting) paid. The mad cow hysteria a few years ago is a great example -- North American producers were effectively shut out of the market over unsubstantiated government claims of a mad cow risk.. Thus effectively subsidizing a far less efficient domestic market. During the time of their 'concern' over mad cow, not a single American or Candian was harmed by the so-called tainted beef. Yet safety was the propaganda with which they effectively killed beef imports. The Uber situation is no different. The Chaebols own Korea -- to an even far greater scale than large corporations 'own' the US. Korea is almost entirely run by three (perhaps 4) corporations. Everything from media, communications, heavy industry real estate, autos, food production.. All owned by Samsung, LG, Daewoo (and Lotte.) Wrong or right isn't my point, my point is that Uber isn't playing with (or paying) the right people, thus this action by the government. There's a reason the largest Korean banknote was no bigger than 10,000 won ($10) (though now they apparently have a $50 note) -- it was a result of a feeble attempt to reduce large cash payments under the table. Here's a badly written article discussing that idea: http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=15...
How would the client be informed on issues such as
* proper vehicle maintenance records
* prior criminal record
* history of accidents and insurance claims
* presence of proper insurance to cover client's medical costs or property loss costs in case of an accident
This is something that is required of properly licensed transportation companies (i.e. anybody working under Uber Black). Until the client has a quick and convenient way to research that information, we can only pretend the consent is informed.
So you would, correct? Probably because you would then earn their business over your competitors, right?
If your answer is no, then why not? What if your competitors did, would you then?
If I offer you a ride to the airport for ten bucks,should the state prosecute me criminally? Or is that true only if I use the I Internet to do it? What if I post in an online forum?
The state can certainly require me to purchase insurance to own a vehicle. Clearly in the public's interest. Perhaps that insurance should cover riders. Great discussion. But this is simply crony capitalism. There may be risk, but there is no crime here. At all.
That's not to say there is no "public interest", but rather that the public interest is something that has to be balanced against other interests, and the freedom to ply a trade is a pretty important one.
That is where you are quite wrong. The regulations of taxis goes way back to carriage regulations in the 19th century. The reason for this is clear: to ensure that the vehicle is maintained, the driver doesn't have a history of attacking or abducting passengers, and that pricing is transparent and passengers aren't gouged.
Taxis are not private transportation, period. They are a form of public transportation and function more like a transit utility. To not offer basic regulation of taxis is to leave the public at large in significant danger of being ripped off, maimed, and/or assaulted.
Those days are long gone, however. Today I can buy a used car on Ebay, committing thousands of dollars to a sale for a product I've never seen and a seller I'll never meet, all without worrying about the transaction. Why? Because information flows much more freely. The commercial transaction that used to take a government guarantee now just requires an open exchange of information about past history -- which is trivial to accomplish.
The 1800s are long gone. Time to move on.
No but you should be properly insured and bonded to prevent client liability. You can argue Laissez-faire, but we tried that in the 1860-1890's and it really sucked. We collectively decided individual safety is worth more then a fatter wallet.
Your argument works from an Objectivist stand point, but Objectivism doesn't work in the real world.
Therefore a potential liability lawsuit will result in no net economic gain, but restoring what you already had (I.E.: How much is your SO's life actually worth to you?). If you don't concede this fact, then every single instance of the situation correcting itself, I.E.: Crash and law suit, will result in a net loss to the community GDP and private loss of money. The service can have no economic value what so ever to the seller, or purchaser on a macro scale, its just becomes Russian Roulette as a service.
The issue with Randian Objectivism is it normalizes human death to solve micro economic problems.
We could basically eliminate car accidents tomorrow through extreme measures. We could lower speed limits to walking speeds, cover all vehicles in cushions, and require everyone to hire the services of a (licensed and bonded) crossing guard before crossing the street. If it saves one life or debilitating injury, isn't it worth it? Obviously not.
So at the end of the day, someone is balancing things like time, money, and effort with safety. The only question is who should decide what a reasonable cost is. I would argue that, given the right tools, you are better at protecting your family than whoever runs the taxi commission, DMV, or even the city council.
Reasonable people can disagree on what a reasonable cost is. They can disagree on who makes the decision and how. But it's not reasonable to jump into polemics about who has a morally superior worldview.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Randian, so I don't care to defend Randian mistakes, but I disagree with your logic on this point.
I've editted the post to more correctly express my opinion (namely the last sentence).
If you're going to vote me down please explain how I am wrong and how not being able to put a price on life is more than just silly romanticism.
The actual answer is I can't. Because your life has infinite value to you, because without which you may not acquire any other wealth. I.E.: Your life is worth all the wealthy you may obtain to yourself, or potentially all wealth in existence.
Therefore, what is the quantifiable value of something with inelastic demand? Economics tells us its infinite (or we have to divide by zero to calculate it). But you say otherwise.
You don't have children, this is a thought experiment to demonstrate an argument. You just have you. You're dodging the question.
I find its easier to put a price on the abstract notion of the life of someone you don't know then your own.
It's perfectly valid to question whether or not the current regime in various places has been effective at achieving these goals. It's also fine to change the way it all works. But dismissing it out of hand like this is purposefully, dangerously ignorant.
[1] is language like that useful?
Uber drivers who want to be hailed from the street or use a meter need to i) use the correct meter; ii) use a wheelchair accessible vehicle; iii) "do the knowledge".
Uner drivers have an alternitive. They could operate as minicabs. That allows them to use the app for booking; they don't need to have wheelchair accessible vehicles and they don't need to do the knowledge. But it does mean that they can't use a meter for pricing - they need to be able to agree a price before they journey starts.
"Things that control or store money" (payphones, vending machines, ticket machines, taxi meters, gambling and TOTE machines) are all high profile targets for criminal gangs and for people wishing to commit fraud. It's probably a good thing that a limited range of taxi meters is allowed to be used, although the current system of assessing and approving meters is probably sub-optimal.
Why must a prospective Uber customer be forced to pay specifically for "the knowledge" (an insane, financially risky, multi-year investment in human capital) to have access to cars running a variable fare business model? How do they benefit from having their choices restricted like this? But with Uber, the case of "unsuspecting user gets ripped off" is a lot harder to make.
I mean sure, when it comes to privileging a set of drivers with the power to take street hails you have a good excuse about protecting random tourists from ostentatious fraud. But requiring that all variable-fare hails have the Knowledge? Seriously? That's incumbent-protection and nothing else.
Not every taxi system works as bad as San Francisco's and in some areas (eg in Germany), when counting by the numbers Uber is the bully: tons of money and international reach vs. regional taxi companies with a handful of cars.
People tend to be quite opposed to 'rent-seeking schemes' on hn. Except when it comes to Uber, which is _the_ example of a rent seeking, as the 20% parasite between customers and drivers while trying to tear down the advantages of the existing system that get in their way (safety regulations, accessibility guarantees).
Are there cases of uber driver on passenger violence and if so how do they compare to licensed taxi driver on passenger violence statistically? This just feels like fear mo getting from the anxiety ridden to though.
I honestly don't understand how you can be on a news site for start ups and be against fair competition.
This is a reductive and overly simplistic view that invites that total absence of regulation of any services.
The problem is that consumers are unfortunately not well informed, and that 'fair competition' is extraordinarily difficult to maintain in practice. That's why regulation happens in the first place – to prevent the worst excesses of the market.
I honestly don't understand how you can be on a news site for start ups and be against fair competition.
Then stretch yourself a little harder. Nobody's against fair competition - is it that hard to believe that some people feel fair competition is most effectively achieved not through uncontrolled free markets, but through broadly free markets with some state intervention to ensure a fair playing field? That's not too left-field, and it's the principle that every western state is operating on.
I honestly can't understand how an adult in the 21st century can arguing against vehicle insurance. You don't even own a stake in Uber! You are arguing for adding uninsured drivers to the roads that you use, just to make other people rich. It's not even in your own self interest. Talk about irrational.
[1] e.g. because they have regular non-commercial insurance that isn't valid when operating a taxi, and Uber fails to check that their drivers are insured or educate them about what insurance they need. This has been a common complaint against Uber in various jurisdictions.
It's not sociopathic. There are (and were) countries where driver insurance is not compulsory. I lived in one, and it wasn't that bad. If you want to be sure that you get paid for damage, that's what insurance is for — insure yourself.
This is the kind of unnecessarily provocative embellishment that HN guidelines specifically call out:
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Correct.
No licensed electricians? Sorry your house is on fire!
The problem with Randian Objectivism is it normalizes human death to solve micro economical problems. I'd rather have micro economical problems then human death.
Edit: Actually I just remembered you can wire your own house in NH, but it still has to be inspected. They are not totally crazy.
The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for them to organize, since they all have smartphones and they all end up dissatisfied when Uber cuts their rates.
Unionizing is a contentious issue not just for the employers but also for the consumers, especially when you look at how unions - in the industries and sectors where they have a stranglehold on affairs - seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers.
As a disinterested observer, I ask this in good faith :
Are there documented cases of industries or even governmental sectors where unionizing - whether in America or abroad, say France - has proved immensely beneficial to the consumers and patrons?
Are they not just self-serving instruments and political vote banks?
I am yet to find a single heavily-unionized entity proving to enhance my experience as a consumer.
Unionization has nothing to do with your experience as a consumer.
> seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers.
That's entirely the fucking point of unions - to serve the members.
A lot of social movements granting more vacation time to people in France happened through generalised strikes caused by unions.
The argument goes that since people can be more productive when well rested and not sick, then companies can in theory pass the savings onto customers. Whether this happens in practice is slightly independent of unions getting health care and vacation for the workers.
Serving the interests of the union members - representing them in their negotiations with management, to be precise - is a union's reason for being. They might also hold their members to a standard of professional ethics, depending on the union, and that might or might not benefit you as a consumer, but that's not the immediate goal.
> Are there documented cases of industries or even governmental sectors where unionizing - whether in America or abroad, say France - has proved immensely beneficial to the consumers and patrons?
The example that leaps to mind, in part because the comparison is so easy, is the press. In my town the difference in quality of output between journalists who are members of the guild and those who are not is quite noticeable.
Whether you want to credit that to the union, or the fact that better journalists are also better career strategists or something, is up to you. You're focused on the wrong thing vis a vis unions. They are there for the workers, that might or might not play out well for the consumer.
To create another entrenched interest group whose influence I cannot hope to counter, using my already significance-dwindled vote, in a state that is already rife with the influence of such powerful unions?
In California, the biggest special interest donor, the California Teachers Association, spent more than $118 million on campaigns in the state during the past five election cycles.[1]
And what do the "consumers" get for that?
The Golden State's fourth-graders ranked 47th in the nation in both math and reading. Eighth-graders ranked 45th in math and 42nd in reading.[2]
Looking at states like California, it is not a stretch to extrapolate that unions - once they reach a critical mass - tend to indulge in a cycle of voracious self-fattening with their growing influence, election cycle after election cycle.
As a consumer, I am supposed to help create more unions and enable this kind of behavior?
[1] http://californiawatch.org/money-and-politics/states-top-100...
[2] http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_24475260/california-students-s...
edit: typo
You're welcome to do whatever you like. The way you continue to phrase things is a little odd, though. If you define yourself purely by your role as a consumer an awful lot of stuff in life is going to look pretty odd because it's a limited point of view.
> As a consumer, I am supposed to help create more unions and enable this kind of behavior?
This is such an odd question. I don't think anyone in the world believes it's your job to create unions. In fact, that's what we all decided at the last meeting. "It is absolutely not wozniacki's job, in his role as a consumer or otherwise, to create unions." We didn't tell you because we were worried you might be offended.
> Looking at states like California, it is not a stretch to extrapolate that unions - once they reach a critical mass - tend to indulge in a cycle of voracious self-fattening with their growing influence, election cycle after election cycle.
Are you claiming that union participation among primary school educators correlates strongly with lack of achievement among students? I'm pretty sure the top achieving states in this regard - Maryland, Massachusetts, Virginia, New York, and so on - have teacher unions.
I lived in California for years and I'm sympathetic to the fact that government there is completely insane. I think an explanation like "it's because of the unions!" is reductionist and too simple.
WUT? Do you play any other role in society than that of consumer? Worker, maybe?
Perhaps you're a Titan of Industry, or a self-employed tinkerer, but society depends on big projects (think about the roads you use...), which require big organizations, which have many more workers than bosses. As consumers, those workers may not support unions, but as workers, I'll bet quite a few do.
As a consumer who would much rather ride in a self-driving car than with a human driver, this notion pains my heart. Using unions to halt the progress of technology hurts us all.
I'm crossing my fingers you were being sarcastic. This is a tech community, after all.
Or should we go back to horse-drawn carriages in consideration of the unemployed buggy drivers?
> The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars
(1) Most services automated away, and those who don't have the skills or abilities to earn money are supported by taxing those who do
(2) technological progress is actively hindered in order to ensure that everyone has the skills to hold a job that pays enough to live on, or
(3) most services are automated away, and those who don't have the skills or abilities to earn enough to live are left to live in poverty (or starve)
And as technologists, which world should we push for? Ethics is not given nearly enough consideration among technologists, and this is one prime example.
Maybe I should just move to Denmark.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism
Let's exclude those who cannot learn enough to function in society. If anybody wants these people to starve, I haven't met them.
Suppose you graduate from college with a degree in repairing fax machines. Fax machines are quickly disappearing. Should you:
1) Continue to learn about fax machines while the rest of society pays for your food, shelter, and health care. After all, it's not for us to judge what you do with your life.
2) Expect fax machines to be mandated by law so that you and the other fax machine experts can have a job, or
3) Expect things to change. Try to match your own skills and desires with whatever most people want. That is, try to fit yourself into the society and world you find yourself in and not expect the world to change for you. (Whether or not the rest of us support you during this time is irrelevant, except in terms of whether it helps or hinders the change you need to make)
I believe this is the same set of alternatives you have offered, only looking at it from the individual level instead of as some hypothetical external observer.
4) is what is actually happening now. The "bar" is constantly being raised.
Now I'm not saying this is inherently a bad thing. When technology and automation improves to the point where laborers are made obsolete, could society potentially adopt an egalitarian system where through taxation, society can afford to let the laborers live in complacency with a satisfying slice of the pie, while the more ambitious (those who continue to push through with scientific and technological advancements) are rewarded with an even bigger piece of the pie? With increasing advancements, will society reach a point where there's more than enough pie for everyone?
This seems to be the one "fact" that makes all the difference in the entire debate. My question is, how come all of history shows man's drive to explore, build, conquer, discover, organize, etc...yet you conclude the "safe" bet is the oppisite?
Ignoring them is not the same as taking their life.
I know it seems like I'm doing my best to assert your rudeness or heartlessness, but I'm just trying to raise the point that one's monetary value is not wholly representative of their value in society.
I was relating to the parent's point that some people cannot learn to function in society. These people couldn't offer things such as community service and some of them might be so separated from society from their handicap as to not have any one caring for them except the government agencies in charge of them.
Of course, the landowning classes will never allow this. We haven't really moved on since the middle ages.
[1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/11/daily-c...
Another example, look at the cost of Metlife Stadium vs. whatever the stadium the Cowboys play in now. it's about 30% HIGHER in cost. Again, no fancy gadgets or beach front property, it's in swampland occupied by highways built by union labor.
Unions historically have done great things for workers and continue to do so. However, they have a habit of forcing corporations to move elsewhere and pissing off non-union laborers as a result.
As in, before Uber what were they doing, when Uber leaves what do you think they will be doing. Pretty much what they did before Uber, not be a taxi.
Unions were a necessary part of life when industrialization first took off, now they are not. In heavily regulated countries they are abusive of both the public and private entities they have workers within.
http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-new-york-city-office-pro...
All you anti-union people make them out to be the devil. It's ridiculous.
and they all have UBER app installed, same app that spies on everything that happens on the phone, fancy that :)
If Uber (or any other company) wants to replace them with self-driving cars, what stops them? My point here is that if self-driving cars have value in the future, they will be a secular trend that will come to pass whether or not a group of drivers are unionized.
The only option a union might have to prevent this is get political power/influence to get lawmakers to prevent new self-driving services from cropping up. But if we go in that direction, you can see what that situation looks like when you see car dealerships and their battles with Tesla.
If self-driving cars become a big reality, no union will save drivers. I sympathize with people losing income opportunities and jobs, but unions do not seem to be a feasible long-term answer here. They might prevent their specific employer from laying them off to replace them with self-driving cars. But they would not be able to stop the overall technological trend.
Crazy, but true.
What percentage do the cab companies take from their drivers?
Would it be accurate to say centralised technical infrastructure? Simply transferring the data to the US is already probably breaking local data protection laws. I don't think Uber operates a franchise model with local infrastructure so countries are right to be concerned that names, addresses, credit cards and movement of individuals is being stored in a foreign country and open to data-mining and other abuse.
"The maximum penalty for Uber’s alleged legal violation is a two-year prison sentence or a fine of as much as 20 million won..."
So the fine would be at most ~$20,000. That seems low compared to 2 years in jail!
I've noticed this too, is this a relic from the times when the dollar amount would have been a lot more proportionate to time served?
> "The maximum penalty for Uber’s alleged legal violation is a two-year prison sentence or a fine of as much as 20 million won[...]"
Can anyone clarify this for me?
I read it as two years in prison or pay a 20.000$ fine. The difference between two years in prison and 20.000$ seems very large to me. It seems slightly illogical to me if this is the case.
Can't consumers decide what their safety requirements are? If they prefer a different service, for safety reasons, can't they just use that service instead?
Contrary to Uber's propaganda, legislation around taxis is not there, for the most part, to increase the revenue of taxi operators.
Most would agree it is suboptimal if the first point you can assess the quality of your taxi service is after being raped and dumped out of town (or waking up deaf because your doctor was an alcoholic, which happened to someone I know; the doctor was of course struck off).
As to whether other systems like Yelp or Facebook are substitutes for the licensing process -- well, that is a reasonable argument to put forward. It's not the usual one we hear on HN though, which is just libertarian free-market-uber-alles ranting. One complaint I would have about using Yelp or Facebook is that they are private companies, and thus not accountable to the public in the way that government licensing services are.
I also have a PhD in chemistry, and I find this knowledge invaluable for assessing the potential for harm of all food additivies and environmental pollutants. I find this nicely complements my medical training, which of course helps me make the best decisions regarding my health, and my PhD in CS which keeps my data safe online. Of course my 15 years of MMA keeps me safe on the street, and my extensive knowledge of finance means I never have to worry about my bank's financial security.
I really don't understand why we need any governmental organisations!
How is the average customer supposed to be able to decide how much risk is involved in the fact that one vehicle hasn't had its breaks inspected in the last X thousand miles, and another has? In the Uber world, how does the customer even get hold of that information?
It sounds perfectly reasonable to me to compare failing breaks with contaminated food. Both have the potential to be highly dangerous.
Strictly speaking, there's nothing preventing Uber from making that information available when you book a ride. Not that I think that's a great way to deal with this...
If we were going to leave it up to the individual riders, building a profile to automatically filter for appropriate vehicles would make more sense - I reserve judgement as to whether it makes enough sense.
Regulations, society, governments, etc. don't make sense to the next wave of kids, but the themes of disruption and hacking are salient and seductive. Good on the next wave and each one after for seeing the world and thinking, "I can do better." That is the commandment within the religion of the technologist I appreciate.
Uber ceases to exist with driverless cars unless they become a car manufacturer and own the vehicles. You don't need the overhead of Uber to get driverless cars to your door. The companies working on driverless cars can wipe away Uber with far fewer indictments of CEOs. In Uber, I see a naivete in deploying disruption that will more likely place Uber on the heap of left coast bubbles than reward them with an institutional place in the firmament of global corporations.
It's time to get rid of the senior execs and let the investors run the house to extract maximum value until Google's driverless car subscription is pervasive. The leadership of Uber is too high a risk for the investors in Uber.
And, for the kids who don't need no rules, you will age to become us one day and see yourself in those coming to replace you. You will see them screaming to unravel the world while not realizing they are perturbing the world, not changing it. They are part of the world, not its master. They are the catalysts of churn but will repeat our mistakes. And another wave will crash on the shore...
Regulations, society, governments, etc. don't make sense to the next wave of kids, but the themes of disruption and hacking are salient and seductive. Good on the next wave and each one after for seeing the world and thinking, "I can do better." That is the commandment within the religion of the technologist I appreciate.
Uber ceases to exist with driverless cars unless they become a car manufacturer and own the vehicles. You don't need the overhead of Uber to get driverless cars to your door. The companies working on driverless cars can wipe away Uber with far fewer indictments of CEOs. In Uber, I see a naivete in deploying disruption that will more likely place Uber on the heap of left coast bubbles than reward them with an institutional place in the firmament of global corporations.
It's time to get rid of the senior execs and let the investors run the house to extract maximum value until Google's driverless car subscription is pervasive. The leadership of Uber is too high a risk for the investors in Uber.
And, for the kids who don't need no rules, you will age to become us one day and see yourself in those coming to replace you. You will see them screaming to unravel the world while not realizing they are perturbing the world, not changing it. They are part of the world, not its master. They are the catalysts of change and, in ways, improve life, but will repeat our mistakes. And another wave will crash on the shore...
Long story short, governments are losing a lot of revenue due to Uber and (similarly) Airbnb. Consumers won't abide that as a reason for shutting Uber down, though, so they claim it's less safe. Taxi companies are happy to play along with that.
To be clear, there is certainly information asymmetry around the insurance and bonding levels of a cab. And it's way too expensive to investigate before getting in the cab. It would be cheaper to just hire a car service.
Given that Uber's business model seems to be based on "fuck the law, we'll do what we want" - in my view is that the management, morally, can't rely on that same legal system to insulate them from punishment.
This must be true for each country. I don't think Uber can pervade the entire globe as much as facebook or google. Each place will lag but eventually come up with their own version of Uber that has better understanding of their locale. I think it's different from how people wish to have the same McDonald's experience across the globe. And there is no economy of scale by operating in two very difference places. Consumers in Seoul do not benefit from Uber's operation in San Francisco. Perhaps there is economy of scale in developing the technology, but not in operations.
Uber is the pioneer but is not meant to take over the entire globe.