|
Whenever I try to tell my friends Uber is a bad company, they all poo poo on me and say things like "all my drivers like working for them. The city is terrible for trying to run them out, we don't need extra safety measures."
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
Austin hasn't been the same since we lost Roy's Taxi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
I recently moved from Austin to Denton and took Uber back from a bar a few nights ago. If there are other cab services here that are quick, inexpensive and run at 1:00 in the morning I'd like to hear about them. In the cities I can definitely see the rationale behind opposing Uber, but I have to think the positives outweigh the negatives here. Interesting thing is my driver was an ex-fracking worker who lives out in Krum. Got laid off during the plunge in energy prices. He doesn't make nearly as much as he did when he was working in the fields, but his kids were grown he said, and he made enough money to get by.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
I don't think the objection is to ride-sharing as a concept (though the idea of a gig economy becoming widespread is troubling), its that Uber exploits the gently caress out of its drivers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
1stGear posted:I don't think the objection is to ride-sharing as a concept (though the idea of a gig economy becoming widespread is troubling), its that Uber exploits the gently caress out of its drivers. They are directly related actually. Remember that contractors are much more disposable and they don't receive benefits such as healthcare. So what the spread of the "gig economy" does is skew the power dynamic even further towards corporations (which is why Uber is able to exploit its drivers).
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
1stGear posted:I don't think the objection is to ride-sharing as a concept (though the idea of a gig economy becoming widespread is troubling), its that Uber exploits the gently caress out of its drivers. The issues with ridesharing are why it's attractive (cheap rates).
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The issues with ridesharing are why it's attractive (cheap rates). Cheap rates aren't what make ridesharing attractive (if it was, Uber wouldn't be able to pull its ridiculous surge pricing). Here in Austin catching an Uber is often the same price or more than the price of getting a cab for the same ride. What makes it attractive is the convenience that exists because of both of the technology it uses and the current abundance of drivers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
e_angst posted:Cheap rates aren't what make ridesharing attractive (if it was, Uber wouldn't be able to pull its ridiculous surge pricing). Here in Austin catching an Uber is often the same price or more than the price of getting a cab for the same ride. What makes it attractive is the convenience that exists because of both of the technology it uses and the current abundance of drivers. You're right, I should've said what makes it exploitive is lots of drivers trying to struggle over the same small pool (which is also what makes it convenient). Rates are also subsidized though, at least on a high level scale.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:They are directly related actually. Remember that contractors are much more disposable and they don't receive benefits such as healthcare. So what the spread of the "gig economy" does is skew the power dynamic even further towards corporations (which is why Uber is able to exploit its drivers). computer parts posted:The issues with ridesharing are why it's attractive (cheap rates). Yeah, fair enough. I temporarily slipped into a magical world where capitalism was not an inherently exploitative economic model.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
My issue is that they changed the definition of the phrase "ride sharing".
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Hey as a complete unintended consequence to the GOP"s tireless work on behalf of women's health, somehow the abortion rate went down? Weird huh. Hey these things happen v  v
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Good thing they stopped all those unsafe abortions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
How many abortions have occurred since then in places where they don't track statistics?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
saintonan posted:How many abortions have occurred since then in places where they don't track statistics? Huh, so you're saying one could read this totally not the point of the bill in the first place accident as actually a decrease in safe, medically performed abortions. Hmmmm nah lol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
zoux posted:Hey as a complete unintended consequence to the GOP"s tireless work on behalf of women's health, somehow the abortion rate went down? Weird huh. Now show the abortion rates for states surrounding Texas
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Now show the abortion rates for states surrounding Texas Not sure you're going to find consistent data for Matamoros, Reynosa, and Juarez.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
If these women could get to other states for safe, effective, constitutionally guaranteed abortion then it wouldn't be an issue to get to the clinics in the middle/west of the state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
zoux posted:If these women could get to other states for safe, effective, constitutionally guaranteed abortion then it wouldn't be an issue to get to the clinics in the middle/west of the state. I can't remember where I read it but RBG called Texas out for saying women in El Paso could just get abortions in New Mexico, when logically if they actually cared about women's health they wouldn't want them doing that because New Mexico doesn't have the safety requirements that Texas now does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I can't remember where I read it but RBG called Texas out for saying women in El Paso could just get abortions in New Mexico, when logically if they actually cared about women's health they wouldn't want them doing that because New Mexico doesn't have the safety requirements that Texas now does. It's just so patently false and in fact does the opposite of improving women's health. It's one of the few things that still has the power to angry up my blood, watching some old white man up on the cross about how he's just lookin out for poor women and how dare people say he has ulterior motives 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I can't remember where I read it but RBG called Texas out for saying women in El Paso could just get abortions in New Mexico, when logically if they actually cared about women's health they wouldn't want them doing that because New Mexico doesn't have the safety requirements that Texas now does. It was in the Whole Women's Health oral arguments and it was pretty   "Our new regulations are essential for protecting women's health but it's not a burden because if there's a convenient clinic over the border eh no big deal just go there it's fine" "Wait why are you telling women to go to New Mexico if the clinics there are too unsafe to operate in Texas?" "Oh well I don't know about that I trust the New Mexico government to regulate its clinics and make sure they're safe" "No but we really know what they do in New Mexico and they don't meet your new standards" "No really it's fine I'm sure they're safe just go there ladies"
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Abortion is ... complicated. I'm pro-choice but one of the biggest shocks to my system was at the state capital during the night the law was passed and the place was filled with protesters. But it wasn't them that shocked me but the pro-life people outside (quite a few of them), very quiet, wearing blue shirts and most of them women. The fact is they thought abortion was murder and a sin. Another interesting thing was the conflict between the TDP and the protesters, with the Democratic Party activists trying to steer the protesters out of the capitol to go listen to speeches in some park somewhere, with the Trots telling other people not to listen to them. The Trots felt the party was admitting defeat and trying to steer the movement into electing Democrats and Wendy Davis. (Which didn't work out, obviously.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Abortion is ... complicated. I'm pro-choice but one of the biggest shocks to my system was at the state capital during the night the law was passed and the place was filled with protesters. But it wasn't them that shocked me but the pro-life people outside (quite a few of them), very quiet, wearing blue shirts and most of them women. The fact is they thought abortion was murder and a sin. I don't get why you were shocked. This is what religion does to people's brains. Logic goes out the window and is replaced by nonsense, even when said nonsense makes people support causes that are against their own self-interests.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
I used to totally understand people who were against abortion. But then I approached it as a logical problem. If it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy that is only a few cells because of the potential that will become a life, then it is equally wrong to use protection because that sexual encounter could have produced a life, and its wrong not to procreate with any given woman I see because I am denying a potential life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
blue squares posted:I used to totally understand people who were against abortion. But then I approached it as a logical problem. There's your issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
The prayer circles and piety during the protests weren't surprising to me, growing up in a household that taught me abortion is murder was enough to know that yes people do genuinely believe that. For supporters of laws like this, except for like young children and teenagers who haven't been exposed to other information or had the opportunity to think critically about the issue of course, that belief is a self-justification for being anti-sex and pro-punishment of women who have sex. Nobody wants to think they're a bad person or that they delight in suffering, after all, even if they're supporting laws that do nothing but increase medical risks for women while opposing actually effective means of reducing abortions like contraception and sex ed because women who don't want kids shouldn't be having sex.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
zoux posted:It's just so patently false and in fact does the opposite of improving women's health. It's one of the few things that still has the power to angry up my blood, watching some old white man up on the cross about how he's just lookin out for poor women and how dare people say he has ulterior motives Hey, but he wants to have a/the final say in what a woman can do with her body. After all, she wouldn't be pregnant if it weren't for a man (please ignore the story Lord and savior Jesus Christ which is the literal truth). Some of these assholes can't even concede that point in regards to rape. I really hate this state so much sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Abortion is super easy to get real weird about because there's so much cultural programming about how terrible it is, even on the left, that without the ability to critically analyze your own thought process and knowledge of biology and the history of reproductive control as a political tool it's super easy to get caught up in some insane bullshit. Until you get pregnant or get someone pregnant, then your case is totally different than all those other people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
I got in an environmental argument today and was presented with a novel point: coal, oil, and gas may be harmful to the environment but their exploitation has led to more good for the human race than harm. I mean, I don't disagree really, but fossil fuels are just so lovely. I wish I had alternatives and didn't live in a suburban wasteland. God I love the texags politics board!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
The Mandingo posted:I got in an environmental argument today and was presented with a novel point: coal, oil, and gas may be harmful to the environment but their exploitation has led to more good for the human race than harm. That's not a good point by that other person. It's a rhetorical strategy of shifting goalposts. The history of coal and stuff isn't relevant to what we need to do going forward
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Bring back whale oil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Bring back whale oil. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Is everyone amped for county conventions?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Texas is still imprisoning an inmate who was found innocent in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Texas is still imprisoning an inmate who was found innocent in 2008. At least it's a step down from executing known innocent men.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
I read a story in the Statesman today about growing ties between Austin and San Antonio. Steve Adler is quoted as saying we need to do "forward visioning" for the future. I can't stand that guy sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Texas is still imprisoning an inmate who was found innocent in 2008. It's what Scalia would have wanted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I read a story in the Statesman today about growing ties between Austin and San Antonio. What about the 50 miles in between? I-35 is growing at a big clip but you still have San Marcos, NB as decent sized cities, along with the Schertz down in SA and Kyle/Buda up in Austin. edit: Maybe I misread that. Let's get that rail line going, we can grow ties when I don't want to shoot myself in the head every time I drive to Austin. skipdogg fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Kyle is basically an Austin suburb at this point though
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:What about the 50 miles in between? I-35 is growing at a big clip but you still have San Marcos, NB as decent sized cities, along with the Schertz down in SA and Kyle/Buda up in Austin. When the San Antonio Raiders becomes a thing everything will fill in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
skipdogg posted:What about the 50 miles in between? I-35 is growing at a big clip but you still have San Marcos, NB as decent sized cities, along with the Schertz down in SA and Kyle/Buda up in Austin. The rail line is temporarily dead because Union Pacific said that Lone Star Rail wasn't allowed to use their right of way anymore which the whole thing depended on. I think they're supposed to start looking for alternative ROW but it's precarious right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:33
|
|