|
computer parts posted:Could be, but no. "Nuh uh they don't" is not a very convincing explanation for why people prefer using services like Amazon and Uber. Do you think that people would rather use their alternatives and yet choose them anyway for... some inscrutable reason, and if so, can you elaborate on it?
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:"Nuh uh they don't" is not a very convincing explanation for why people prefer using services like Amazon and Uber. Do you think that people would rather use their alternatives and yet choose them anyway for... some inscrutable reason, and if so, can you elaborate on it? A very large reason is just that they are the first service that comes to mind. That's a result of promotion, not quality of service.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:A very large reason is just that they are the first service that comes to mind. That's a result of promotion, not quality of service. This has been run into the ground in this thread, but either you are ideologically committed to disliking Uber or the cab companies in your town are unusually well run. My and others' experience with cab companies has been really terrible, with the cheating you on fares, lying about broken card readers and change, refusing to pick you up if your route is inconvenient for the driver, poor customer service when trying to call a cab, etc. etc. If you have a bone to pick with Uber, I don't think that it is in the quality of service for the customer. It is pretty excellent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:This has been run into the ground in this thread, but either you are ideologically committed to disliking Uber or the cab companies in your town are unusually well run. My and others' experience with cab companies has been really terrible, with the cheating you on fares, lying about broken card readers and change, refusing to pick you up if your route is inconvenient for the driver, poor customer service when trying to call a cab, etc. etc. I haven't had any of those issues with cabs. Do you happen to live in Washington DC?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:This has been run into the ground in this thread, but either you are ideologically committed to disliking Uber or the cab companies in your town are unusually well run. My and others' experience with cab companies has been really terrible, with the cheating you on fares, lying about broken card readers and change, refusing to pick you up if your route is inconvenient for the driver, poor customer service when trying to call a cab, etc. etc. Yeah as a matter of fact, everywhere I've lived with taxi service, the taxi services were well run because of effective regulation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
LOL at the idea that Uber is just more successful than cabs because of 'promotion'. Because nobody ever heard of taxis before, right guys? It certainly has nothing to do with more consistent and convenient service, that's neolib talk. This is classic leftists.txt.Mr. Showtime posted:"Nuh uh they don't" is not a very convincing explanation for why people prefer using services like Amazon and Uber. Do you think that people would rather use their alternatives and yet choose them anyway for... some inscrutable reason, and if so, can you elaborate on it? Taxis are heavily regulated and (usually?) unionized, Uber is a law-ignoring startup, and worse, one that's wildly successful (at least in terms of # of customers). Ergo, many leftists will defend the former to the death.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I haven't had any of those issues with cabs. Do you happen to live in Washington DC? I do and the cabs here are fine. I use uber more as a backup option.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
I live in the SF Bay Area, and even now getting a non-uber/lyft taxi is a nightmare. It takes like 45 minutes if it shows at all, costs more, is harder to pay with credit, and is more likely to take a lovely route. It's night and day, sadly, and gets more in favour of Uber the farther you get out of SF proper. Similarly, Amazon and Google Express and Instacart can get me stuff in a couple of hours, with a pleasant experience. Safeway can't (which is why they partnered with Instacart). If there are other somehow-better services that I just don't know about (who doesn't know about taxis?), please let me know, I'd love to try them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Those services are popular in the bay area because taxis in the bay area are poo poo. They are not poo poo in other parts of the country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Taxis are heavily regulated and (usually?) unionized, Uber is a law-ignoring startup, and worse, one that's wildly successful (at least in terms of # of customers). Ergo, many leftists will defend the former to the death. I'm not sure it's particularly 'leftist' to prefer companies to obey the law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Those services are popular in the bay area because taxis in the bay area are poo poo. They are not poo poo in other parts of the country. While Uber/Lyft are much better than cabs in the Bay Area, I actually have relatively few gripes with the quality of their service relative to cabs in places. Seattle, Chicago, and Las Vegas are all clearly worse in my mind, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I'm not sure it's particularly 'leftist' to prefer companies to obey the law. Me either, but there definitely are "leftists" who support regulations just because they're regulations (even if they're useless/exist only for protectionism/blatant rent-seeking like taxi medallions), just as there are conservatives who oppose sensible regulations because they're regulations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:Me either, but there definitely are "leftists" who support regulations just because they're regulations (even if they're useless/exist only for protectionism/blatant rent-seeking like taxi medallions), just as there are conservatives who oppose sensible regulations because they're regulations. Ah yes, legal minimum pay and carrying the disabled: regulations people only care about because they're regulations!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
If this thread's average rating goes below 4.6 will it be gassed in the new uberthreadconomy
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:Me either, but there definitely are "leftists" who support regulations just because they're regulations (even if they're useless/exist only for protectionism/blatant rent-seeking like taxi medallions), just as there are conservatives who oppose sensible regulations because they're regulations. Aren't taxi medallions only for cabs that take street hails? How does that affect Uber?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:Aren't taxi medallions only for cabs that take street hails? How does that affect Uber? There are a few cities where medallions are for any cab service whatsoever, but typically in those there's no limits on them, so the prices don't get very high. But yeah in most cities medallions are strictly for if you will be picking people up who you drive past on the street. Since Uber uses an app they would never be subject to medallion stuff in most cities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I'm not sure it's particularly 'leftist' to prefer companies to obey the law. Believing that government regulations can ever be legitimate is certainly a Left position in the US. Perhaps you missed the Republicans calling for the abolishment of the EPA?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:Aren't taxi medallions only for cabs that take street hails? How does that affect Uber? That's only because laws haven't kept up with technology. Attacking Uber for their customer service like many are trying is stupid- they are clearly a better option in most places than the existing cab companies. It's their contractors, which is most likely the correct designation for them, who are getting the short end of the stick (really their greatest disruption was to get stupid millennials to accept minimum wage to become taxi drivers). But they should have to follow the laws that apply to taxi companies because that's exactly what they are. I don't give a poo poo if they are hailed or not, that was never the point of instituting medallions in the first place (these systems developed before calling for a taxi was really even a thing). They function as a taxi company and should be subject to the same rules, anything else is blatantly unfair- and this opinion is already being shared by many cities around the world. Mr. Showtime posted:Me either, but there definitely are "leftists" who support regulations just because they're regulations (even if they're useless/exist only for protectionism/blatant rent-seeking like taxi medallions), just as there are conservatives who oppose sensible regulations because they're regulations. This is true, many leftists are just as retarded as anyone on the right and have are subject to the same us v them idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Taxis are heavily regulated and (usually?) unionized, Uber is a law-ignoring startup, and worse, one that's wildly successful (at least in terms of # of customers). Ergo, many leftists will defend the former to the death. Taxi medallions are super important both from a background-check and a "controlling the level of gridlock-inducing commercial traffic that's circling the block looking for fares" standpoint. A more efficient system of dispatched cabs (particularly ones without drivers that need background checking) is cool though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:I don't give a poo poo if they are hailed or not, that was never the point of instituting medallions in the first place (these systems developed before calling for a taxi was really even a thing). Actually it specifically is. Many medallion systems didn't even exist until well after telephones were a thing and they consciously avoided requiring medallions for taxis that would not be roaming the streets.And most of the cities that already had medallions before telephones were a thing have deliberately avoided requiring them for phone dispatch services, so long as the phone dispatch cabs did not also try to pick up street hails.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Ah yes, legal minimum pay and carrying the disabled: regulations people only care about because they're regulations! Those are pretty clearly sensible so I don't really understand what you're getting at by reaffirming that they are in fact good ideas fishmech posted:Since Uber uses an app they would never be subject to medallion stuff in most cities. To clarify, medallions given out for free for taxis that meet appropriate regulations are fine and don't cause rent-seeking behavior, but if you limit the supply (too much) and make people pay for them you're as economically literate as a box of tissues e: uninterrupted posted:Aren't taxi medallions only for cabs that take street hails? How does that affect Uber? They don't (as far as I know), it was just a semi-topical example of a regulation that's indefensibly dumb (when done like it is in New York, which I've elaborated on above) Cabbage Disrespect fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:To clarify, medallions given out for free for taxis that meet appropriate regulations are fine and don't cause rent-seeking behavior, but if you limit the supply (too much) and make people pay for them you're as economically literate as a box of tissues Actually in a city like New York taxi medallions are essential to prevent congestion. quote:“There’s something for everyone,” exulted New York City taxi czar David Yassky over the December agreement between Governor Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Michael Bloomberg to expand taxi service. The disabled get 2,000 new wheelchair-accessible yellow cabs, up from around 250 at present. Outer-borough residents get the right to hail non-yellow “livery” cabs instead of having to phone for them. And the city gets a billion-dollar “one shot” from auctioning medallions for the new yellow cabs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Actually in a city like New York taxi medallions are essential to prevent congestion. This is an rear end-backwards way to prevent congestion. Quantity controls on medallions (if below equilibrium supply) mean that there is money to be made in snagging those medallions and then selling or renting them to others at a higher price; you provide no service of any use and create no value whatsoever, but you do make taxi rides more expensive, create people with loads of money who find it crucial to grease people's pockets to keep the system as-is, and make it goddamn hard to find a taxi since there aren't enough to meet demand. Here are some better ways to prevent congestion: - Use any method of fundraising to grow public transit and/or perhaps unfuck your roads, though the former's probably a better option. Bonus points if this method of getting mad cash also discourages congestion in the area you're concerned about. - examples: a Pigouvian tax on gas to reflect the negative externalities of carbon emissions, a carbon tax, tolls (though if not priced carefully you just make an extra thing to slow people down), really any number of things; there are about a billion ways to reduce congestion that aren't making sure there aren't enough taxis - Have your taxis get fistfucked by Uber because Uber realized your entire business model revolves around being the only game in town while being just barely passable enough to get used at all, resulting in those taxis no longer being on the road
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:This is an rear end-backwards way to prevent congestion. Quantity controls on medallions (if below equilibrium supply) mean that there is money to be made in snagging those medallions and then selling or renting them to others at a higher price; you provide no service of any use and create no value whatsoever, but you do make taxi rides more expensive, create people with loads of money who find it crucial to grease people's pockets to keep the system as-is, and make it goddamn hard to find a taxi since there aren't enough to meet demand. NYC has one of the most extensive and constantly-run public transit systems in the world and the highest gas taxes in the United States, but still Manhattan has 72,000 people per square mile stacked on top of each other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:This is an rear end-backwards way to prevent congestion. Quantity controls on medallions (if below equilibrium supply) mean that there is money to be made in snagging those medallions and then selling or renting them to others at a higher price; you provide no service of any use and create no value whatsoever, but you do make taxi rides more expensive, create people with loads of money who find it crucial to grease people's pockets to keep the system as-is, and make it goddamn hard to find a taxi since there aren't enough to meet demand. have you even been to NYC bruh
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:This is an rear end-backwards way to prevent congestion. How is straight up requiring there be less traffic under penalty of fines and revocation of license an "rear end-backwards" way to prevent congestion? Additionally: Mr. Showtime posted:- Use any method of fundraising to grow public transit and/or perhaps unfuck your roads New York City public transit is already either best in the world or top 5 in the world depending on who you ask. It doesn't have much farther to go within Manhattan where most cabs operate - and "unfucking the roads" is absolutely impossible because there is no room at all. Mr. Showtime posted:- examples: a Pigouvian tax on gas to reflect the negative externalities of carbon emissions, a carbon tax, tolls (though if not priced carefully you just make an extra thing to slow people down), really any number of things; there are about a billion ways to reduce congestion that aren't making sure there aren't enough taxis There are tons of tolls to get between the different islands and the mainland and gas is already very expensive and a carbon tax is stupid because New York City is the city on the entire continent which produces the least carbon emissions per capita. You sound like someone who thinks New York City is just fuckin' Phoenix but bigger. Mr. Showtime posted:
Uber got "fistfucked" by the Taxi and Limousine Commission, as it turns out. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
When did I wander into taxi chat the thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Uber's biggest pitfall is creating circular taxi debates wherever it's brought up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
cheese eats mouse posted:When did I wander into taxi chat the thread liberals love apps that give them white person taxis while simultaneously ignoring that the real reason private money keeps pouring into uber is because they're creating a way to further gently caress service workers by providing a blueprint on how other industries can turn employees into "independent contractors" like, i know rich investors huff farts 24x7 but they're not so stupid as to believe that uber will ever be able to live up to their valuation. the self-driving car poo poo is a smokescreen for their real agenda - pushing the contractor employment model in more and more states to destroy labor protections
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
the final coup will be a $15/hr minimum wage that only applies to employees. you're not an employee any more, you're an independent sandwich consultant providing on-demand solutions to hungry consumers
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:- Use any method of fundraising to grow public transit and/or perhaps unfuck your roads, though the former's probably a better option. Bonus points if this method of getting mad cash also discourages congestion in the area you're concerned about. Unfucking NYC's roads paradoxically involves making the streets narrower and driving slower so more people opt out of it, which is one of many examples of why city planning is left to professionals and not some internet poster in a cornfield who's never seen a five-story building. The issue with taxis is they will never opt out no matter how bad driving gets, because driving is what they do, which is why their contribution to congestion is limited by other means.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Another big issue is that Americans have a weird love affair with cars. It isn't going to improve until the rest of the country improves mass transit as well. How many of the commuters into NYC are coming from beyond where mass transit runs? A lot of Americans also despise mass transit because then they have to deal with those people. Americans are also impatient as hell; they rarely want to wait for a bus or a train but want to just walk up to the curb and have their car or a taxi there waiting for them that they don't have to share if they don't feel like it. If you make using a car more expensive then you get into dangerous territory like making driving a privilege only the rich can afford in a nation where not having a car can completely gently caress you over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:liberals love apps that give them white person taxis while simultaneously ignoring that the real reason private money keeps pouring into uber is because they're creating a way to further gently caress service workers by providing a blueprint on how other industries can turn employees into "independent contractors" Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Another big issue is that Americans have a weird love affair with cars. It isn't going to improve until the rest of the country improves mass transit as well. How many of the commuters into NYC are coming from beyond where mass transit runs? A lot of Americans also despise mass transit because then they have to deal with those people. Americans are also impatient as hell; they rarely want to wait for a bus or a train but want to just walk up to the curb and have their car or a taxi there waiting for them that they don't have to share if they don't feel like it. If you make using a car more expensive then you get into dangerous territory like making driving a privilege only the rich can afford in a nation where not having a car can completely gently caress you over. Considering that you'd have to live 2 or so hours outside of Manhattan to be out of commuter rail zone...that's going to be a pretty small number. Most regular commuters take the train, since it is faster and cheaper than driving, and it saves them from driving the already gridlocked streets of Manhattan and parking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:liberals love apps that give them white person taxis while simultaneously ignoring that the real reason private money keeps pouring into uber is because they're creating a way to further gently caress service workers by providing a blueprint on how other industries can turn employees into "independent contractors" It would be great if we ended up in a world where taxi drivers and uber drivers were employees. I don't think either is likely; car-for-hire hasn't been an employment-based industry ever, afaik.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:It would be great if we ended up in a world where taxi drivers and uber drivers were employees. I don't think either is likely; car-for-hire hasn't been an employment-based industry ever, afaik. That's correct, but you've also never really seen taxi companies running thousand-word blog posts from their drivers on how it's so liberating to drive a cab or sponsored content from thought leaders on how the over regulation of medallions is killing jobs; at least, not in such a public fashion, nor one with so much vocal support. I'm not necessarily arguing this is some giant conspiracy either, I'm simply pointing out that there's some smoke here when you start to look at how Uber messages around their services (they harp an awful lot on how great it is for 'driver-partners' and throw around a lot of canned statements from suburban moms who make spare cash ferrying people around while the kids are at school or college students earning extra scratch between classes or at night, etc.) you start to see some patterns. I'll also note that there are of course people who like and use Uber that are not terrible human beings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
It's possible to receive services or goods from a lovely company without being a lovely person. Sometimes you haven't much of a choice; Walmart is an undeniably awful company but how many of us shop there frequently? Sometimes there just isn't a choice. One of the issues with the internet is that it's kind of hard to compete with the big names on the internet in any meaningful way. How do you compete with Uber or Amazon or the like? In the case of something like Uber you'd have to convince people to download another app and a lot are going to go "meh, why bother? I already have Uber."
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Every aspect of modern society is built on exploitation. The machines you are reading/posting on are literally built on the backs of death squads and slaves. Some companies pay a little extra to pretend they're not. It's not possible to walk away from Omelas short of being a 100% self-reliant hermit living in Siberia/the Amazon/the Congo. Eventually even that won't be possible. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:That's correct, but you've also never really seen taxi companies running thousand-word blog posts from their drivers on how it's so liberating to drive a cab or sponsored content from thought leaders on how the over regulation of medallions is killing jobs; at least, not in such a public fashion, nor one with so much vocal support. No, because Uber has to do two things that the taxi companies don't: recruit drivers, and lobby without the benefit of decades of chummy relationships with municipal politicians. A relative of mine drove a cab for a while -- you want "bad driver experience", try being a woman driving a taxi in a college town -- and the scarcity created by the medallion system means that they always have people waiting for a chance to rent someone's cab/medallion. Similarly, there is no effective opposition to the taxi lobby (though when changes to licensing/quotas come up on the agenda you do see ads in newspapers and such), so they don't really have to sway public opinion to preserve the legal framework of their business. (I actually prefer companies making their policy cases in public over them cutting deals with city councilors in private, I think.) I think the "make a few bucks between classes" angle is actually more honest than portraying it as a viable career. It's not as hard to clear a practical profit when that time couldn't be effectively spent on some other job, and you just have to worry about fuel/maintenance. The vast majority of drivers I ask say they like driving for Uber, so the blog posts are likely heartfelt, if perhaps overwrought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:liberals love apps that give them white person taxis while simultaneously ignoring that the real reason private money keeps pouring into uber is because they're creating a way to further gently caress service workers by providing a blueprint on how other industries can turn employees into "independent contractors" Lol at "white people taxis." Labor concerns aside, all of my black friends were on Uber before anyone else, because they could actually get a cab with Uber. In Boston, taxis will almost never pick up minorities, which meant frustration anytime we stayed out past the close of the subway (bars close at 2 am, subway closes at 12 am). Pre-Uber I would often try to flag down a taxi for my fiends (since I'm white), only to have the cabbies speed off to avoid taking the fare when a black guy tried to get into the cab. I can only imagine how awful it made my friends feel to end a fun night out like that. Uber has solved this entire problem (well, not racism, but access to taxis). Now my buddies have no problem getting a ride, and they love it. Hell, Donald Glover has a bit where he calls uber, "black people taxis," or something to that effect. Basically, people like Uber because the taxis in most cities besides NYC suck (and even the taxis in NYC suck ~50% of the time). nah thanks fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 15:49
|
|
