Uber Accused of Cashing In On Bomb Explosion By Jacking Rates (thesun.co.uk) 428
After a bomb exploded in Manhattan, leaving 29 injured, people leaving the scene discovered Uber had doubled their fares. An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes The Sun:
Traumatized families caught up in the New York bomb blast have accused Uber of cashing in on the tragedy by charging almost double to take them home. Furious passengers have taken to social media to slam the taxi firm in the wake of the blast... Uber reportedly charged between 1.4 and 3 times the standard fare with one city worker saying he had to pay twice as much as usual. Mortgage broker Nick Lalli said: "Just trying to get home from the city and Uber f****** doubled the surge price."
"Demand is off the charts!" the app informed its users, adding "Fares have increased to get more Ubers on the road." Uber soon tweeted that they'd deactivated their surge pricing algorithm for the affected area in Chelsea, "but passengers in other areas of Manhattan said they were still being charged higher than normal fares." One of the affected passengers was Michael Cohen, who is Donald Trump's lawyer, who tweeted that Uber was "taking total advantage of chaos and surcharging passengers 1.4 to 1.8 times." And another Uber user tweeted "I'm disgusted. People are trying to get home safe. Shame on you #DeleteApp."
"Demand is off the charts!" the app informed its users, adding "Fares have increased to get more Ubers on the road." Uber soon tweeted that they'd deactivated their surge pricing algorithm for the affected area in Chelsea, "but passengers in other areas of Manhattan said they were still being charged higher than normal fares." One of the affected passengers was Michael Cohen, who is Donald Trump's lawyer, who tweeted that Uber was "taking total advantage of chaos and surcharging passengers 1.4 to 1.8 times." And another Uber user tweeted "I'm disgusted. People are trying to get home safe. Shame on you #DeleteApp."
yawn (Score:3, Insightful)
how many times will the press run this identical story after an incident?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly.
I don't understand the problem myself. Without Uber you wouldn't have had a ride at all. If you don't like the pricing try waiting for a taxi or use another service.
Repeat after me: Uber is NOT run by the government... that's both what makes it good... AND what leads to scenarios like this. You can't have the good (low fares, clean cars, drivers that give a shit) without allowing them to work with the free market (supply / demand).
Re:yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
"Without Uber you wouldn't have had a ride at all."
or worse! you would have to ride on public transportation with actual poor people!
Yeah I dont feel bad at all for Uber riders.
Re:yawn (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Market failure (Score:5, Insightful)
How would you make the uber drivers go into an area they don't want to go into, if it isn't by offering them more money?? Armed police?
Re: Market failure (Score:4, Informative)
How about "not trying"? Uber and their drivers aren't under any greater moral imperative than anyone else to go into a potentially unsafe area to get people home.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Volunteer and donate (Score:5, Informative)
The Uber rates aren't driven by disaster, but ride requests. This wasn't an evil plot, it was effective capitalism. If we can't tell the difference between capitalism and evil, that says something about both.
Re:Volunteer and donate (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to not understand this?
There's not some sitting in Uber HQ with his hand on a knob that controls the surge amount. Surge pricing is based on an algorithm which is based on the ride data. It has no idea about terror attacks or other disasters.
Re:Volunteer and donate (Score:4, Informative)
Really? Do you have the source code ?
I have to agree with GP on this. No one needs a source code to understand this but rather observe the behavior of the app in different situations (unless you have no programming concept). It is an algorithm. Uber set up an arbitrary number of requests within an area. If the request number goes up and passes the setup number, a surcharge is applied. There would be different level (e.g. multiplier) for request numbers.
If Uber intended to jack the price up because of the event, they would have to hire some people watching news on all places and adjust the ride price accordingly. Why would they need to pay extra to those people while they could simply quantify the requests within their program?
Anyway, if anyone doesn't know, Lyft have exactly the similar algorithm as well. And I believe all other share riding apps have the similar algorithm too.
I don't care for Uber, Lyft, or any share riding apps. I feel that their business model is ethically wrong. It is similar to a class action where the money actually goes to corporations and their drivers get something which is just enough to keep them going (or a bit more if they work very hard).
Force to wait 5-7 days or pay $20? Hmmm..b (Score:5, Insightful)
> you find other means to deal with the situation up to and including the national guard.
The National Guard was ordered deployed to Louisiana on Friday, August 26, 2005. On September 1st, five days later, they arrived at the Super Dome. On September 3rd and 4th, they evacuated the people waiting in the Super Dome.
Personally, I'd rather pay an extra $20 than wait five to seven days for a ride out.
The US government is designed to be *fair*. It is not designed to be *fast*. Uber is fast.
Re:Volunteer and donate (Score:4, Interesting)
How would you make the uber drivers go into an area they don't want to go into, if it isn't by offering them more money?? Armed police?
You ask for volunteers just like we do for most disasters.
Are all the cops volunteers who work for free?
Are all the doctors volunteers who work for free?
Are all the funeral homes going to work for free?
Are all the people who clean up and fix things working for free?
Are there ever enough volunteers?
So why are you picking on Uber?
Re: Market failure (Score:5, Interesting)
Uber could cut into its 'billions of profit' and take a small hit by increasing pay to drivers while not passing the costs to customers
They did. Uber doesn't make a profit, they have massive losses (it's losing about $200 million per month [bloomberg.com]). Thus cutting into that profit means taking a negative chunk away - which means INCREASING their revenue and trying to reduce their negative losses. Exactly what would happen when they surge price.
And yes, the insanity of a company that has never turned a profit, and is losing nearly $5000 per MINUTE (60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year) is still worth $70 billion and climbing, is not lost on me...
Re: (Score:2)
Uber could cut into its 'billions of profit' and take a small hit by increasing pay to drivers while not passing the costs to customers. Instead they pass the full surge costs to customers and rake in even more profit because of it.
What is the problem supposed to be here? If Uber doesn't raise rates for the customers massively overconsuming their product, then they'll lose a lot of money. And really what's supposed to be the big deal about a factor of two increase in rates? It's not that much.
Re: Market failure (Score:5, Insightful)
Allocation of scarce resources by price is not market failure. This is of particular importance during unusual circumstances.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
America has gotten full of people spouting bullshit economic dogma.
FIFY
Re: Market failure (Score:5, Insightful)
"the market trumps basic morality"
No one says that.
The market only trumps wishful thinking.
Re: Market failure (Score:4, Insightful)
the market trumps basic morality
No, you're completely missing the point. The point is, the market was able to create a moral outcome (lowering the shortage of drivers) by using market incentives (pay drivers more so there will be more drivers).
Would it be more "moral" to leave the rates alone, allow the shortage of drivers as-is, and have more people standing on the sidewalk unable to get an Uber ride home?
Re: (Score:2)
A market failure is when there exists another conceivable outcome where an individual may be made better-off without making someone else worse-off.
This is particularly true when one considers the conceivable outcomes of non-market approaches. Non-market approaches have the same failure modes, but they tend to have them worse.
Re: Market failure (Score:5, Insightful)
You have no idea what market failure or profiteering look like, do you?
This is not a "market failure". When supply is constricted, prices should go up so the rides go to those who need them most. There are two choices: higher prices, or some sort of rationing. The higher prices are always better for sellers, and usually better for buyers as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When supply is constricted, prices should go up so the rides go to those who need them most.
You assume that those with the greatest need also have the most resources? I'll let you explain how that's supposed to work.
Re: Market failure (Score:5, Insightful)
The OP worded it badly shouldve said "so rides go to those who value them the highest"
(Un)fortunately you choose to live in a capitalist society. While it is a good system, it has its flaws, and the biggest one is that resources go to those who will pay the most for them. This is just an example of those wonderful words "market forces". Amazingly this is one of the times where everything is working as it should. Unfortunately that is a bad result from a moral viewpoint.
But devils advocate:
If they kept normal pricing and that only attracted 1000 drivers, but 2000 people need rides how do you propose to choose who get them? First in will not give any more of an equitable outcome, some of those who need it most will still miss out.
If surge pricing meant they attracted 1200 drivers to the area, is that not a better solution as only 800 people are left "stranded"
Re: Market failure (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll let you explain how that's supposed to work.
Sure. When there is a shortage, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO LOSE. That is what "shortage" means. So let's consider two scenarios.
Scenario one (presumably your solution):
The government imposes price controls.
Some random people get the rides, mainly those willing to queue the longest.
Other random people walk home in the rain, or take the bus or train.
The drivers get screwed out of higher pay.
No additional drivers are incentivized to get in their cars and offer rides.
Scenario two (my solution):
The markets sets the price.
Rich people and desperate people get the rides.
Poor people walk home in the rain, or take the bus or train.
The drivers (who tend to not be wealthy) get higher pay.
Additional drivers turn off their TV, hop in their cars, and cash in on the bonanza.
It now turns out, that with the additional drivers, the prices don't go up all that much, and most people get rides after all.
Both scenarios have losers, but the market scenario has fewer. Poor people lose in both (by either earning less, or paying more), but they do better with market pricing.
Markets aren't perfect. They are just better than the alternatives.
Re: (Score:3)
With the closed software model of Uber, with only black-box testing possible by spending a significant amount of money, we don't know if a third scenario is not being played - one which harms both drivers and passengers for the benefit of Uber.
Or if today close to Scenario 2 is being played, but due to tendencies of such markets to slide towards monopoly - worse scenarios won't be played once we allow mind-share monopoly to one or two companies with no recourse because we establish way too much precedent to
Re: (Score:3)
Now look at the alternative.
A taxi d
Re: Market failure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Except that this is a market failure in the sense that the market is not fair as the customer and the supplier do not have access to the same amount of information about the state of supply and demand. That is, Uber can jack up the prices basically at any point and use 'increased demand' as a blank slate excuse for it and customers have no way of telling if this is indeed the case. If I
Re: (Score:3)
Bad choice of word from me there yeah. What I meant is that if in the example I gave the price for my ride is 35 dollars and yours is 20, the customer does not have access to all the information that has been used to set the price, nor does he have access to what other users are being charged for the same ride. This is what currently tilts the market in favor of the provider, be it lift or uber or any other.
Re:yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not a free market, that's a PopeRatzo strawman free market. Namely it's one that doesn't and can't exist as it's a fundamental oxymoron.
I think sane people want a "free market" to the extent possible. The government should only interfere when there's an actual problem and that problem is greatly damaging to society.
Paying $40 extra to an Uber driver - that's not one of those times. Paying $100k for a $5 drug because of a monopoly granted by the government in the _first place_ probably is.
So when you hear those evil capitalists carrying on about a free market, don't imagine Anarchy. You'll waste less of people's time deciphering your nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with so many here is that they argue the economist definition against the dictionary definition, or the dictionary definition against the vernacular definition, and nobody discusses any of them against reality.
A "free market" as defined by the economists is as close as we want to get to an ideal free market, because the actors in an ideal market recognize the inefficiencies that drive us away fr
Free != free form regulation (Score:3)
Re:yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
If the market was truly free, I could buy that drug for $5 (I don't have cancer), and turn around and sell it somebody with cancer for $50 and a tidy markup for my trouble. And so could anyone else, or they could undercut me and sell it for $25; the company trying to sell it for $100,000 wouldn't get any takers.
I can't, because the government won't let me. That particular market is not free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:yawn (Score:5, Interesting)
imagine there was a pen injector device that cost $4 to make, but the people who needed it had to pay $600 for it..
And imagine that there are more than half-dozen competing devices available in Europe, but somehow they never show up in the US ... I wonder how that could happen?
Re:yawn (Score:4, Informative)
The "goal" in an ideal free market, is that 100% of drivers are signed up with a "ridesharing" company, and they pick up a nearby fare when headed home. But that ideal is never going to happen, so long as everyone is fighting the ride shares whenever possible.
Re: (Score:2)
That's such horseshit. Imagine there was a simple injection that costs $5 and cures cancer. However, if you have cancer, the drug costs $100,000.
Cool! Market opportunity! I can buy those injections for $5 a pop (I don't have cancer) and sell them for $25 a pop. That's not really immoral - it's still very affordable. And I get to quintuple my initial materials cost, which should cover overhead (like rent, salaries for licensed RNs, liability insurance, etc). And of course, I still have enough margin to pay any off-the-street Joe $10 to go buy a $5 injection for me, once the maker clamps down on me, personally, buying any more injections. Just a
Re: (Score:2)
Medallion cabs respond to disasters by disappearing. It's New York - you can take the subway or the bus if you really need to get home right now in the middle of a disaster.
I have never lived in NYC, but I have lived in a city of even greater population and density (31 million at the time) and the great advantage to living in such a place is the diversity of transportation options. And on the two occasions when there was a general transportation strike, I joined the crowd and walked across the city.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Medallion cabs respond to disasters by disappearing.
That's what the market demands. The medallion cabs are paid for the trip. In a "disaster" (this wasn't one, it was just a scare), people want to move. If you are a Taxi and in the disaster area, and you have a fare to go from the disaster area to NJ, you would. Then you are in NJ. Do you dead-head back to the disaster scene, or take another fare to somewhere else? Whatever keeps the back of your cab full of paying customers is best for you, and since nobody wants to go to the center of a disaster, the
Computer Power and Human Reasoning (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Computer Power and Human Reasoning (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Computer Power and Human Reasoning (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't a company trying to profit from terrorism; this is a company who has a product that is not being accused because they probably haven't had to deal with this before. And accurate news coverage during these times isn't exactly spot on; I doubt it was clear who/what/where was going on so they could accurately make all changes that in hindsight would have made sense.
Re: (Score:2)
And just how do you suggest the algorithm could be improved to determine the difference between people leaving the area after a bombing and people leaving the area after SantaCon or a pillow fight flash mob or a BLM protest?
So far as I can imagine, it would have to be capable of monitoring and interpreting the news media in order to know, in real time, if people are leaving the area because of an attack, or some benign reason. That's a much more difficult AI problem than supply vs. demand in an area; espec
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do they write an algorithm to predict whiny moralizing?
Here's a prediction: giving in or otherwise rewarding whiny moralizers will cause more people to whine and moralize about everything, all the time. The algorithm can then predict it to happen 100% of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorism? We heard immediately after the incident that it wasn't terrorism, and every AP story thereafter seems to be reinforcing that angle.
Besides, Uber would probably only have to hire just a few extra people to monitor the news worldwide and enter a command to temporarily prevent rating spikes in emergency situations in a localized area. No need to figure out some complicated automated algorithm to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no algorithm that can
Re: (Score:3)
No, they don't. The point of surge pricing is to motivate more drivers to appear; that is, to help riders. If they keep prices low, it just means that fewer people will get rides and drivers get less.
So, why do you hate drivers and passengers?
How do you like those apples?! (Score:4, Funny)
One of the affected passengers was Michael Cohen, who is Donald Trump's lawyer, who tweeted that Uber was "taking total advantage of chaos and surcharging passengers 1.4 to 1.8 times."
A lawyer complaining about being shafted? How ironic...
Re: (Score:2)
Not just a lawyer. A lawyer who works for Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Though, I'
So..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a taxi?
What is wrong with economics? (Score:5, Insightful)
Supply and demand. Market is efficiently allocating scarce resources. Price increase will increase supply providing consumers with more of the scarce resource. It's a thing of beauty really.
Re: (Score:2)
Supply and demand. Market is efficiently allocating scarce resources. Price increase will increase supply providing consumers with more of the scarce resource. It's a thing of beauty really.
I think this kind of thinking makes the same fundamental mistake as communism.
Your theory works great, it makes for a very efficient, productive, and fair system. The only problem is that people don't work the way you need them to work for your theory to succeed.
Price increases in an emergency will typically be perceived as companies taking advantage of a desperate customer, and customers will react with outrage.
There are really only two ways to deal with this.
First, try to convince the users that the price
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't expect items to magically appear to get people what they need. They do not care what people need or whether needy people get it.
It's about exploiting emotional situations to divide people against each other or against a designated enemy. Then you can lead the divided people to fight against their neighbors or to hunt a witch or whatever. Leaders get power and advance their agenda. The led get nothing (at best).
Re: (Score:2)
The distinction you're trying to draw is bogus. If you can afford to take a $50 Uber, you already aren't poor, and you can also afford to take a $120 Uber (or bother to car-pool with someone).
Fixed pricing would primarily result in fewer drivers bothering to come to a disaster a
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The higher price is is only fair way to reallocate the scarce resources.
The higher price may very well have caused people to pool more people into one vehicle or brought more drivers into the area.
If a central planner had determined that Uber must charge half the normal rate in this, the effect would have been opposite: people could now afford to take a whole vehicle for themselves and it would discourage drivers from moving into the area. The intent of the central planner is good and visible, but his lack
Re: This was a market failure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: This was a market failure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And you're misrepresenting (intentionally, I suspect) how Uber's algorithm works. Going into surge pricing when demand is high and supply is low is how Uber "activates more drivers". The higher rate means more money fro the driver and incentivizes them to work in the high demand / low supply area.
Even in the military, where "greater than average chance of getting killed" is part of the job description you signed up for, you get extra pay for hazardous duty such as combat, flight, or submarine.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber doesn't have any "extra profits": they are losing money.
The surge pricing is primarily going to drivers, drivers who decided to actually go into this area to drive people. Do you want to take away the money from drivers?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and that is as it should be: the product is scarce so its price goes up. The gas station gets a windfall, just like they sometimes have unexpected losses when nobody drives or gets gas for other reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the argument that war profiteers make.
And in countries in which they are allowed to make it, the population suffers less. In countries where they are not allowed to make it, mass starvations occur because of lack of the basic necessities needed to fix the destruction that war causes. Using "profiteering" as a negative is immoral -- it causes deaths, hunger, and unnecessary human suffering.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The market wasn't efficiently allocating scarce resources.
It wasn't? Somewhere there is an eager cadre of volunteers standing by to drive their personal vehicles into the aftermath of a terrorist attack while expecting no more than the usual pittance for their trouble?
No, there is no such thing in my world. Perhaps you live elsewhere and such things exist..... I can't speak to the that. Uber mobilized drivers by providing an incentive. Result; the entitled shitheels that are complaining today had their lilly white First World asses rapidly ferried away. Tot
Re: (Score:2)
That's the argument that war profiteers make.
Depends how they're profiteering on the war. If they're selling arms to both sides, then it's reallocating resources away from thugs.
When there has been an act of terrorism or war that is NOT the time to increase prices to maximize profit.
Typical caveman thinking. It may not be time to maximize profit, but it is time to raise prices so that the service is there when someone needs it. Uber's surge pricing creates more supply. There's a fair number of drivers who will only go for surge pricing.
What happen here was a market failure which is economic self interest resulting in outcomes that are actually negative to society. Uber was maximizing profit and there are times when that is unacceptable behavior.
What market failure? That's how markets are supposed to work. It's only the idiots who are fine with withholding critical
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is.
How is denying rides better? Proved otherwise (Score:4, Insightful)
> resulting in outcomes that are actually negative to society
How exactly is denying people the option of getting a ride better than giving them the option to get a ride for $40? Those are the two choices - you either have a bunch of additional drivers work due to the higher pay, or you have them not work. Or would you FORCE people to drive toward the dangerous area, if you were king of world?
Let's consider what riders would prefer. Would riders prefer to not have a ride at all (because drivers stay home or drive in safer places), or would they rather pay a rate high enough to get a driver to come? We know that riders would prefer a higher rate than no ride at all, because they did in fact choose pay that rate, when they could have chosen to not get the ride.
Re: (Score:3)
This reminds me of people loading up trucks of ice and driving into hurricane zones and selling them for $20/bag.
"I'm here to help you!" screams the government! "You are outraged so I declare...it...illegal! * "
Great. Now no one has any ice.
Government: "Oops! We have a program for that!"
No you don't.
"We will make a program for that!"
Assembles bidding process, then a couple of fucking months later a train of refirigerator cars packed with ice pulls up. Nobody wants it, and there is no way to distribute i
Um... (Score:5, Insightful)
After a bomb exploded in Manhattan, leaving 29 injured, people leaving the scene discovered Uber had doubled their fares.
People called an Uber driver *into* a disaster area and/or potential terror/war zone for a ride home and are pissed that the rates went up? Hazard pay people. And private companies w/o public supervision can do whatever they want. If you don't like it, take a taxi or the subway, or fucking walk. First-world problems for sure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That attitude is a result of media infecting people every time there's a tragedy. They fill your (as in collective "you") head with stories of self-sacrifice and "everybody helps everybody else" so much that people become entitled and start demanding this all the time.
"UBER Y U NO FREE RIDES"
"GSM Y U NO FREE CALLS"
"HOOKERS Y U NO FREE BJs"
While companies volunteering to help and accepting temporary reduction or removal of profit in these cases is nice, it's not mandated or compulsory and shouldn't be treate
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
First-world problems for sure.
Indeed. People poke at an app on thier Star Trek Communicators to summon transportation they expect to ferry them away from a scene of terrorism and they're pissed that this service comes at a premium. The only injustice here is Uber selling their drivers up the river by suppressing the surge price. The people complaining are entitled shitheels that deserve to be ridiculed.
When the subway is shut down by paranoids... (Score:2)
... the actual value of a cab ride increases considerably. That's not manipulation, it's actually more valuable to have a car take you the same distance when you don't have the alternate choice.
Meanwhile, any Uber driver that had a bit of flexibility and could jump and make a bit of cash. And in the process, help relieve the crush of people that are stranded by shutting down a system used by more than 50% of commuters [nycedc.com].
The wisdom of shutting down our world for each boo-boo remains undecided ...
Re: (Score:2)
Except they didn't shut down the subway, so these nits still had that option rather than whine about Uber. They rerouted the two lines that were running on 6th Av (obviously they want to check the tunnels for damage, and the station for bombs). The PATH and D were already not running on 6th av due to weekend maintenance work. The 23st and 7th Av station was closed (I do not see the wisdom in that), but that was the *only* closure. People could walk two blocks west to 8th Ave or one block east to Broadwa
No stories of the drivers asked to go to Chelsea (Score:2)
Demand = Supply.
It's magic, as long as you have some way to keep it balanced.
Stupid headline driven sensationalist journalism.
--Q
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention Uber artificially lowers the price increases during high demand, so if the algorithm was allowed to work properly match the demand and supply curves those people would be looking at 20-30x increases... minimum... not 1.4-1.8x.
Gotta love the special snowflakes (Score:5, Insightful)
Uber is exploiting people by using them as cheap labor. They need to be forced to pay them a living wage......... except when I need a cheap ride.
Uber drivers were taking a risk (Score:2)
There were multiple bombs. If there were multiple bombs in MY city, I wouldn't be driving downtown back and forth in it, one or more of the other bombs might blow up. Even if there had just been ONE bomb, it isn't like you know that.
It seems reasonable that the contractors would want extra compensation for the risks they were taking to their life and property. Even soldiers get combat pay, and they have a full time job, not a series of gigs.
Invisible hand of the free market at work (Score:3, Insightful)
so what's the problem?
Hey Cohen, tell that cheap bastard Trump you want fantastic, amazing limousine service
Market forces (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you feel there is only:
Option 1 - do nothing. keep rates the same. people wait a long time.
and Option 2 - jack up rates, more drivers on raods, people wait less.
And yet, I see other options:
Option 3 - jack up driver compensation, keep rates the same. more drivers on roads, people wait less, uber doesn't profit as much for a few hours. Call it a PR move; write it off as a charitible donation.
Option 4 - raise overall prices a fraction of a nickle to build up a contingency reserve fund for events like this
Aww poor baby Cohen (Score:3)
Aww poor little Mikey... Unbridaled capitalism isn't quite as nice when you're the one negatively affected, is it?
fucken neocommuncists (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The moralizing aside, the people are pissed because the free market made them pay more than they wanted. The free market is great when it makes folks winners, but when it makes them a loser, they start talking about how unfair it is.
Either capitalism is fair or it isn't. You don't get to pick and choose when it is based on if it helps or hinders you.
Isn't surge pricing an AUTOMATED process? (Score:2)
As far as I understood things, Uber's system automatically raises prices based on surges in demand. There's no human intervention involved.
So getting all upset at Uber for this is pointless. Yes, most companies like to give people some financial breaks in times of disaster, like cellphone companies waiving fees for residents in flooded area or areas hit by tornadoes. But Uber can't really do anything about the computerized system working as designed and re-calculating rates based on usage, as soon as an ev
ech (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just showing a complete lack of understanding how Uber works. In case of emergency like this one, would you rather pay more for your fare, or wait indefinitely because there are not enough drivers? Those are the only two options. I personally would prefer pay more.
The way of getting more Uber drivers is to pay them more to incentivize them to come to work. If there is a sudden rise in demand, there will be a sudden increase in price.
This whole discussion is absurd for someone who has lived in a socialist country. If you keep the prices constant no matter what is the demand, it only results in empty shops. You can't cheat the market forces.
Regular cabs do this also (Score:3)
How Uber can fix this (Score:2)
Pretty obviously the surge pricing is needed, just as the message says to get more cars to an area - but also in addition as another poster noted, these drivers are driving into a potentially hazardous area...
Yet people are rightfully irked that in times of crisis the private car they hired is all out of Grey Poupon and a little more expensive than normal.
So what can Uber do to make everyone happier about this?
Since these events are hopefully somewhat rare, what Uber could do is to recognize times of crisis
All these Uber haters (Score:2)
There's a lot of hate directed at a company who has yet to actually displace Taxi services in a given area. Maybe next time Uber should take a stand and decide to completely shut down in an affected area out of respect for their drivers who have to drive around in the chaos and as a reminder to the general population that Uber is a choice. Don't like it, don't use it.
18/September: FUCK UBER. Price gouging bastards. #boycot #deleteapp #neverusingagain.
19/September: Wow taxis are really expensive! I wish ther
The real shame (Score:2)
was unharmed.
Let me get it straigt... (Score:2)
Year in, year out you tell me how much taxis are overpriced (which they need to be for overcommiting and having a fixed price), and after ruining Taxi companies while singing hymns to the free market about demand and supply, you complain that rates go up when the demand peaks?
It's not like Uber said "we will make money from these bombs" it's more like "demand goes up, since people like to get away from bombs and price goes up".
Obvious Solution (Score:2)
Act like the US healthcare system, but in reverse.
Wrong move (Score:2)
Re:Surge pricing disabled (Score:5, Insightful)
Uber drivers all leave Hell's Kitchen (aka Chelsea) to get surge rates in rest of Manhattan.
Re:Surge pricing disabled (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't he have been cheering Uber on, since what they were doing is pretty much following Trump's business playbook?
Following that playbook, the lawyer would have declared the ride unsatisfactory and not paid the driver.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no news about it because pretty much nothing happened. The footage released today of the "bombs" makes them look like high school kids messing around. The fact there is "wreckage" of the mostly intact device that exploded shows you how under-powered it actually was.
Of course no international terrorist group will claim responsibility this was simply a piss poor act of crime and nothing more. If I was a local cop then I'd be looking into local connections; domestic cases, high school or small gang co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
the dangers of blindly following algorithms