It's interesting that these 2 companies that have completely disrupted traditional busines models emerged and thrived in that bastion of socialism, San Francisco.
It's interesting that these 2 companies that have completely disrupted traditional busines models emerged and thrived in that bastion of socialism, San Francisco.
Myup wrote:
It's interesting that these 2 companies that have completely disrupted traditional busines models emerged and thrived in that bastion of socialism, San Francisco.
Obviously you don't pay much attention to SF politics. None of the people who started these companies are from SF. "Real" San Franciscans HATE these companies and are doing everything they can to destroy them.
Nancy p is my homegirl wrote:
Myup wrote:It's interesting that these 2 companies that have completely disrupted traditional busines models emerged and thrived in that bastion of socialism, San Francisco.
Obviously you don't pay much attention to SF politics. None of the people who started these companies are from SF. "Real" San Franciscans HATE these companies and are doing everything they can to destroy them.
That was my point. Despite the resistance and hostility from the Board of Supervisors, SF is a hotbed of entrepreneurial companies that are destroying traditional ways of doing business and communication channels.
The "real" SF is gone and there is nothing the traditionalists in the city can do to stop the change.
oops, wrong handle, diff device.
brg253 wrote:
Wtfunny wrote:it's also true that few far more people are likely to die via unregulated pharmaceutical dispersal
That is your own arbitrary conjecture. You haven't a shred of evidence to prove that pharmaceutical regulation saves lives.
You're correct, I didn't. I (mistakenly) imagined this to be a conversation amongst adults.
wtfunny wrote:
You're correct, I didn't. I (mistakenly) imagined this to be a conversation amongst adults.
I didn't say that you merely neglected to provide any evidence of your claim--I asserted that you are incapable of doing so
As with Boomers, the Millennials will take whatever is fed to them with a bit of sugar coating (or juxtaposition against the evils they could be faced with) and assume it is the "right thing."
Keith Stone wrote:
Feel the bern in your wallet wrote:"Stringent regulations are good for everyone. Well...except for me when I want a cheap ride somewhere!"
Liberals have never been against free enterprise, they're just against fucking people over. I understand that's a complex concept that itty-bitty conservative minds have a hard time grasping to I'll give you an example:
Offer a service that's performed admirably and liberals will consume it, offer a service that's so cheap because the provider cooked their grandparents for lard to finance it then conservatives will consume it.
Offer a service that convenient, safe and easy to use and liberals will consume it, offer a service where you get to shoot a 10 year old minority kid in the head just for fun then conservatives will consume it.
If you want a service that will charge 10 times the normal rate when there's a quick buck opportunity like a shooting in an area then conservatives will provide it (then complain people don't consume it because they're lazy).
Uber itself said that gouging people just trying to get out of an unsafe situation was unfair, as it's no different than saying "Oh, you were in a car accident and you'll die before to get to the next ER? Cool, now my rate is $10,000 a minute".
Now conservatives who think that stealing and extorting from people is nothing but a "business model" think it's OK to fuck people over and call it "free enterprise". Uber and AirBnb apologize when someone gets fucked over and work to change their practices to make sure it doesn't happen again. Conservatives get all exciting when they fuck someone over and work to make sure it happens again.
I doubt you understand the difference, but you can't say I didn't try to explain it in rational terms.
Ha ha. "Rational"? You're an effing idiot. An idiot whose personal identity is dictated by a political party. As you've been reminded multiple times on this board, you're clearly stuck in a vicious circular relationship of being a total loser/not being able to get laid and being a far-too-proud member of the ultra-liberal army. I see your type all the time.
not black and white wrote:
Not everything works great under laissez faire economics. Many things do, but not everything. Our vast public road system would blow if you had to pay a quarter to each private property you drove past. What if the fire department decided not to come to your house and save your scorched kids because you were late on your monthly payment?
If I don't pay the extortion money ('property taxes') to the gubmint that provides the monopoly fire dept. they steal my real property and throw me and my kids out onto the street.
It's not necessarily the riders that suffer from non regulation, but the actual people driving... doesn't always work, which is why there will be plenty more of these lawsuits to come. http://www.businessinsider.com/r-legal-troubles-market-realities-threaten-ubers-global-push-2015-10
Keith Stone wrote:
Feel the bern in your wallet wrote:"Stringent regulations are good for everyone. Well...except for me when I want a cheap ride somewhere!"
Liberals have never been against free enterprise, they're just against fucking people over. I understand that's a complex concept that itty-bitty conservative minds have a hard time grasping to I'll give you an example:
Offer a service that's performed admirably and liberals will consume it, offer a service that's so cheap because the provider cooked their grandparents for lard to finance it then conservatives will consume it.
Offer a service that convenient, safe and easy to use and liberals will consume it, offer a service where you get to shoot a 10 year old minority kid in the head just for fun then conservatives will consume it.
If you want a service that will charge 10 times the normal rate when there's a quick buck opportunity like a shooting in an area then conservatives will provide it (then complain people don't consume it because they're lazy).
Uber itself said that gouging people just trying to get out of an unsafe situation was unfair, as it's no different than saying "Oh, you were in a car accident and you'll die before to get to the next ER? Cool, now my rate is $10,000 a minute".
Now conservatives who think that stealing and extorting from people is nothing but a "business model" think it's OK to fuck people over and call it "free enterprise". Uber and AirBnb apologize when someone gets fucked over and work to change their practices to make sure it doesn't happen again. Conservatives get all exciting when they fuck someone over and work to make sure it happens again.
I doubt you understand the difference, but you can't say I didn't try to explain it in rational terms.
When governments try to keep people from raising prices, shortages arise. Anti-gouge laws are why every time there is the threat of a hurricane or snowstorm, all the stores run out of bottled water. When the price doesn't rise, people buy way more than they need and sellers aren't incentivized to supply more. See also: Venezuela.
Uber and AirBnb aren't subjected to any regulations?
Econ 101 wrote:
Keith Stone wrote:Liberals have never been against free enterprise, they're just against fucking people over. I understand that's a complex concept that itty-bitty conservative minds have a hard time grasping to I'll give you an example:
Offer a service that's performed admirably and liberals will consume it, offer a service that's so cheap because the provider cooked their grandparents for lard to finance it then conservatives will consume it.
Offer a service that convenient, safe and easy to use and liberals will consume it, offer a service where you get to shoot a 10 year old minority kid in the head just for fun then conservatives will consume it.
If you want a service that will charge 10 times the normal rate when there's a quick buck opportunity like a shooting in an area then conservatives will provide it (then complain people don't consume it because they're lazy).
Uber itself said that gouging people just trying to get out of an unsafe situation was unfair, as it's no different than saying "Oh, you were in a car accident and you'll die before to get to the next ER? Cool, now my rate is $10,000 a minute".
Now conservatives who think that stealing and extorting from people is nothing but a "business model" think it's OK to fuck people over and call it "free enterprise". Uber and AirBnb apologize when someone gets fucked over and work to change their practices to make sure it doesn't happen again. Conservatives get all exciting when they fuck someone over and work to make sure it happens again.
I doubt you understand the difference, but you can't say I didn't try to explain it in rational terms.
When governments try to keep people from raising prices, shortages arise. Anti-gouge laws are why every time there is the threat of a hurricane or snowstorm, all the stores run out of bottled water. When the price doesn't rise, people buy way more than they need and sellers aren't incentivized to supply more. See also: Venezuela.
.... so the sellers have no incentive to get more inventory to sell? to supply more?
X-Runner wrote:
Uber and AirBnb aren't subjected to any regulations?
Uber is successful because Uber is ignoring existing government regulation of taxi companies. If the government would loosen regulations the existing taxi companies would offer a service equal to or better than Uber.
Blah Blah. wrote:
X-Runner wrote:Uber and AirBnb aren't subjected to any regulations?
Uber is successful because Uber is ignoring existing government regulation of taxi companies. If the government would loosen regulations the existing taxi companies would offer a service equal to or better than Uber.
I'd beg to differ. People use Uber because it's cheaper than a conventional taxi and a lot of taxi drivers are shady as fu*k.
A few years back my flight back from a work conference was delayed and I didn't get in until after midnight and the Limo company I had used didn't operate past 10:30PM so I had to cab it back.
A 30 minute ride back home came out to just over $90. When I get home, I pull out my corporate credit card to pay and he claims his credit card machine is broken. He then asks for me to pay in cash, of which I say I don't have any (Mostly true. I generally only have $20-30 of cash at a time). He says he can drive me to an ATM. I told him No and begin to exit the car. He then says he can "try" the credit card machine to see if it's working again.
In general, I don't like *any* service where I don't know the upfront costs before committing. It shouldn't be a guessing game if I'm going to pay $20 for a ride of $100.
Illinoisphotographer wrote:
Blah Blah. wrote:Uber is successful because Uber is ignoring existing government regulation of taxi companies. If the government would loosen regulations the existing taxi companies would offer a service equal to or better than Uber.
I'd beg to differ. People use Uber because it's cheaper than a conventional taxi and a lot of taxi drivers are shady as fu*k.
A few years back my flight back from a work conference was delayed and I didn't get in until after midnight and the Limo company I had used didn't operate past 10:30PM so I had to cab it back.
A 30 minute ride back home came out to just over $90. When I get home, I pull out my corporate credit card to pay and he claims his credit card machine is broken. He then asks for me to pay in cash, of which I say I don't have any (Mostly true. I generally only have $20-30 of cash at a time). He says he can drive me to an ATM. I told him No and begin to exit the car. He then says he can "try" the credit card machine to see if it's working again.
In general, I don't like *any* service where I don't know the upfront costs before committing. It shouldn't be a guessing game if I'm going to pay $20 for a ride of $100.
And why were cabs able to get away with such bad service and high prices for so long? Because they had a government-sponsored monopoly. If cab companies had to compete, they would have offered far better service and prices.
jjjjjjj wrote:
IT has grown because it is new and has wide potential. The problems that it leads to in the world still have to be dealt with, for instance, of having unlicensed drivers ferrying people around (most of whom, by the way, make very, very low wages) or of dramatically raising rents and pricing people out of a city--while paying minimal taxes and thus undermining the very public infrastructure on which they rely.
Suppose high rents drove people out of the city. Wouldn't many find new jobs elsewhere, driving up the labor rates, allowing workers to pay higher rents?
I wonder if "affordable housing"policies that limit rents or rent increases also limit the income potential of the people they purport to help.
so........ wrote:
.... so the sellers have no incentive to get more inventory to sell? to supply more?
That's why supply curves are, you know, CURVES.
Liberalism = a mental disorder wrote:
Hypocrites abound wrote:Ever notice that Silicon Valley liberals want everything to be regulated except for themselves? The average SF tech worker thinks that pharma companies should be forced to accept certain prices for their drugs and doctors should be forced to work for a certain wage, while they themselves get rich in what is as close to a laissez faire industry as we have.
This x 1000
Thank you for perfectly describing the hypocrisy I am surrounded by every day
Software "engineers" would absolutely flip shit if they had to conform to the codes and red tape that every other type of engineer has to.
Posted someone who doesn't write software in a regulated business sector.
3/4 of what makes ride sharing different than a cab wasn't founded on "free market" principals. And then there's the ugly fact regulation prevents competitors from entering their market. But, that's your free market, right?
Where can I buy a t-shirt with a cool free market slogan on it? Can it be sewn by children? Can the screen have lead in it? I love the free market.
Uber is like most corporations. They have found a product that makes money. Government regulations were not ready for it, but will likely change more than they already have. Taxi companies did have competition from other taxi companies, but they were all under the same set of rules. Now they are competing with those working outside the rule set.
Uber is a mixed bag. Customers often love it. Drivers often love the freedom. But many drivers don't realize how much their car actually costs them to operate at the time of use. For the rider costs are clear and often walk away happy. Government reimbursement is $0.55/mi based on real data. THAT is why taxis are more expensive. They have done those calculations and factored in maintenance to the cost. With Uber, the driver is responsible for those costs so it is not the problem of the corporation. The corporate incentive is to lower the price to make the customer happy. But this is the double whammy to the driver.
It is often called the Gig Economy because jobs/services are "on demand", but it is really the Middleman Economy. Ebay, Uber, AirBNB etc do not have a product. They are purely a middleman connecting a buyer to a product. They want to make that connection enticing so they make sure it is cheap for the buyer and mask the true cost and inflate the upside to the provider. But no matter how it goes, they still get their cut...