March of the Über-mensch

[yyy]

@finley

There are two groups of people here:

• One group who like what Uber does and are seizing the opportunity to earn some cash on the side.
• another group who, I suspect, have spent their entire lives being victims and see Uber as another opportunity to be victimized. Or who have a massive sense of entitlement and don’t want to do what it takes to earn more than an Uber driver.

There is no overlap between these groups. I can do you a Venn diagram if you want.

Anyone who fails to make a living in this new, improved version of the anyone-can-make-a-living-doing-it industry must be morally beyond redemption.

Now show us the evidence for your theory. No, not your personal life experience hanging out with lazy people in England who happened to be poor (unlike all those lazy people who happen to be rich). Actual studies of people working in the taxi industry, before and after Uber.

@finley

@yyy

Earlier you were speaking of cars as if people shouldn’t have the right to use them less than x% of the time. Is that still on, or do you just want it to be optional?

No - I was suggesting that if people want to own private transport, then they should face the full costs (that is, the costs associated with road-building, pollution, etc); and furthermore, that governments should not create perverse economic incentives by sabotaging more economically-efficient alternatives. At the moment, they really do force people into car-buying because it generates vast amounts of tax revenue … at the expense of society and the environment.

Yeah, I don’t like sabotage of more economically efficient alternatives to cars either, like when a badly needed expansion of public transit is finally ready after decades of debate, planning, and EA’s, and then a newly elected government rips up all those plans and says we’re going to do something someone drew on the back of a napkin, even if it means tunnel boring under buildings because there are no roads where the new subway routes are supposed to go.

This happened recently in a major population center in Canada, but it’s by no means an isolated incident. Sometimes this phenomenon even comes with a big fat lawsuit for breach of contract – not economically efficient at all (except for the lawyers).

Oh, but encouraging people to drive more – if only we could do that!

Anyway, “face the full costs” is a great idea but can’t be computed. It’s beyond human capability. Governments can drop support for certain industries and behaviors, whether that support is in the form of tax credits, outright subsidies, or more subtle actions. They can also add support for buses, trains/trams, bicycles, and even walking. There isn’t much money to be made or political sex appeal to be found in the promotion of walking, but the less necessary cars are, the less they will be bought or rented.

@finley

@yyy

Many people think they need cars because, essentially, they do. Crappy urban planning is too entrenched in most population centers.

Yes. I know. My point was that Uber gives people a third option between 1) owning a car and 2) taking the bus. You seem to be suggesting that ride-sharing is evil in its essence, and if you don’t want to do (2) then you must do (1).

I have nothing against ride sharing, except to the extent that a shared car is less efficient than a shared bus or train (or bike lane or sidewalk). Ride sharing existed long before Uber, and it will still exist if Uber goes bust. Someone can create a new, non-parasitoid style app to promote it. Someone probably already has.

@finley

But it’s either a net positive or a net negative, surely? So in your view, which is it?

I think that’s become clear by now!

@finley

I actually disagree that the problem is bad urban planning. Planning is often very good. The problem is that urban centres are planned around cars, which is like trying to design a bridge made out of kangaroo testicles.

Also known as bad planning.

Also also known as good planning in the 1950’s, which turned out to be… bad planning.

@finley

Uber, I suspect, is continuing with this little war of attrition just to embarrass and annoy the Taiwan government, simply because they can afford to do so. And frankly they deserve it.

I have many criticisms of the government here, but they owe nothing to this gang of obnoxious American frat boys. (I suspect their new CEO is little more than lipstick on a pig.)

@finley

@yyy

Is whatever tax discrepancy there is really a reaction to modern technology, or just the way things developed before the digital transformation took off, with some slight tweaks since then?

It was a reaction to people realising that the cage door is unlocked. It happened pre-Internet, around 1980. People started going self-employed en masse, because it had considerable advantages. The government spent the next 30 years buggering about with the law to make self-employment (a) unprofitable and (b) horribly complicated. It had the desired effect: more people in blue cubicles. The ones who are still self-employed are either demanding very high hourly rates (to cover their overheads), or they’ve dropped into the grey economy. A classic lose-lose-lose scenario for all involved (contractors, employers, and government).

Is there a convenient summary of this historical theory available somewhere?

@finley

@yyy

And what makes German or Dutch law particularly restrictive in terms of self employment?

For all practical purposes, it’s just not allowed. It’s easy for anyone to incorporate … but less easy to trade as a one-man BV. These rules are designed to make it difficult or impossible to claim that you’re a free agent:
https://www.iamexpat.nl/career/employment-news/employee-or-contractor-important-advice-freelancers-netherlands
It’s a sad step back for a country that pioneered democracy, capitalism, and free trade.

So, you’re back to arguing that the concept of employment should be abolished because it’s the essence of socialist tyranny. We’ve been there and done that.

Show me the supposed masses of Dutch and German contractors who can’t find work now because the governments want them not to sham contract anymore.

@finley

I’m just baffled by your view of Uber drivers as people incapable of getting a job as anything other than Uber drivers, and therefore trapped in their situation. What, precisely, do you think prevents them from walking away from “lower than minimum wage” remuneration?

Are you equally baffled when their landlords evict them, or their banks seize their houses? What prevents the landlords and banks from getting their money somewhere else?

@finley

I also don’t hear you protesting about similar scenarios for eg., junior doctors, who in most countries do punishing hours for a fairly modest salary.

Sheesh, who has time to say everything there is to say about everything? Anyway, I doubt they’re earning less than minimum wage.

@finley

I’m not sure what laws Uber has actually broken.

In Taiwan? Read the court judgements. Let me know if you need help finding them.

I already quoted extensively from the London case in the other thread. As for all the other countries, the fastest way to get information is probably to check Wikiland.

@finley

Crippling the competition is not, in and of itself, a crime. Do you think it should be made so?

Using illegal methods to do it is a crime. If you manage to do it legally, it may still be democratically determined not to be in society’s best interest and therefore legislated against. Competition (antitrust, anti-monopoly etc.) laws are part of the paradox of economic freedom, as I’ve tried to explain before.

@finley

@yyy

Customers tend to like Uber because it’s cheap and supposedly better delivers better service.

And this is somehow a bad thing?

If the police are so corrupt/incompetent/racist that you turn to gangsters for law and order, the law and order part per se is not the problem, but the fact that the gangsters perform a useful service doesn’t mean they’re not a problem.

@finley

The question remains: why are they still driving for Uber instead of doing something else?

Not all the people shopping at [insert name of gigantic grocery chain] actually like the business model, but sometimes hunting and foraging just isn’t feasible. We all need to eat.

@finley

@yyy

You see no contradiction between painting executives as altruists and acknowledging that they’re in the business of making money?

Of course I don’t. This sounds an awful lot like the “blessed are the poor” nonsense that I hear all the time in the Philippines.

What does Christianity have to do with it?

@finley

Are you suggesting, for example, that lawyers are bad people because they charge $500 an hour? Are you suggesting that Bill Gates is a bad person because he profited enormously from the act of writing some shrewdly-targeted software at the right place and the right time?

Of course being rich doesn’t preclude being an altruist. It doesn’t preclude not being one either.

You need to consider whether or not there’s a conflict of interest. Show a $500/h lawyer representing Uber what you think is a win-win scenario that doesn’t let the lawyer get many billable hours, and that lawyer will… most likely keep working for Uber.

@finley

Anyway, I didn’t say they’re altruists. It’s just that most people don’t enjoy harming others. Psychopaths are over-represented in corporate boardrooms, but the average corporation wasn’t set up to cause mayhem. When someone start a company, it’s because they figure there’s a place in the world for a new product. That’s all.

Uber is not the average corporation, and that’s the point! “Move fast and break things” is facebook’s motto iirc, but it could just as well be Uber’s.

@finley

@yyy

Like, say, keep fining them until they decide breaking the law isn’t worth the hassle – money talks!

Does it not occur to you that the corporation “Uber” - which is a legal fiction - doesn’t actually have any money, and that those fines are ultimately paid from the earnings of hard-working Uber drivers?

Back to corporations don’t exist, I see. Now you’re even telling us the money is shared by one gigantic Uberfamilie. A driver can just go to the bank and say, “yes, I’d like to make a withdrawal from Mr. Kalanick’s account.”

@finley

What you’re suggesting here is the same “solution” implemented in the Western Europe: punish the monkeys climbing out of the cage until they settle back in their appointed place, gazing sullenly at the open door.

Embrace Uber, and ye shall be set free!

Nope, not buying it.