“Comments like these show Seoul is in danger of remaining trapped in the past and getting left behind by the global ‘sharing economy’ movement,” the statement said.
You know, I don't particularly like the "sharing economy" movement. The whole thing seems predicated on deregulation of industries that I honestly think should be regulated.
Airbnb acts, essentially, as a parent company for a hotel chain without any of the actual power or responsibility of the traditional holding company. Uber/Lyft act as car dispatchers without any of the power or responsibility of traditional taxi/limo companies. The ability of these companies to outcompete traditional companies on price in their spaces is due to their choice to not follow regulations as much as possible. The reasoning Uber gives in the article for not being in violation of the law sounds suspiciously like the reasoning given by escorts ("You're paying for my time"). If this trend continues we will see additional disregard for regulation with more and more absurd reasoning ("We aren't breaking the law on regulation because we are simply a technology company that connects your phone with another phone who happens to be in the possession of a guy in a car and whatever happens after that is between two consenting adults"). How far can this race to the bottom go before our search for low costs starts to war with our sense of personal safety and social responsibility?
As an aside, I use Uber pretty regularly in any city where it's available simply because I generally don't have the local taxi numbers. Does this make me a hypocrite? Probably.
While I agree with some amount of regulation, part of the benefit of "app-driven" business models is that some of the regulations become obsolete.
For example, one of the major reasons for taxi regulation is so you don't have to negotiate a fare after flagging down the car. The rate is regulated so you know what it will be before you flag down the taxi, and the regulated meter gives you assurances that you're not being cheated.
This bit of regulation becomes obsolete with an Uber model: if you request an Uber ride with the app, you know you'll be paying Uber prices (and you can even get an estimate in the app IIRC). There is no need to regulate the price because consumers are empowered to do informed comparison shopping prior to the hail.
Regulations should not be imposed on a business who has made the rationale for that regulation obsolete. Other regulations may still be important though.
That is only because Uber has decided to. Tomorrow Uber could put a price on the app and then when you get there double it for "unforeseen traffic conditions".
Before regulation taxis were experts at scamming and scheming their way into higher fares. I'm not sure why you think Uber, who outwardly admits profit is their only motive, won't use similar tricks if it benefits their bottom line. Or any number of similar copy cat services that will arrive if the Uber model finally does replace taxis.
Agreed. By the same token, we should also fix by the decree the price of any service - after all, companies can put surcharges and other tricks after you signed up. I say the Legislature of California should decide how much is fair for a SaaS company in SF to charge for its apps. Clearly they know better than the consumer. And it should be a standard price, none of this nonsense of different companies charging different prices.
Why do we need stop lights? I've never been hit by a car, why should the government decide when I cross the street. A car stopping and my crossing is a contract between me and the stopping driver. The government will never be able to decide when is the best time for cars to stop and people to cross.
Maybe we don't: "“Naked Streets” Without Traffic Lights Improve Flow and Safety"
An article in a local Bristol newspaper explaining the effort stated, “drivers will now be expected to use a combination of common sense and courtesy to negotiate the junction of the town’s High Street, Wyndam Way and The Cabstand.”
"Removing Roads and Traffic Lights Speeds Urban Travel"
Another kind of anarchy could actually speed travel as well—namely, a counterintuitive traffic design strategy known as shared streets. The practice encourages driver anarchy by removing traffic lights, street markings, and boundaries between the street and sidewalk. Studies conducted in northern Europe, where shared streets are common, point to improved safety and traffic flow.
It does? Why? I've never heard of that. Where I'm from, taxi regulations are basically a more stringent driver's license, insurance, inspected taxi meter, and standardized/consumer-friendly presentation of the pricing. If a taxi wants to charge $100/km then that's up to them, but it has to be clearly displayed in the taxi window so the customer can avoid them.
As far as I know, most cities regulate fares. Seoul (the city in the article) certainly does, as according to a survey done by some economists, so do most cities in the US. Same here in Lisbon.
If Uber did this, their business would get eaten up by Lyft and other competitors. There is very little to prevent users from changing ride sharing companies, so they must compete fiercely on price.
> That is only because Uber has decided to. Tomorrow Uber could put a price on the app and then when you get there double it for "unforeseen traffic conditions".
That's like saying we should regulate the price of milk because the grocery store cash register might charge you something different than the price you saw on the shelf. There are plenty of consumer protections already in place to punish that kind of deception.
> There are plenty of consumer protections already in place to punish that kind of deception
And who's going to spot if the Uber app incorrectly calculates distances, skimming a couple bucks off each rider? This is why taxis have regulations for approved taximeters. That's an existing taxi regulation that clearly should also apply to Uber. Same as how scales used in trade have to be validated.
I feel like the term "sharing economy" would be better suited to something like where you share tools with your neighbors or something.
Uber is a great business, but it's not sharing anything. It's a bunch of contractors and a communication network. If you are paying for the service it is not sharing, is it?
When learning the workings of the Internet, one feels an overwhelming sense of the empowering possibilities that global peer to peer communication brings.
The marketing coup of modern web companies is to make us think that relying on centralized code out of our control embodies this spirit, and is thus the future.
This involves downplaying these companies' powerful (and lucrative) roles, by making people focus only on what they facilitate. Thus, it makes perfect sense why the industry brands itself as "sharing" based - it makes you think about the interactions between participants, and ignore the cut going to the new middlemen.
I would like to add that quotes like this make me sympathize with abduhl's opinion even more:
> An Uber spokesman in Seoul denied that the service was illegal as Uber is “a technology company that connects drivers with passengers” and doesn’t directly run a taxi service with rented cars.
I know they want to claim they're not a (distributed) taxi company but that's what they are; they pay drivers, verify the drivers, help the drivers get insured and connect them with their passengers. That's what a taxi service is. Yes, they don't rent cars, but that is not the defining trait.
If they want to fight an injustice of a system, shouldn't they admit that's what they do -- and be ready for the consequences?
>If they want to fight an injustice of a system, shouldn't they admit that's what they do -- and be ready for the consequences?
They are there to make money, and if fighting an injustice system is aligned with their goal of making money, they will fihgt. I get the feeling that Uber is idealized, same as Tesla.
Right, and I don't have a problem with them fighting the system; in fact, I believe as most of us do that the regulations may be too strict in most areas.
However, this "half-fighting" when you criticise the regulations and at the same time you claim you're outside the law because you're just a "service" -- this rubs me the wrong way.
It is this "half-fighting, half-outside" approach that is most evident in corporations. It's similar to corporations dealing with censorship -- everyone, even executives, agree that censorship is a bad thing but the company still wants to make money in China, so they have to obey it and respect it at the same time.
> If they want to fight an injustice of a system, shouldn't they admit that's what they do -- and be ready for the consequences?
If you're trying to fight an existing, firmly entrenched system, you don't walk up to the front door as early as possible, knock, and say "Hi, I'm here to destroy you." You become as popular as possible as quickly as possible, and then you might have the ability to survive such a challenge.
One notable advantage this gives: if you follow the letter of the law as written, any subsequent change to the law is effectively targeting you specifically, which gives you a substantial amount of high ground to operate from. Assuming you're doing something that people actually want, you're then much more likely to have the general public on your side.
If the regulations are not working in the consumer's favor, why shouldn't we disregard them? In DC we just last year, that's right 2013, got taxis to agree to universally accept credit cards. Why? Because Uber came to town and people finally had another option aside from the generally terrible taxis in this city.
This is true, but it is possible that less regulation is necessary because of improvements to tech.
E.g., I've found both Uber and Lyft drivers in SF to be way better than cab drivers. I've had cab drivers that seemed visibly high, stopped to open their door and cat-call women, etc. -- nothing like this has ever happened in Lyft or Uber for me, and it would be very unlikely, because a driver that did that would get low reviews and be kicked off the service very quickly.
The drivers I've talked too have been really happy with the services too. It seems much more equitable and less exploitative than the standard cab setup.
(Something like Airbnb seems much more a mix of good and bad.)
> The whole thing seems predicated on deregulation of industries that I honestly think should be regulated.
In the case of Uber, in particular, the self-regulation they impose is much greater than the regulation that the government does, and accounts for a MUCH higher quality of service than the very heavily regulated taxi cabs. Maybe that doesn't work for every instance or every company, but the crowd-sourcing of relevant data seems, to me, a far more effective solution than the protectionist bureaucracy masquerading as regulation that exists.
I don't think Uber's quality of service is the result of crowd sourced feedback. I think its the result of Uber as a company being aware of the intense scrutiny of its business model, and self-regulating accordingly. If the threat of shutdown wasn't looming overhead, and you saw the kind of competition in this space that you do with regular taxicabs (dozens of little cab companies), I don't think crowd sourced feedback would be effective.
It's private regulation. The public has no voice despite Uber utilizing public resources. For example, the public has an interest in efficient pickup and drop off at their airport. The public has an interest in the driving skill of professional drivers. The public has an interest in universal access to public transportation. Above all the public has an interest in determining what is and is not lawful.
The people of Korea have spent more than 100 years (since colonialization by Japan in the 1890's) in a struggle for self-determination. Under what kind of logic does the profit of Silicon Valley venture capital trump the interests of the Korean people?
> You know, I don't particularly like the "sharing economy" movement. The whole thing seems predicated on deregulation of industries that I honestly think should be regulated.
I mostly agree with you but I think the sharing economy is something that needs to happen in a better regulated way. Let's face it, wage growth is stagnant and the only way the average person is able to improve their financial situation is to be more efficient. [e.g. sharing cars, renting out spare rooms, moonlighting as an Uber driver]
My main problem with Uber is the fact it isn't paying the same tax rates to the local government as the Taxi companies.
My main problem with AirBnb is they don't even bother with building an address list to filter out apartment complexes [almost all of which don't allow subleasing in the US] & condos [ditto]. They need to do that and require a copy of the person's lease to be on file with them showing they can sublease, etc.
> the only way the average person is able to improve their financial situation is to be more efficient
AirBNB doesn't provide the average renter a way to improve their financial situation in the long run.
For renters in non-regulated units (ie, no rent control/stabilization), if you can make an extra $200/week on AirBNB and your landlord knows it, he or she will simply raise the rent by $800/month the next time your lease is up for renewal. (Or, if he knows this in advance, this becomes the market rate for your initial lease to begin with). This is very easily corroborated by the studies showing that AirBNB led to an increase in rent in several cities (linked in other HN discussions, and also very easy to find elsewhere).
This isn't a statement about AirBNB; it's just basic economics. Absent regulation or other market "stickiness", the money eventually flows to the individual or entity who owns the capital - in this case, the real estate. (The etymology of the word "capitalism" is not coincidental!).
For property owners, the math is different (though still not as good for the owner as one might think).
> For renters in non-regulated units (ie, no rent control/stabilization), if you can make an extra $200/week on AirBNB and your landlord knows it, he or she will simply raise the rent by $800/month the next time your lease is up for renewal.
> This isn't a statement about AirBNB; it's just basic economics. Absent regulation or other market "stickiness", the money eventually flows to the individual or entity who owns the capital - in this case, the real estate. (The etymology of the word "capitalism" is not coincidental!).
Please provide evidence that this doesn't happen with normal split leases, normal renting of rooms out to people, using craigslist to rent temporary rooms, and is directly linked to AirBnb. Like many things in life "basic economics" is not "basic" when you have multiple equal solutions that bring about equivalent outcomes.
The same effects happen when people split rent [e.g. they can afford more, on average].
Also? They'd be able to do this without AirBNB and people did for a long time. AirBNB has only increased the supply & demand by making it easier.
Instead the sharing economy will make those wage stagnated people's lives more expensive and force them into the sharing economy.
It was like refinancing. In a lot of markets many people couldn't afford a house unless they planned to refinance in a couple years based on price appreciation. With Airbnb the price of apartments will rise to the point where one cannot afford an apartment unless one rents part of it out on Airbnb.
> It was like refinancing. In a lot of markets many people couldn't afford a house unless they planned to refinance in a couple years based on price appreciation. With Airbnb the price of apartments will rise to the point where one cannot afford an apartment unless one rents part of it out on Airbnb.
People keep saying this without any real evidence.
People did the same f'n thing with sharing rent, subletting, etc. before. The only difference is they didn't have as easy access to the tourist market. It isn't going to magically reevaluate the prices of all real estate everywhere as long as its legal.
Refinancing did not become big until computer models and the online connectivity of the customer allowed lenders and consumers to price them very quickly and efficiently. The exact same can be said of the difference existing now in the sharing economy.
I'm not saying the sharing economy should be stopped, but to believe it will be a net benefit to the working class is a bit naive in my opinion.
Wage growth is not going to return because we've started hustling rides. Its demise was political and its resurgence can only be political. The 'sharing' economy is simply symptomatic.
While largely true, employers fought a long hard political battle to break down impediments to trade and keep the value of the USD propped up.
Those are the things that let them arbitrage labor costs and they (currently) come with the consent of labor. "Globalization" (in this sense) was not some inevitable force of nature, it was borne out of hard-won policies like NAFTA and CAFTA.
>We aren't breaking the law on regulation because we are simply a technology company that connects your phone with another phone who happens to be in the possession of a guy in a car and whatever happens after that is between two consenting adults
"How far can this race to the bottom go before our search for low costs starts to war with our sense of personal safety and social responsibility?"
As far as people want to give up state-"guaranteed" safety for a better price. The state shouldn't have any saying in how ready I am to take risks. Who is the state to tell me in whose car I sit to go from A to B? In this particular case, the state is only a hinderance for the market to adjust to the personal needs of people.
Taxi regulation for safety reasons increases the trust in taxis for people that don't know the area: tourists.
Harp about personal freedom and responsibility of the state all you want, but the regulation is for people that don't know the area and could get hurt by stepping into the wrong car. Because when the day occurs that a tourist is kidnapped or hurt because of this service, it will ruin the local industry. Uber may not care about the locals once it is sufficiently global (what's one city?), but the municipality does and this is precisely the reason why they're stepping in.
I think generic laws/jurisprudence that, in a court, would find those companies guilty of negligence (and heavily punish them) if they hadn't performed standard checks before hiring[1], would be more than enough to convince every company to check.
There is also no reason Uber can't operate a true communication and payment service.
In Chicago they ran a service called UberTaxi. You'd get a regulated Chicago taxi and you'd pay the regulated rates.
The app and payment is the true innovation. Skirting local regulations by hiring out contractors isn't innovation.
The regulations are often a burden on the taxi drivers for the good of the public. Of course you can beat their prices if you don't have to follow. That's not competition.
> The app and payment is the true innovation. Skirting local regulations by hiring out contractors isn't innovation.
What the hell does it matter what the innovation is? We're not talking about including Uber as a subject in business class; we're talking about its relationship to governments.
>The app and payment is the true innovation. Skirting local regulations by hiring out contractors isn't innovation.
As far as Uber is concerned, though, the hard part of their business IS skirting local regulations. Their core competence is not running a payment system - it's being able to lobby successfully to enter protected markets where other taxi companies couldn't. Once they've got first mover advantage the network effect takes over.
> The ability of these companies to outcompete traditional companies on price in their spaces is due to their choice to not follow regulations as much as possible.
The only significant regulation affecting price that Uber carefully avoids is the limit on the number of taxi "medallions" issued. If you're in favor of regulating that industry, could you explain how a limit on taxi medallions is in any way good for taxi passengers?
The number of medallions is set in an effort to reduce the total number of taxis in the city.
This is not good for any one particular person trying to get a cab.
However, it is good for the total traffic situation in the city. If there were a significantly greater number of taxis, gridlock would be all but unavoidable. Then no one could take a taxi anywhere.
It's one of those situations where the negative eternality is felt a tiny bit by everyone, so the regulation needs to take that into account.
I'm not saying we have the perfect scheme - if we did congestion pricing would be higher, street parking prices would be way higher - but there is actually a rationale behind it. Most of the people are hyper focused on the rider/driver interaction, but there is a bigger city wide transit question in play that is often ignored.
I have less of a problem with Uber than with Airbnb. I do believe that Uber deals with issues of trustworthiness and reliability that taxi regulations were put in place to solve, without many major downsides. I think this is one area where technology makes regulation less necessary. Evaluating taxicab service is fairly easy, and reputation works well.
Airbnb is more difficult. Evaluation doesn't replace regulation as easily in this case - I'm unlikely to pay that much attention to, say, fire safety unless I've experienced fire problems in the past. There's also much bigger externalities - for other residents in the same building as an Airbnb let, for example.
Instead of viewing them as a race to the bottom, perhaps it would be better to think of them as shining a light on the current systems. Just because they aren't regulated now, doesn't mean they can't be in the future. In a way, they offer another chance at regulating areas that have entrenched interests and decades of poor regulation that prevent efficient solutions from emerging today.
The only light these companies shine is that of capitalism. Why should we believe that they will be regulated meaningfully in the future and that the regulations won't just serve to bring them into the fold of existing regulations? What is to stop the next "innovator" from coming in to the same space and repeating the same argument about <insert timeframe> of poor regulation preventing efficient solutions? How does re-regulation do anything but protect these companies that have essentially ignored the law?
As I said, where does our search for low costs end up battling our sense of personal safety and social responsibility?
I used to think taxis and hotels needed to be regulated to ensure quality and safety of the services. I don't anymore. It's pretty obvious by now that users have more trust in the sharing economy services like Uber than they do in the old taxi service.
Yet another case where technology has improved on an older solution built by legal means alone.
You know, I don't particularly like the "sharing economy" movement. The whole thing seems predicated on deregulation of industries that I honestly think should be regulated.
Airbnb acts, essentially, as a parent company for a hotel chain without any of the actual power or responsibility of the traditional holding company. Uber/Lyft act as car dispatchers without any of the power or responsibility of traditional taxi/limo companies. The ability of these companies to outcompete traditional companies on price in their spaces is due to their choice to not follow regulations as much as possible. The reasoning Uber gives in the article for not being in violation of the law sounds suspiciously like the reasoning given by escorts ("You're paying for my time"). If this trend continues we will see additional disregard for regulation with more and more absurd reasoning ("We aren't breaking the law on regulation because we are simply a technology company that connects your phone with another phone who happens to be in the possession of a guy in a car and whatever happens after that is between two consenting adults"). How far can this race to the bottom go before our search for low costs starts to war with our sense of personal safety and social responsibility?
As an aside, I use Uber pretty regularly in any city where it's available simply because I generally don't have the local taxi numbers. Does this make me a hypocrite? Probably.