|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 10 2018 19:33 bo1b wrote:
There must be a point where the minimum wage has to settle, like you couldn't just arbitrarily make a minimum wage $500 an hour, businesses would die. Where does it end?
I don't think anyone would argue for such a change. The thing is, in economics literature, you're not gonna find your answer in non-theoretical papers because such a bizarre change has never and will never be attempted (outside of situations of great political turmoil in which the counfounding factors are just too big). What you can find is a mixed bag of results (change in employment) for relatively modest changes in the minimum wage in the US and Europe (and maybe a few other countries with decent government statistics) in the last 100 years. Mozoku's "it takes 5 minutes" comment is obviously made in ignorance of this lack of consensus among researchers.
|
On January 10 2018 19:58 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2018 19:33 bo1b wrote:
There must be a point where the minimum wage has to settle, like you couldn't just arbitrarily make a minimum wage $500 an hour, businesses would die. Where does it end?
I don't think anyone would argue for such a change. The thing is, in economics literature, you're not gonna find your answer in non-theoretical papers because such a bizarre change has never and will never be attempted (outside of situations of great political turmoil in which the counfounding factors are just too big). What you can find is a mixed bag of results (change in employment) for relatively modest changes in the minimum wage in the US and Europe (and maybe a few other countries with decent government statistics) in the last 100 years. Mozoku's "it takes 5 minutes" comment is obviously made in ignorance of this lack of consensus among researchers.
Believe it or not I've done some light reading into the subject. I'm personally rather skeptical of claims that raising the minimum wage to be a free way of increasing quality of life across the board. The question is just a litmus test more then anything, there would be a total collapse of a lot of industries with a minimum wage that high, or a collapse of the dollars value.
|
On January 10 2018 19:46 warding wrote:
The taxi market is overregulated and artificially restricted because that's in the taxi industry's interest. Limiting competition benefits the incumbents and in almost all markets I know the taxis have lobbied political power to make it so. Therefure arguing that 'Uber isn't playing fair' is nonsense - they're not playing fair by clearly unfair rules.
Also, the medallion type systems in most markets end up creating car operating businesses that end up hiring drivers for much the same conditions as Uber.
EDIT: On the minimum wage, the academic work really does not tend in favor of either side. It does evidence a trade-off however.
The taxi industry might be lobbying for hundreds of thousand dollar licenses, and that could be done entirely to prevent local competition, but uber skipping that and then not paying a meaningful amount of tax as well is not remotely a better option.
What the medallion system does prevent is the driver paying out of pocket for fuel, engine maintenance, new tires etc. Guess what uber doesn't do. I know that in Australia it ends up being a small amount below minimum wage to drive for uber on average.
|
On January 10 2018 20:09 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2018 19:46 warding wrote:
The taxi market is overregulated and artificially restricted because that's in the taxi industry's interest. Limiting competition benefits the incumbents and in almost all markets I know the taxis have lobbied political power to make it so. Therefure arguing that 'Uber isn't playing fair' is nonsense - they're not playing fair by clearly unfair rules.
Also, the medallion type systems in most markets end up creating car operating businesses that end up hiring drivers for much the same conditions as Uber.
EDIT: On the minimum wage, the academic work really does not tend in favor of either side. It does evidence a trade-off however. The taxi industry might be lobbying for hundreds of thousand dollar licenses, and that could be done entirely to prevent local competition, but uber skipping that and then not paying a meaningful amount of tax as well is not remotely a better option. What the medallion system does prevent is the driver paying out of pocket for fuel, engine maintenance, new tires etc. Guess what uber doesn't do. I know that in Australia it ends up being a small amount below minimum wage to drive for uber on average.
As any other industry they have to abide by each nations rules on VAT/sales tax, corporate tax, employee taxes or independent worker taxes, and so on. Again, the only reason why there are special rules for the taxi industry is because the taxi industry lobbied to get them. What Uber has done is blow up a bullshit system by working around it. How is it not a better option? It's better for the economy as a whole and for society at large.
The general idea that we should protect certain classes of workers against change and from the market is one that leads to worse-off societies.
|
The problem is they're literally not abiding by each nations rules on independent worker taxes and so on. That's what a medallion system is, a tax. Completely disregarding not paying a reasonable wage, or paying taxes on profits earned in the nation, or really anything. Uber is the definition of a parasitic company. I'm glad we can open up an app and get transportation from one location to another slightly quicker then before, and really the taxi industry is like many other monolithic industries in that it's slow to change, but the current system is a joke.
I do not understand how people can decry exploitative business practices of other companies and then go on to praise a tax dodging app, that pays at minimum wage while using the middle mans equipment (there are laws against this in various nations, yet another reason uber is illegal), that realistically should be borderline free, and probably will be within 15 years. It's a joke of a company from the very top where every month a fresh case of sexual harrasment is unloaded, to the shareholders who have put its value at a stupendous amount of money, to a key person who's in and out of litigation of literal corporate theft, to the management who are being sued for illegal software to track police vehicles, to the bribery cases etc etc etc.
This style of business is not good for a nation at all, in anyway, outside of getting you to your destination a few minutes quicker - assuming you didn't book in advance. It was also, most likely an inevitable creation by facebook google et al. somewhere down the track.
And yes, protected classes of workers have existed for ever, and shall continue to exist forever, both by government and union, for very good reason. A constantly upheaving society would be a disaster.
|
On January 10 2018 20:04 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2018 19:58 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 10 2018 19:33 bo1b wrote:
There must be a point where the minimum wage has to settle, like you couldn't just arbitrarily make a minimum wage $500 an hour, businesses would die. Where does it end?
I don't think anyone would argue for such a change. The thing is, in economics literature, you're not gonna find your answer in non-theoretical papers because such a bizarre change has never and will never be attempted (outside of situations of great political turmoil in which the counfounding factors are just too big). What you can find is a mixed bag of results (change in employment) for relatively modest changes in the minimum wage in the US and Europe (and maybe a few other countries with decent government statistics) in the last 100 years. Mozoku's "it takes 5 minutes" comment is obviously made in ignorance of this lack of consensus among researchers. Believe it or not I've done some light reading into the subject. I'm personally rather skeptical of claims that raising the minimum wage to be a free way of increasing quality of life across the board. The question is just a litmus test more then anything, there would be a total collapse of a lot of industries with a minimum wage that high, or a collapse of the dollars value.
I agree that at some point the effects would go from 1) no effect on employment/small benign effect to 2) moderate negative effect on employment and finally 3) total collapse of the economy, depending on the size of the increase. Just don't ignore research on the possibility of number 1 just on account of it sounding too good to be true.
|
On January 10 2018 20:32 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2018 20:04 bo1b wrote:On January 10 2018 19:58 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 10 2018 19:33 bo1b wrote:
There must be a point where the minimum wage has to settle, like you couldn't just arbitrarily make a minimum wage $500 an hour, businesses would die. Where does it end?
I don't think anyone would argue for such a change. The thing is, in economics literature, you're not gonna find your answer in non-theoretical papers because such a bizarre change has never and will never be attempted (outside of situations of great political turmoil in which the counfounding factors are just too big). What you can find is a mixed bag of results (change in employment) for relatively modest changes in the minimum wage in the US and Europe (and maybe a few other countries with decent government statistics) in the last 100 years. Mozoku's "it takes 5 minutes" comment is obviously made in ignorance of this lack of consensus among researchers. Believe it or not I've done some light reading into the subject. I'm personally rather skeptical of claims that raising the minimum wage to be a free way of increasing quality of life across the board. The question is just a litmus test more then anything, there would be a total collapse of a lot of industries with a minimum wage that high, or a collapse of the dollars value. I agree that at some point the effects would go from 1) no effect on employment/small benign effect to 2) moderate negative effect on employment and finally 3) total collapse of the economy, depending on the size of the increase. Just don't ignore research on the possibility of number 1 just on account of it sounding too good to be true.
I'm not. I have no argument against moderate changes to minimum wage because it is beyond my scope of understanding. Ludicrous changes like I suggested earlier are simply a way to see if someones really done any research, or if they're parroting something from reddit.
|
Taxi used to be run like Uber, where they abused the shit out of their drivers and generally were not interested in public safety. Then cities across the world(the world) regulated them because they need citizens to have reliable transportation. The taxi industry has problems, but dodging every regulation, calling drivers small business owners and off loading all investment to them is scam. And cities are not interested in letting a company gut their private transportation market when those companies have made it clear they will leave over night if going gets tough.
|
On January 10 2018 18:51 micronesia wrote:
I just paid over 11 dollars for a 1.75 mile Uber x ride to the airport. Is that even cheaper than hailing a cab? The reason why I used uber was that I ordered a driver to my front door in five minutes flat, with no prior planning. Cabs don’t provide that service typically.
In the detroit area most cabs (all that ive looked into in the past) have like $15 minimum for trips like that.
|
On January 10 2018 20:35 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2018 20:32 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 10 2018 20:04 bo1b wrote:On January 10 2018 19:58 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 10 2018 19:33 bo1b wrote:
There must be a point where the minimum wage has to settle, like you couldn't just arbitrarily make a minimum wage $500 an hour, businesses would die. Where does it end?
I don't think anyone would argue for such a change. The thing is, in economics literature, you're not gonna find your answer in non-theoretical papers because such a bizarre change has never and will never be attempted (outside of situations of great political turmoil in which the counfounding factors are just too big). What you can find is a mixed bag of results (change in employment) for relatively modest changes in the minimum wage in the US and Europe (and maybe a few other countries with decent government statistics) in the last 100 years. Mozoku's "it takes 5 minutes" comment is obviously made in ignorance of this lack of consensus among researchers. Believe it or not I've done some light reading into the subject. I'm personally rather skeptical of claims that raising the minimum wage to be a free way of increasing quality of life across the board. The question is just a litmus test more then anything, there would be a total collapse of a lot of industries with a minimum wage that high, or a collapse of the dollars value. I agree that at some point the effects would go from 1) no effect on employment/small benign effect to 2) moderate negative effect on employment and finally 3) total collapse of the economy, depending on the size of the increase. Just don't ignore research on the possibility of number 1 just on account of it sounding too good to be true. I'm not. I have no argument against moderate changes to minimum wage because it is beyond my scope of understanding. Ludicrous changes like I suggested earlier are simply a way to see if someones really done any research, or if they're parroting something from reddit.
Fair enough
|
On January 10 2018 20:49 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2018 18:51 micronesia wrote:
I just paid over 11 dollars for a 1.75 mile Uber x ride to the airport. Is that even cheaper than hailing a cab? The reason why I used uber was that I ordered a driver to my front door in five minutes flat, with no prior planning. Cabs don’t provide that service typically. In the detroit area most cabs (all that ive looked into in the past) have like $15 minimum for trips like that.
Not having to walk outside Dan Gilbert's fantasy paradise has its premium 
|
On January 10 2018 20:31 bo1b wrote:
The problem is they're literally not abiding by each nations rules on independent worker taxes and so on. That's what a medallion system is, a tax. Completely disregarding not paying a reasonable wage, or paying taxes on profits earned in the nation, or really anything. Uber is the definition of a parasitic company. I'm glad we can open up an app and get transportation from one location to another slightly quicker then before, and really the taxi industry is like many other monolithic industries in that it's slow to change, but the current system is a joke.
I do not understand how people can decry exploitative business practices of other companies and then go on to praise a tax dodging app, that pays at minimum wage while using the middle mans equipment (there are laws against this in various nations, yet another reason uber is illegal), that realistically should be borderline free, and probably will be within 15 years. It's a joke of a company from the very top where every month a fresh case of sexual harrasment is unloaded, to the shareholders who have put its value at a stupendous amount of money, to a key person who's in and out of litigation of literal corporate theft, to the management who are being sued for illegal software to track police vehicles, to the bribery cases etc etc etc.
This style of business is not good for a nation at all, in anyway, outside of getting you to your destination a few minutes quicker - assuming you didn't book in advance. It was also, most likely an inevitable creation by facebook google et al. somewhere down the track.
And yes, protected classes of workers have existed for ever, and shall continue to exist forever, both by government and union, for very good reason. A constantly upheaving society would be a disaster.
Fair enough, Uber might have been managed by douchebags and we might not like that. That's unfortunate. Focusing on policy though, what's the reasoning behind having specific regulations for the taxi/uber business?
|
The reasoning behind taxi-specific regulation works alongside the "free market public transportation" problem pretty well; public transportation is one of those goods/services that does not work well in a "free market" due, at least in part, to the fact that its accompanying consumption choice is heavily burdened by factors outside the purview of basic rational actor theory (just look at every metropolitan area with highly rated public transport and you'll heavy government involvement, if not outright domination). As a society, we have an interest in guaranteeing certain minimal qualities in public transport, chiefly access, safety, and reliability. Because those factors are not provided for via an unregulated supply/demand market, regulation must be used. This rule works well for taxis and a lot of the problems Uber faces tell the tale relative to the fact that we really don't want to discount the cost of the service enough that we can no longer guarantee that the driver of your Uber won't pull off to the side of the road and rape you. The shittiness of Amtrak tells another tale of how attempting to semi-privatize public transport only leads to inconsistency and safety problems.
|
I can add a pretty interesting fact which I just found out about how the taxi industry is regulated in my country.
Previously, the taxi companies will generally only accept older drivers. Turns out, it was part of some government directive to ensure that younger people are not signing up to be taxi drivers, because driving a taxi is a dead end job with no real prospects of career advancement or the training of any particular skill that would help you in another job. This was sort of why growing up, taxi drivers were usually over 40 middle aged guys.
Having Uber come along, with its promises of self-employment etc, has created the problem which the original policy was meant to avoid. Young people sign up thinking that Uber will help them earn money quickly, end up wasting some prime career years driving. Then when the gig economy bursts/subsides, this group of people are going to be jobless unskilled workers.
|
Stop using Uber and use Lyft
|
On January 10 2018 21:28 farvacola wrote:
The reasoning behind taxi-specific regulation works alongside the "free market public transportation" problem pretty well; public transportation is one of those goods/services that does not work well in a "free market" due, at least in part, to the fact that its accompanying consumption choice is heavily burdened by factors outside the purview of basic rational actor theory (just look at every metropolitan area with highly rated public transport and you'll heavy government involvement, if not outright domination). As a society, we have an interest in guaranteeing certain minimal qualities in public transport, chiefly access, safety, and reliability. Because those factors are not provided for via an unregulated supply/demand market, regulation must be used. This rule works well for taxis and a lot of the problems Uber faces tell the tale relative to the fact that we really don't want to discount the cost of the service enough that we can no longer guarantee that the driver of your Uber won't pull off to the side of the road and rape you. The shittiness of Amtrak tells another tale of how attempting to semi-privatize public transport only leads to inconsistency and safety problems.
Mass transit is not the same as the taxi/uber market.
I don't see what factors would not provided via an unregulated supply/demand market in the taxi/uber market. The "not pull off to the side of the road and rape you" argument might justify simple requirements that drivers have clean criminal records, but not that much further regulation since the incentive of companies to ensure that its drivers aren't criminals already exists.
|
On January 10 2018 21:28 farvacola wrote:
The reasoning behind taxi-specific regulation works alongside the "free market public transportation" problem pretty well; public transportation is one of those goods/services that does not work well in a "free market" due, at least in part, to the fact that its accompanying consumption choice is heavily burdened by factors outside the purview of basic rational actor theory (just look at every metropolitan area with highly rated public transport and you'll heavy government involvement, if not outright domination). As a society, we have an interest in guaranteeing certain minimal qualities in public transport, chiefly access, safety, and reliability. Because those factors are not provided for via an unregulated supply/demand market, regulation must be used. This rule works well for taxis and a lot of the problems Uber faces tell the tale relative to the fact that we really don't want to discount the cost of the service enough that we can no longer guarantee that the driver of your Uber won't pull off to the side of the road and rape you. The shittiness of Amtrak tells another tale of how attempting to semi-privatize public transport only leads to inconsistency and safety problems.
I disagree, the main issue with a free market solution to public transportation is that public transportation is a natural monopoly with huge returns to scale. Subways and trains require a very large upfront investment and a lot of coordination with public authorities when planning construction. Buslines are bit more complicated, but a government-sanctioned monopoly may be necessary given the effect of buses on general traffic, the inefficiencies of two buslines cannabilizing each other's riders (as in, two busses with half passengers instead of a full one) and the needs of cities to mandate that certain lines exist even if they are unprofitable. These issues don't apply to private-car transportation.
Also, I find the idea that regulation is necessary for quality (in this specific circumstance of private car transportation) at odds with my own experience using Uber (or any of its competitors here in Brasil like 99 or Cabify). Taxi service in Rio and São Paulo was complete shit four years ago. Now they've cleaned up their act a bit, but I'd still take an Uber even if they had the same price.
|
The dichotomy between public ran vs private ran is also a bit misaligned. In many instances where you have the choice between a state solution vs private ran but publicly regulated solution the real key variable isn't public vs private but instead the quality of public governance. If you have a good political system with the right incentives and a competent public administration they can make it work either as suppliers of a good or as regulators of the market.
|
Apparently Trump's voter fraud commission is destroying all the data they gathered. The tinfoil hat in me says this is because they didn't like what they found, but the realist in me thinks it's more likely because they actually didn't process or analyze anything and don't want that fact to be ensconced in silicon forever.
|
England2814 Posts
On January 10 2018 22:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:Apparently Trump's voter fraud commission is destroying all the data they gathered. The tinfoil hat in me says this is because they didn't like what they found, but the realist in me thinks it's more likely because they actually didn't process or analyze anything and don't want that fact to be ensconced in silicon forever.
I don't think there's much tinfoil hat going to be required here.
We know Trump believes there's voter fraud and that's why he lost the popular vote. We know the fact he lost the popular vote bothers him. We know he doesn't like to hear bad news. We can safely guess that whoever he's against in 2020 is going to bring this up at some point. We can safely assume voter fraud is going to be one of Trump's talking points again, in order to deflect criticism/his alleged unpopularity (alleged as I don't think he's ever admitted to it).
Add facts plus high likelihood speculation, you get a solid case for why they would.
On the minimum wage discussion: I don't know the dynamics beyond raising the wage increases labour costs, but without it going up I can't see how life can ever improve for the bottom rung people (of whom I am a member unfortunately). Every time it comes up the same arguments come up saying it can't be done or else companies will go out of business, and in small businesses I agree this is highly likely. The company I work for would absolutely go under if we all had to be paid even £10/hour, as opposed to £7.15 (I get paid higher than standard minimum due to age). But I find it despicable that companies like Walmart claim poverty when asked why they don't pay more money to their workers while continually recording billion-dollar profits.
Something's wrong somewhere. Maybe I'll never get more money, but I don't understand why everyone, even those working for booming businesses, don't see any benefit.
And someone more economically minded can probably help with this: Doesn't staff churn cost companies phantom 'money' based on training time, hiring time, etc.? Wouldn't an increase in wages (thus less reason to leave and more incentive towards loyalty) reduce this and increase productivity/profitability? Or is productivity worth less than the savings of bottom dollar paid to labour?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
